Today I'm discussing the thorny matter of 'lived experience' as a fiction writer. Discussing both sides in relation to autism (but applies to other 'protected groups'.)
It's a difficult one as a fiction author in this day and in this climate of culture wars and cancel culture. In these days of 'lived experience' versus artistic license, imagination and freedom to get inside any character as imaginative autistic people!
I don't agree with the idea that you can't write decent fiction about an autistic character unless you're autistic. This was something that came up at the end of Peter Wharmby's book 'Untypical'. There was so much I agreed with from his book but he's not a fiction author as far as I know. Yes, I'm forever mentioning Rain Man too in the way it's informed our view of autism since then but in its defence it was of its time and Dustin Hoffman did a great performance from our knowledge of the time. Years later Saga Noren was a good fictional autistic character in The Bridge, even though the actor wasn't autistic and it may come across as a bit stereotyped now. But as so many people are late or very late diagnosed they will consequently go for years without realising they're autistic. But should this preclude them from writing about an autistic character? I sincerely hope not. This idea that you have to have 'lived experience' can be a bit insulting and restrictive. Followed to its natural conclusion it means fiction writers can't ever imagine and express another's pov (very ironic when many Audhd people compensate for their lack of social life by creating elaborate fantasy worlds). It means men should never narrate from a female pov, straight from a gay, young from an old, white from a POC, middle class from a working class, abled from disabled and so on. As Lionel Shriver once said, we then end up with only autobiography.
She also said: "Who assumes other people’s voices, accents, patois, and distinctive idioms? Who literally puts words into the mouths of people different from themselves? Who dares to get inside the very heads of strangers, who has the chutzpah to project thoughts and feelings into the minds of others, who steals their very souls? Who is a professional kidnapper? Who swipes every sight, smell, sensation, or overheard conversation like a kid in a candy store, and sometimes take notes the better to purloin whole worlds? Who is the premier pickpocket of the arts? The fiction writer, that’s who." I have thought about this a lot but she has said it far more eloquently than me.
And what about historical fiction, especially more ancient history? By its very definition, characters can only be based on good research, social history, anecdotal evidence and a good helping of imagination.
The other side of the argument was expressed at the end of Viktoria Lloyd- Barlow's 'All The Little Bird Hearts' (autistic author wiith an autistic main character). She states 'I believe the increasing inclusion of underrepresented authors is fundamental to correcting otherwise unchallenged biases....the narrative on autism has been persistently gendered and infantilised; the resultant literary repetition of atypical depiction through young male characters limits understanding of the condition. Within this context of very stereotyped representation, being an autistic woman can feel like a double deficiency, a failure to conform to both social and genre norms. '
So you can see both sides and authors can become conflicted. It can get highly prescriptive, though, and can censor the imagination of the fiction author. Sometimes the content gets conflated with the state of the publishing industry where historically the ones with the power to publish have been - to a greater or lesser degree - white, able bodied, straight, middle class,middle-aged neurotypical males and that has and does reflect what gets published and ergo recognised. In the 1980s, we had tokenism in films and soap operas which was rightly criticised so I think we do need to be fully inclusive with our character portrayals in fiction.
In many instances, lived experience adds authenticity but will depend on the novel and how central or incidental their protected characteristic is to the book as a whole. Many novels aren't primarily about protected groups, their culture or geopolitics, or authentic dialect - they're about universal themes, emotions and experiences applying to all of humanity: love, loss, fear, relationships and so on.
No doubt this debate will rage on.
