What are #OwnVoices Stories?
For the uninitiated, #OwnVoices is a hashtag created by YA author Corinne Duyvis in 2015. The purpose of the hashtag is to highlight books that are written by an author that shares a marginalised identity with the protagonist.
As time has gone on, the conversation around #OwnVoices has expanded informally to include TV and film too.
If you are part of the underrepresented group like your main character, you’re writing an #OwnVoices story. For example, if you’re a BIPOC, neurodivergent or disabled writer writing a character or story about the challenges you have lived experience of, that makes you part of this movement.
Intriguingly, despite research I was unable to confirm whether being female and writing a female lead makes your story #OwnVoices. I suspect not **as standard** (especially if you are white, straight, cisgender (aka not transgender) and able-bodied.
HOWEVER there is bound to be some movement on this dependant on what you’re specifically writing about. As an example, my novel Proof Positive is frequently hailed as an #OwnVoices story. This is because teenage pregnancy, specifically young parents, are a marginalised group. As every Bang2writer who’s followed me a good while knows, I was a teen mum. I specifically wrote that book because I was sick of the stereotypes, stigmas and assumptions thrown at young parents.
How I Feel About #OwnVoices
Before I begin, it should be noted I LOVE #OwnVoices stories. As mentioned, I have written them myself. Telling a story about your own experience as a marginalised person can not only share an emotional truth that is authentic, it can also be incredibly healing. It can be the same for those watching or reading it too.
So I can totally understand why some commentators believe the ‘only’ writers who should be writing marginalised characters should be marginalised themselves. After all, dominant voices have co-opted stories and screwed them up via toxic tropes, incorrect assumptions and plain old inaccuracy long enough.
Problems With #OwnVoices
Writers often insist writing is about imagining yourself in someone else’s shoes. This is true, but when those writers write the same old stereotypes and toxic tropes, we can see the issue easily.
However, those writers may still push back against #OwnVoices. A very common cry is ‘I am writing crime fiction … but I am not a criminal!’. Or even, ‘I write sci fi … but I am not an alien!’ This is utter nonsense. Being a criminal or alien is NOT a marginalised group, so this supposed ‘point’ should be disregarded.
The above said, you may have noticed I am always at pains to insist I love these stories. There’s a good reason for this … It’s because any discussion of the limitations of such stories is frequently met with ferocity online.
I’ve even been accused of ‘propagating the lie #OwnVoices is no good’! This certainly doesn’t sound like me. Especially when we consider I love to read AND have written such stories myself! It makes zero sense.
However, I still think it would be disingenuous to insist #OwnVoices stories have no drawbacks whatsoever.
Rights & Creators
Most of the counter-commentary about #OwnVoices I have seen focuses on the ‘rights’ of non-marginalised creators (especially with reference to cultural appropriation).
In contrast, I have been party to very little industry commentary about another big issue … How being too prescriptive on #OwnVoices may box in and effectively ‘trap’ marginalised creators themselves. Let me explain, after the jump.
Check out this series of tweets above from Star Trek writer Bo Yeun Kim. She explains that being a marginalised creative is essentially a double-edged sword.
On the one hand, if she is celebrated as a so-called ‘diverse writer’, this may lead to opportunities she may not have had. On the other, it may also mean she only gets to write what is ‘expected’ of her as that so-called ‘diverse writer’.
I have heard similar from many ‘diverse’ writers myself. It’s long been the case that UK black creatives are expected to write / make so-called ‘urban’ stories for example. That’s obviously fine when they want to, plus there have been some brilliant ones.
But obviously it ALSO goes without saying that a full range of genres, styles and types of story should be as open to marginalised creatives as standard. THAT is true inclusion.
In an industry that likes to pigeon-hole its creatives and stories, it can be tempting to pick a USP (‘unique selling point’) and run with it. Whilst this can be effective, it can also be limiting. As a female creative, I don’t always want to write about so-called ‘female things’. Why can’t every type of story be open to me?
I know I am not alone in this. I have received these comments for this article …
Sam Kurd: ‘I do sometimes worry that with the Djinn story I’m working on (and my other, more controversial idea), I’ll be happily pushed into a box marked ‘can tell Arab/Mixed-Race Stories’ instead of ‘can tell fun stories’. I just want to write entertaining films.’
Emma Pullar: ‘I totally get this. I don’t have to write gangland London crime thrillers just because I come from a council estate in SE London. The amount of people who think I belong in that box is frustrating.’
@NeurodivergentWriters: ‘Own Voices are so, so important but nobody should be pressurised into writing about their trauma or even about their experiences at all. It is not marginalized creatives’ responsibility to write things for the sake of educating non-marginalised people.’
As you can see, the creatives here feel the same way as Bo Yeun Kim.
No More Gatekeepers
No one is denying there have been dominant gatekeepers who’ve kept marginalised writers out … that’s why said writers ended up marginalised! As mentioned already, I think it’s a GREAT idea to attempt to redress the balance with #OwnVoices stories.
I’m saying #OwnVoices becomes a problem when we’re too prescriptive … ie. when we say the ‘only’ writers who ‘should’ write marginalised characters are marginalised themselves and in exactly the same way.
This may lead to problems such as boxing in the marginalised creative … ie.
- If they’re black, they have to write so-called ‘urban stories’ or
- women end up writing ‘female things’, plus
- BIPOC, disabled and LGBTQ writers have to write stories about their own issues, lived experiences, communities or BUST.
Since these stories tend not not to be green-lit as frequently as white/male/cishet/able-bodied stories, this is a serious own goal for inclusion.
Even worse, being too prescriptive has weaponised #OwnVoices too. I have already heard many horror stories from professional writers who’ve been asked if their novels and screenplays are ‘their OWN story’.
Why are these horror stories?
Because it may not be SAFE to stand up and have your story counted as #OwnVoices … Especially if you’re not ‘out’ as a LGBTQ person or as a survivor of sexual assault or domestic abuse. This pressure to ‘out’ writers weaponises #OwnVoices, going against the whole point of it.
In addition, there have already been multiple instances online where writers’ motives and marginalised identities have been put under the microscope and policed … ie. Is s/he ‘queer ENOUGH’ to write this story? Black ENOUGH? Disabled ENOUGH? And so on. Ack.
So yes, #OwnVoices stories are GREAT … But don’t IMPOSE them on marginalised creatives. No female, BIPOC, LGBTQ, disabled or neurodiverse creative should ‘have’ to write about their ‘own stuff’ or do so in a prescriptive way.
We’ve had enough of gatekeeping.
Thank you for this. I only looked this up since I am querying agents and came across the term and had no idea what it meant. I understand very well why the need arose to create certain safe spaces and movements, consciously or in pursuit of justice and equality, however, I have always felt that any effort to deliberately be inclusive creates móre boxes, móre judgment, móre confusion and subsequently: móre division – the opposite of what it should and is meant to do. I grew up in a time with a lot of feminism and although I get the idea of course and am all for equal rights (I’ve always been someone opposed to the typical women/girl men/boy roles), but instead of aiming at creating more and better rights for èveryone it became a women vs men, with especially a lot of/too much focus on how awful the last as a category (?). That doesn’t make sense to me or is helping ányone. It’s the same with all the -isms these days. Equality: yes, same rights: ABSOLUTELY, etc but I call that humanism: covers everything and includes everyone (yes, even animals, they don’t fuss over semantics because it’s not what (should) matter(s)).
I can sum up a list of situations of large groups of men (yes, also white/Caucasian, cis, hetro etc) being exploited, rights taken away and treated horribly and even tortured. But no white, cis, hetero men (or woman but white men are the least favored these days) isn’t allowed to have a voice anymore as if they are all responsible for the wrongdoings of a minority, of which people of all races, gender, cultures and religions have been guilty. Thomas Sowell has great videos about how we’ve been conditioned in all kinds of things that don’t hold up historically or otherwise and is more harmful to marginalized groups than helping.
Apparently for too long there has been too much focus on creators with not that much to say or a lot of maturity or wisdom who got access to the stage the most (in whatever way), that doesn’t mean we have to turn it around to go into other extremes creating equally divisive situations that don’t serve anyone. As a disabled person and writer I prefer NOT to write about or for my disability to be part of my work, in everything I strive for as much normalcy as possible because I am me who happens to be woman, who happens to be disabled, who happens to be heterosexual. Content of our character and not the color of our skin (or state of our body, sexual orientation etc) kind of thing.
We can also relate to each other so much acróss categories, sometimes a lot more than within. In fact, I have had much more in common and had an amazing click with people from across the globe from completely different backgrounds and culture than I have with people where I came from and grew up with or my own sexual orientation or gender (I relate a lot more to men although I feel and am a 100% woman).
True inclusion and diversity, to me, is about creating harmony in contrast, like nature does that so beautifully and has for trillions of years. No boxes, no movements, simply allowing everyone and everything to be who they are and to be seen and or heard, no one more special or deserving than any other. Not because they are standard and not because they are ‘marginalized’. Focusing on (any/different) labels is what will sustain inequality, not solve it. We have more in common than we are different.