Disclaimer: I’m not offering any real answers to “Do E. Lynn, Hardy, McMillan and Perry create art?” It’s a topic on my mind this morning. Robin Givhan at The Washington Post has a review of novel In My Father’s House, written by E. Lynn Harris before he died in 2009. It’s pretty brutal:

Let’s get this basic fact out of the way: This is not a well-written novel. E. Lynn Harris, who completed “In My Father’s House” before his death in 2009, does not have a poetic voice or even a particularly eloquent one. This is not a work of detail-oriented craftsmanship.

And that’s just the beginning.

The review goes on to call out Harris’ shallow character description and clumsy plot development. Frankly, these are things we’ve known for years. Like fellow black, gay writer James Earl Hardy and outspoken Terry McMillan, E. Lynn Harris spoke to a very specific reader. While the writing in these novels don’t challenge literary circles, they do speak to black female and gay communities longing for written representation.

Which is not to say I’m giving these types of work a “pass”. I was an early fan of E. Lynn Harris and James Earl Hardy simply because nobody was publishing contemporary work about black gay life in the mid-90s. By each of their third novel, the novelty wore off for me. Maybe I’m crazy, but I like my artist to expand as they continue to create; and possibly help me to expand with them.

This point of view could be applied to Tyler Perry, as well. While his lack of skill seems blatantly obvious to me (and others), the demand for his work is staggering. However, when a 30-minute cartoon can lampoon and sum up Perry’s plot devices in 15 seconds, you have to question how hard Perry is even trying to elevate his craft. Perhaps one issue is how Perry tries to do everything: write, direct, produce, act, etc. We’ll see when he puts his spin on somebody else’s work; namely Ntozake Shange‘s classic For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide When the Rainbow Is Enuf.

Yeah, I’m afraid.

However, I remember an interview with Questlove in which he said he doesn’t categorize music as good or bad anymore. The more important question is if the work is successful in meeting its intended goal/audience. I’ve started to allow that philosophy to inform my own prejudices (if only to save my sanity). This is why my second question “Do they have to?” is as relevant to me as my first.

I’ve got a lot going on right now. It’s no wonder my dreams have gotten surreal. Although, not this surreal.

more about Salvador Dalí

However, I did manage to get over to the newish Starbucks in Midtown Promenade (off Piedmont Park) to attend the festival’s Diversity On Screen panel, part of their Coffeehouse Conversations series. The panel was moderated by journalist and author Gil Robertson. Author Ronda Racha Penrice, Felicia Feaster (The Atlantan), Ryan Lee (Southern Voice), and Will Hong (TurnerAsia) rounded out the panel.

In general, the panel agreed that the state of diversity in film (race, sexual orientation, gender, age, etc.) is improving. But film lags far behind television and digital/internet in terms of portraying characters and stories with complexity (Hong). Penrice added that film classics could be carried by actresses such as Joan Crawford or Bette Davis. Today, despite women becoming stronger forces in society, roles in Hollywood films have gotten weaker. The roles that do center around women are often labeled “chick flicks,” a practice that discredits interest by other audiences (Feaster).

There was discussion about a lack of resources such as financial and distribution. The panel agreed that the need to make money hampers stakeholder’s desire to takes risks. But there doesn’t seem to be an actual lack of diversified talent (Feaster). Lee mentioned that the pool of decision makers need to be diversified (for example, more LGBT executives) in order for things to change. Penrice pointed out that even when decisions makers are gay, they are often out personally (attending public events with their partner) but when it comes to professional decisions, they don’t want to be viewed that way.

Instead, Hollywood bets on the “sure thing,” even when that yields actors playing ethnic roles improperly (often a sore spot with the Asian community). Lee stated that including gay or black characters isn’t always a good thing because they are often added for diversity window dressing without any depth or backstory.

Robertson suggested audiences need to get to a point where we tell filmmakers if they cannot attain a certain standard in depicting us, then maybe they don’t need to show us onscreen at all. [Note: I love that Robertson said that! The mentality that I should support stereotypes or crap just because black or gay people are in it doesn't fly with me.]

Hong believes it’s everybody’s role to travel outside of their comfort zone and immerse themselves in other communities to learn about each other. He confessed he doesn’t do it enough himself. Robertson agreed that we profess change but may not be ready for it in actuality. He admitted that his Facebook page is 98% African American although he attends all kinds of events and travels internationally.

Unlike Hollywood films, the panel didn’t reach a neat “solution”, per se. But I think it woke up some people in terms of what we consider to be diverse in terms of film and how we challenge ourselves (or don’t) to explore lives and cultures outside of what we already know.

Note: This post was republished at Racialicious. If you are interested in this topic, be sure to visit Racialicious for the reader’s comments.