Blank Heros

[Mad Swede]

"What is true."

As a medievalist and a student of language and literature, I'm pretty familiar with this idea, and I understand where it comes from. It's easy to imagine that a world lit only by fire would have pretty hard and fast delineations between disparate populations and ethnic groups. To each their own and all that.

That's not what actually happened.

We get the concept from much more recent scholars who didn't like what the things they were finding said about their perceptions of their world and the worlds that had gone before, so they edited it until it matched what they wanted to see. Entire populations were erased. Women leaders of every stripe, 'foreign' influences on learning, politics, religion, and philosophy were literally cut page by page from the record. So much is missing that only in recent years have we begun to understand the extent of the damage done.

One thing remains true, as it has been since we stood up and peered over the grasslands and feared the darkness: populations that trade, that migrate, that emerge from their caves at all, will mingle. The Vikings traveled the world. We are finding now that they weren't the people we thought they were. This pattern repeats over and over, and is reflected in our very DNA. What is true? It is more complicated than we ever thought possible, and populations were far more diverse and culturally rich than we give them credit for. The shadows and ghosts of that truth are still there in the record, in the blank spaces left behind. It's there in the question, "Who's missing from the stories?"

I think I would suggest modifiying that last question to read "Who's missing from the stories you have read?" What struck me as I got older (and what drives my mother up the wall as respected scholar specialising on Nordic history and languages) is the discrepancy between the way Vikings were portrayed in a lot of western Euopean history books and the way in which Swedish history books presented them. There was always this image of Vikings as a bunch of violent male sea-borne thieves, killers and rapists. Yet in reality (and in Swedish history books) their society was far more complex and advanced than that, with a focus on trade and complex political and social structures where women played a very important role.

That experience always makes me wonder if there is something that I've missed in the research I do before I write, something that I'm not aware of which might have an impact on my characterisation or my setting. But maybe being aware of that risk is good enough as a start?

 

[pmmg]

"What is true."

As a medievalist and a student of language and literature, I'm pretty familiar with this idea, and I understand where it comes from. It's easy to imagine that a world lit only by fire would have pretty hard and fast delineations between disparate populations and ethnic groups. To each their own and all that.

That's not what actually happened.

We get the concept from much more recent scholars who didn't like what the things they were finding said about their perceptions of their world and the worlds that had gone before, so they edited it until it matched what they wanted to see. Entire populations were erased. Women leaders of every stripe, 'foreign' influences on learning, politics, religion, and philosophy were literally cut page by page from the record. So much is missing that only in recent years have we begun to understand the extent of the damage done.

One thing remains true, as it has been since we stood up and peered over the grasslands and feared the darkness: populations that trade, that migrate, that emerge from their caves at all, will mingle. The Vikings traveled the world. We are finding now that they weren't the people we thought they were. This pattern repeats over and over, and is reflected in our very DNA. What is true? It is more complicated than we ever thought possible, and populations were far more diverse and culturally rich than we give them credit for. The shadows and ghosts of that truth are still there in the record, in the blank spaces left behind. It's there in the question, "Who's missing from the stories?"

I think that happened less than current portrayals would suggest. What is the likelihood that an Irishman in the 1200's would see an African man in his lifetime? or one in Russia, or Norway, or China? And certainly not in North and South America. It may be there was a scattered few, but not enough to make such an event likely. And if you give me a story that has a lot of characters who don't belong, I'm gonna start thinking the likelihood small, and eventually start calling BS. We can differ on our threshold on that.

But my objection is not about the historical fact, its the value you put on it. I am not choosing against compassion to write about a bunch of people in some area who never encountered people of another. We not 'locking out the human race' just trying to tell a story that is likely, and does not have stuff that would not be there. I reject the notion that I am 'not doing human well' by excluding such things from the fiction. When they make sense, they will be there. If I put that same story in the 1700's, it would be far more likely. As a writer, I also reject that because I was not diverse enough, I was uncompassionate. unemphatic, not brave, and all the other stuff. I think that is saying too much.

 

[Malakota]

I think that this has become a conversation about diversity and inclusivity more than the original post. I fully understand that everyone has experiences and the world is viewed through the intricate sense of the person living. But I am still interested in knowing how to create a interesting, detailed, passionate character that can connect to the reader whitout saying, "His dark hands ached from the weight of his sword./ His pale hands ached from the weight of his sword." I just want to be able to say, "His hands ached from the weight of his word." I love the response that this forum has invoked and as a person of color I like to see who passionate everyone had become in their responses. Honestly, this thread has given me a great deal to think about. And I will take it all into consideration as I go through and edit my story.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Yeah, pretty much any mention - however tangential - to representation in media is like waving a flag in front of me... but that comes as no surprise to anyone here.

 

[Karlin]

I don't deliberately or artificially write diversity into my books. The characters are who they need to be.

A book about Chinese and Jewish characters in the sixth century CE doesn't call for gender diversity. It calls for two ethnicities, talking animals and some other rather odd things. It doesn't even have many women in it.

Now I'm writing a novel that includes a couple of Hispanic women, a Muslim, a Jew and an Indian (no, not Native American) in it, but that is who they are, who they need to be. It's not contrived or artificial.

But hold on! There are no Afro Americans/ Native Americans/ Chinese in there! Should I run back and make one of the characters X/Y/Z? It would be easy to do, as I have not said anything about the skin color of most of the characters , which is perhaps in itself criminal. Or have I fulfilled the Diversity Requirement by having other people of color? There's only one person of non-binary gender, a minor character. Is that enough?

 

[Prince of Spires]

It's an interesting discussion for sure. It is also, in my experience, a very American discussion. Though I don't have Mad Swede 's direct experience with publishers and agents, I get the same impression that it's both something they look for, and an important topic in discussion about writing. In the Netherlands we don't have that to the same degree. Maybe it's because in the Netherlands same-sex marriages have been legal for over 20 years, and it's very much something that's accepted (in most of society, there's always exceptions).

That makes the whole discussion slightly alien to me. I don't feel a specific need to include certain diverse characters. I just need to include good characters. If they happen to fit into some specific box then that's nice for them. There is no obligation for the writer to write these characters. Readers should just vote with their wallet. If you don't want to read something, then don't buy it and don't read it.

I disagree that as writers we should write what is true. Far from it actually. Just type out a real life conversation, and see if that would work in a novel. Instead, authors have to write the perception of what is true. A streamlined, stylized version of it. And part of that means keeping people's expectations in mind. That doesn't mean you can't go against that, it just means that if you as the author chooses to do so, you will have to do a lot more heavy lifting in that regard.

Vikings are an interesting example. My daughter, 8 years old, is getting history in school. The curriculum is trying to get through most of history in her time in school, which means 4000 years in like 4 years. They only have time to spend a lesson or two on certain topics. So the vikings got 2 hours of attention. That means you stick to what's important to us about them, which means the raiding and pillaging part, since that influenced our history. Yes, they're also mentioned as having traded a lot, and having discovered North America. But that's about all they have time for. Which means there isn't time for all the intricate details and social structures they had.

Why is this important? It shows how people gain historical knowledge, and how that will influence what they read. If I need a raider in a medieval-like setting, which doesn't play too big a role and thus doesn't warrant a lot of page time, then it's very easy to have a bunch of people show up in a longship from the north with round shield and axes. People will know what they are, because they'll be in the public consciousness. I can change that, or subvert people's expectations by them actually being the saviors (there's a great story there...), but that will take more words.

But I am still interested in knowing how to create a interesting, detailed, passionate character that can connect to the reader whitout saying, "His dark hands ached from the weight of his sword./ His pale hands ached from the weight of his sword." I just want to be able to say, "His hands ached from the weight of his word."

As for how to apply it, the same as with all other aspects in writing. A combination of small details and a sledgehammer. The example you give of "his dark hands ached" is actually a pretty good one in my opinion if you want to give people a subtle reminder. It's small details like this that create the flavor of your tale, just like smells and sounds and feel do.

And sometimes you need to hit your reader over the head with something. If you want to make it clear your main character is gay, you can either have all kinds of subtle references and pray your reader catches on, or you just have him kiss another guy...

As the discussion above shows, you don't actually have to do this. You can also just tell your story and not bother about any of it.

 

[The Dark One]

I have to say "his dark hands ached" is way over the top unless it happens on the first page.

How often do you need to keep describing a character's superficialities?

Mind you, I do get that the above was probably a top of head example.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

I think that this has become a conversation about diversity and inclusivity more than the original post. I fully understand that everyone has experiences and the world is viewed through the intricate sense of the person living. But I am still interested in knowing how to create a interesting, detailed, passionate character that can connect to the reader whitout saying, "His dark hands ached from the weight of his sword./ His pale hands ached from the weight of his sword." I just want to be able to say, "His hands ached from the weight of his word." I love the response that this forum has invoked and as a person of color I like to see who passionate everyone had become in their responses. Honestly, this thread has given me a great deal to think about. And I will take it all into consideration as I go through and edit my story.

Prince and The Dark One are absolutely correct. The devil - and the transgression - is in the details. Think about yourself as a character. What do you notice about yourself from time to time? Is it in contrast to the people around you? Does it go beyond mere skin color?

Now think about the people around you. What do you notice about them? What is similar? What is different?

Personally, I don't do a whole lot of description. That tree's going to have to write a memoir if it wants readers to know much beyond 'hardwood." So sprinkling is the name of the day. But I do sprinkle in earnest. I don't want readers to repeat the Rue Ruefulness of The Hunger Games, where everyone and their pet parakeet thought little Rue was white. Why? Because that's the default. No description, you pull the lever on the slot machine and out pops a white male. It's just what we're enculturated to.

Time to change that.

This is what it looks like when my team describes characters who fall beyond the common narrative:

From Faerie Rising...

Brian’s stomach churned at the thought of intentionally killing something, but he’d lived on the streets for years. It had taught him practicality. He pulled a rubber band from his pocket and tied his dreadlocks up out of his way into a thick tail. He could handle this. His mother and baby brother were upstairs, and this thing would slaughter them if it got loose. If killing it was the only way—

And then the thing charged him and took away his choices.


From Ties of Blood and Bone...

Donovan’s door opened and the king himself stepped out to greet them, dressed in an impeccably tailored suit. He smiled, teeth a flash of white against mahogany skin. “So sorry to keep you waiting, Mulcahy. I had a call run over its allotted time.”


From Beneath a Stone Sky...

Thomas smiled at her, dark eyes beery-bleary. “There you are. You missed a hell of a party.” He took her hand, her fair skin so pale against the chestnut of his. She liked that about him, that contrast. That warmth.

And then there's this little bit I originally posted here on Scribes...

Her complexion was the travelers road, rich with gold and myrrh. She wore the face of her enemies on the soles of her sandals and her name was whispered with reverence. She was king. She was god. And the eternal sand itself trickled from her skin.


So, you see, light, consistent touches. You want to be delicate, graceful, but also loud and clear, and this goes far, far beyond skin color. It's a dance of recognition, acknowledgement, and compassion. It's radical empathy, and it takes practice, like everything we do in this industry. In this art. To quote Madam Secretary, "It's not statecraft. It's soulcraft."