# How much sympathy is left for people who still like traditional gender roles?



## Mythopoet

Let me get right to the point: I am a woman. I am a wife and a mother. I am a Christian (Catholic variety). And I still like traditional gender roles. I enjoy being a stay at home mom. I enjoy taking care of my children and my house rather than having a job or career. My only real aspirations are to have a healthy and happy family life and to become a self-published storyteller. 

I enjoy being female and feminine. I like that my partner in life is male and masculine. I try my best to let my children, 2 girls and 3 boys, develop naturally but as a Catholic I do believe that human beings are either male or female, there is a distinct biological difference. Though I do not automatically subscribe to all of the male and female stereotypes of society. I prefer to think about such things for myself and decide whether they truly have anything to do with being male or female or whether they are just the image our warped society chooses to believe is male or female. I do, however, believe that only women can be mothers and only men can be fathers. And yes, I do believe that marriage is only between a man and a women, for their mutual spiritual edification and for the formation of a family. 

Despite laying this all out, I don't want to argue or debate here about whether anything I believe is true. I'm 33 years old and I've spent the better part of the last 10+ years contemplating what I truly believe so it's not likely an argument on the internet is going to sway me. 

No, what I want to know is, how much sympathy is there among writers and reader in today's society for someone like me who has such strongly founded beliefs and is not willing to compromise them? 

I'm not going to write homosexual couples. I'm not going to represent any kind of gender fluidity in my writing. Nothing about my stories is going to celebrate anything that goes against Catholic doctrine. On the other hand, I have no intention of making my personal morals the center of my stories. I do not write Christian Fiction. I would say the way I approach it is closest to J. R. R. Tolkien. As he said, his LOTR was fundamentally Catholic, even though he went to great pains to keep "religion" out of it. Honestly, I prefer to focus on magic and adventure and universal themes.

Lately, I have become increasingly aware of how much today's modern morals and worldview are pushed by fan communities and communities of writers. It seems to be becoming more and more expected that all writing should represent today's world. I can't do that. Is there still a place for my stories in this environment? 

I'm not likely to stop writing, whatever the answer. But I am curious. And I would really, really like this thread to not descend into flaming. Let's try to respect each other's beliefs as much as possible.


----------



## Heliotrope

Hi Mytho! I love when people get personal on the forums  I now have a better understanding of who you are, instead of imagining you as an 18 year old nerdy boy! 

I'm a 31 year old mother of 2. 

I think the trend in writing is towards breaking stereotypes/cliches and representing minority groups. Bit this can be done in many ways. writing from the perspective of a child or person with disabilities, giving a character a handicap, representing a variety of races and cultures... Overcoming challenges has always been what fiction is about, but challenges can just as easily be found in a traditional household as an alternative household. If you are not comfortable writing about homosexual couples or gender fluidity then don't! Write about what you feel and what you value and you will have readers that feel the same.


----------



## BWFoster78

> Lately, I have become increasingly aware of how much today's modern morals and worldview are pushed by fan communities and communities of writers. It seems to be becoming more and more expected that all writing should represent today's world. I can't do that. Is there still a place for my stories in this environment?



It seems to me that there are a lot of threads here at MS that focus on these kinds of issues.  I think that focus over-represents the market desire for those kinds of issues. 

If you go to a site where people focus more on the business side of things, I think the impression you'd get is that a) there's definitely a market for those kinds of stories and b) there's also a huge market of people who couldn't care less about whether those things are included or not.


----------



## Devor

My impression - when it comes to gender, at least - is that there's left, and neutral, and that you'd have a hard time trying to go to the right, unless you were specifically marketing to, say, church groups, which many people do.

That's unfortunate because it really means there's left, neutral, and a jump to the far right.  There's not much in the moderate-to-middle right.

But that's just my impression of things.  I could be all wrong.


----------



## Nimue

Okay, unless you become an overnight sensation as an author to the point where mainstream media is covering your books and people are posting op-ed pieces about your work...you don't freaking have to worry about what fan communities want or people with blogs coming after you for writing an all-white all-straight cast. Unless you're controversial, _no one will care._

You can ignore the writing advice blogs on diversity if you want, because the status quo and the vast majority of the body of fantasy work agree with you.  Wanting to stay there isn't taking a stand or anything.

Sympathy for what?  Interjecting into conversations about diversity isn't going to win you a lot of applause for your views, true.  But step outside of that bubble of people online who care about social justice, and you'll be right at home.  I guess I just don't get it.


----------



## BWFoster78

> My impression - when it comes to gender, at least - is that there's left, and neutral,



I think that this is an excellent read of the situation. Well-stated.


----------



## Mythopoet

Devor said:


> My impression - when it comes to gender, at least - is that there's left, and neutral, and that you'd have a hard time trying to go to the right, unless you were specifically marketing to, say, church groups, which many people do.
> 
> That's unfortunate because it really means there's left, neutral, and a jump to the far right.  There's not much in the moderate-to-middle right.
> 
> But that's just my impression of things.  I could be all wrong.



What would a neutral viewpoint be?


----------



## FifthView

Mythopoet said:


> I'm not going to write homosexual couples. I'm not going to represent any kind of gender fluidity in my writing.



Does this include non-human races, extraterrestrial races, mythical/alien animal species, etc.?


----------



## Mythopoet

FifthView said:


> Does this include non-human races, extraterrestrial races, mythical/alien animal species, etc.?



Good question. I would say that it would hold true for any humans, reasonably humanoid races, or races that can interbreed with humans. I would not rule out the possibility for any significantly different race/species, but there would have to be a good in-world, natural reason for it.


----------



## Mythopoet

Heliotrope said:


> Hi Mytho! I love when people get personal on the forums  I now have a better understanding of who you are, instead of imagining you as an 18 year old nerdy boy!
> 
> I'm a 31 year old mother of 2.
> 
> I think the trend in writing is towards breaking stereotypes/cliches and representing minority groups. Bit this can be done in many ways. writing from the perspective of a child or person with disabilities, giving a character a handicap, representing a variety of races and cultures... Overcoming challenges has always been what fiction is about, but challenges can just as easily be found in a traditional household as an alternative household. If you are not comfortable writing about homosexual couples or gender fluidity then don't! Write about what you feel and what you value and you will have readers that feel the same.



Thanks, Helio. 

I would like this to be true. That what really matter is representing people overcoming struggles. But the more time I spend around fans of various things, the more this seems to be changing.


----------



## BWFoster78

> I would like this to be true. That what really matter is representing people overcoming struggles. But the more time I spend around fans of various things, the more this seems to be changing.



Here's a question you need to ask yourself, though: are the "fans of various things" you're spending time with truly representative of the reading public?

If I were to gauge the market based on posts here on MS, I would think that it is absolutely necessary to have my works preach diversity.  As far as I can tell, that is a huge market of readers who really just don't care about whether or not you include diverse viewpoints; they just want a good, well-written story.


----------



## FifthView

I'm currently on my third Robin Hobb _Farseer_ trilogy, and I don't recall a single case of a homosexual couple or gender-fluid individual in the whole lot.  It's not exactly something I've "noticed" missing, while reading.  And her books sell pretty well.

In her very latest book, there is one character who is female but dresses as a male much of the time, but this relates to her past.  She was born and raised in a brothel, and her mother treated her as a son from the very beginning, in order to protect her.  Plus, she's in training to be a spy/assassin, so being able to be a convincing boy or girl comes in handy.  But I don't have the impression of her that she's authentically gender-fluid (even if she's more comfortable in her male persona, simply due to her upbringing.)  In fact, she has a budding crush on a young male character in the book.

I'm a gay man, so I'm somewhat open to finding gay characters or gender-fluid characters in the books I read–_somewhat_, because I can be extremely annoyed by poor portrayals or simplistic sterotypes.  Even so, I not only tend to expect a primarily traditional sex/gender cast of characters, I'm not at all annoyed when an entire cast fits that bill.  Most of the great stories are neutral:  They can be told with traditional sex/gender characters _or_ with a mixed cast of characters.  This doesn't mean that I won't be _especially_ pleased when a well-written gay character appears in the cast or indeed is the MC–I probably will find a slightly deeper connection.  But I don't miss the absence of such a character.


----------



## Mythopoet

BWFoster78 said:


> Here's a question you need to ask yourself, though: are the "fans of various things" you're spending time with truly representative of the reading public?
> 
> If I were to gauge the market based on posts here on MS, I would think that it is absolutely necessary to have my works preach diversity.  As far as I can tell, that is a huge market of readers who really just don't care about whether or not you include diverse viewpoints; they just want a good, well-written story.



That is precisely what I _am_ asking myself. That is the purpose of this thread, to discuss the question with others who might have other experiences that shed light on it. 

The fact is, no one really knows anything about the market for books. But we do know one thing: that word of mouth is the best promotion you can get. Word of mouth generally takes off among people in the book audience who are vocal about what they like. Thus, I would suggest that online communities of fans are not a bad place to gauge reader reactions. These are the people who are going to go on twitter complaining if they think there's an offensive racial stereotype in your book, and who are just as likely to rave about the books they really liked. 

My recent observations is that the outspoken fan community has become much more outspoken about what they want out of stories, and often what they want is a very modern approach, regardless of genre. 

The purpose of this thread is to see whether others have the same experiences and also what you personally as a reader feel about this issue.


----------



## Devor

Mythopoet said:


> What would a neutral viewpoint be?



Ohh.  I don't know.  I would say that Tolkein's portrayals of women are fairly neutral, except that there's very few of them.

I think giving a female character some kind of agency in the plot (that is, they don't just do things, but in some way help make the plot happen) strikes me as a reasonable request, unless maybe you're writing a guy's relatively straightforward coming of age story from a tight 3rd person POV.

I don't think you have to fight gender norms or de-feminize women.  I would consider that leftward (for the purposes of this conversation).  But the biggest and most reasonable complaint that people have is that women are just left out (which, I would not really put on the left-to-right spectrum).  Including women, and making them solid characters, should be doable for anyone.  You can do that and be reasonably neutral about gender roles.


----------



## Heliotrope

Yes, I agree with BWFoster and FifthView. 

I think that most readers are just looking for a good story. I was excited about watching _The Imitation Game_ because I was excited about seeing how the man broke the German enigma code. When they threw in the struggles he had at the time with his sexuality I found it really heightened the sympathy I felt for his character and ALL of the struggles he faced, but his sexuality did not influence the main plot and the main plot would have been just as interesting without delving deeply into his personal life. 

Like I said, I think that overcoming conflict, any conflict, is what people are looking for. If that means a boy wakes up every day in a different body, or a child with non-verbal autism witnesses a murder, or a white dude goes on a quest to stop an evil white dude, it doesn't matter, so long as it is told in a compelling way. 

And on a personal note, I was in the process of writing a sword and sorcery short about a lesbian couple for a magazine that looked specifically for those sorts of stories… but the magazine folded… so obviously not as big of a market as one might think


----------



## Devor

Heliotrope said:


> And on a personal note, I was in the process of writing a sword and sorcery short about a lesbian couple for a magazine that looked specifically for those sorts of stories… but the magazine folded… so obviously not as big of a market as one might think



You could try Strange Horizons, which specifically looks for that kind of material.  Lightspeed Magazine is normally neutral, but they ran a successful Kickstarter for a special issue focused on the LGBT community.  Both should be easy to find and pay over 6 cents a word.


----------



## BWFoster78

> The fact is, no one really knows anything about the market for books.



Huh?

If you want to know about the market for books, simply study what's selling on Amazon.  A snapshot of one day isn't a great measure because promos can make books shoot to the top and only stay there a short time. Instead, record what books are at the top of your genre over a couple of months.  That will tell you exactly what is selling.

Saying that no one knows the market doesn't make any sense.  All the data you need is right on Amazon.



> But we do know one thing: that word of mouth is the best promotion you can get.



Again - huh?

No. The best promotion you can get is a Bookbub.  Put out a book, promote the heck out of it, and let Amazon's algos do the rest of the work for you.

Word of mouth? Where are you getting your marketing information?



> Thus, I would suggest that online communities of fans are not a bad place to gauge reader reactions. These are the people who are going to go on twitter complaining if they think there's an offensive racial stereotype in your book, and who are just as likely to rave about the books they really liked.



I'm just not sure that the vast majority of the reading public takes part in online communities.  They go to Amazon, pick a book, read it, and then go back to Amazon.

Maybe you're right, and this is a good place to mine for information on what readers want. My problem with it is that I don't know enough about how representative those communities are.  I much prefer to base any conclusions on what is actually selling.


----------



## FifthView

Well, the idiot that I am forgot one of the MAIN CHARACTERS in Robin Hobb's series:  The Fool.  Anyone familiar with the series needs to slap me, repeatedly.  There's a whole running question throughout the series about whether he's male or female.  None of the other characters knows the answer to this, and The Fool won't reveal the answer.  It just so happens that The Fool's given name, given by his three parents (!) is Beloved.  So the MC, Fitz, eventually calls him Beloved, and there is a sort of love between them–but it is a deep love that friends can share, not a romantic love.  The Fool, also, sometimes assumes a female persona, sometimes a male persona, depending on what sort of disguise he needs, and is quite convincing either way.  But The Fool comes from a distant land and it's always suggested that he's not human.

And to be honest, I've always been somewhat uncomfortable with some of the interaction between Fitz and The Fool.


----------



## Nimue

Also, I'd like to point out that third-wave (i.e. modern) feminism is definitely concerned with valuing femininity and women's work no matter where it takes place, as in addition to traditionally "masculine" roles or careers. That women's work in the household and the emotional labor of taking care of a family should be given its due.

Devor has it right.  A character doesn't have to pick up a sword to be a feminist character; she just has to have power and value of some kind in the story.

If you don't want to write a story about women fighting wars and being indistinguishable from men, that's not the opposite of feminism.  I'm writing, or trying to write, a story where the main character is very traditionally feminine; she was married, she works as a maid and a healer, and one of her driving motivations is concern for the safety of her unborn child.  And I think this is a very feminist story, not only for some of the themes but for the focus on women, that they take up their fair share of the story,  that they are important and world-changing.


----------



## Heliotrope

Thank you Nimue, for bringing this up. 

As a modern feminist, a professional woman with a masters degree, and a stay at home mom this is a hot button issue for me. For a long time we tried to say that in order for a woman to be strong, she must behave like a man. I actually feel (and this is a whole new can of worms…) that 80's feminism was almost misogynistic, in that it tried to erase the female completely and establish an entirely male culture, where everything that was traditionally feminine was degraded and left to under paid help (nanny's, daycare, housekeepers, etc). 

We ARE seeing a shift now towards embracing the feminine and demanding not equality, but choice (for everyone, male and female)… I think more and more readers are not looking for women dressed up as men, behaving like men, as much as they are looking for women who are alive. Making choices, having thoughts and feelings and opinions… 

Cercie Lannister is definitely my favourite character on GOT. She is a mother, a lover, a siren who uses her sexuality and femininity for destruction… but her motives are entirely human. She loves her children. She would do anything to protect them. She loves her country, and would do anything to protect it. She is the ultimate mama bear. She is very strong, though VERY anti-feminist. 

On the flip side is my other favourite character, Arya, who is the opposite. All 'boy' but still a great read.


----------



## Russ

Mythopoet said:


> Lately, I have become increasingly aware of how much today's modern morals and worldview are pushed by fan communities and communities of writers. It seems to be becoming more and more expected that all writing should represent today's world. I can't do that. Is there still a place for my stories in this environment?



I believe the answer is "yes".

The people who post on the internet, in blogs, etc are people who are both politicized and engaged.  They represent a small subset of the book buying public.  

I would believe that while the majority of the book buying public are support of or sympathetic to non-traditional gender roles I don't see any indication that plays a significant role in their book buying choices.  So I think there is a large non-politicized group out there who will happily buy good fiction that is not politically progressive and does not engage with modern gender issues.

The data also however seems to tell us that this group is shrinking as a proportion of the modern population, thus you should not delay your publication as time does not seem to be your friend on this issue.

I also heartily echo Nimue's comments on this issue.  If you simply indy publish on your own, until you reach a pretty significant threshold of success you will not be on the radar of the politically engaged crowd who are likely to comment on such issues in your work.  So the question of taking flak for not handling such issues in an appropriate way, or even acknowledging their existence is not likely to manifest itself until you are fairly successful.  Since it appears that our answers are unlikely to change  your path or behavior on these issues my advice would be "write your stuff, market and sell your stuff, worry about the critique when it comes and be pleased you have become a large enough player to attract the criticism."

Edit- I see in a later post you asked for reader reaction to that type of fiction.  Personally, despite being a modern feminist in my worldview, I would have no problem buying and enjoying a book where all of the characters have traditional gender roles. I don't expect all fiction to represent or even touch on all the important issues of the day.  I still very much enjoy Conan, Tolkien or Lamour for that matter.  I just don't build my worldview on that kind of entertainment.


----------



## Nimue

See, I don't think Cersei is anti-feminist at all.  Feminism isn't asking for all women to be portrayed positively, but that they should be portrayed with the same variety and value that men are, without being diminished. Humanity includes darkness, and I completely support that kind of characterization.

A lot of the hate for Cersei, from what I've seen, is coming from the opposite direction.  People who would have no issue cheering for her as a villain if she was a man.


----------



## FifthView

Isn't it also true that fantasy, as a genre, is extremely open to traditional tropes, mores, gender roles, and so forth?  Fantasy allows so many oddities, also; but tradition seems meet, much of the time–doesn't seem out of place.  But perhaps I'm showing my age.


----------



## Heliotrope

Yeah, I meant in the 'traditional feminist' sense. The 80's feminist sense. The fact that she uses her body to get her way, and she is portrayed as beautiful and enchanting and a mother… all the big no-no's in the traditional feminist sense. But in the NEW feminist mind set she is real. She works.


----------



## Heliotrope

Yes, fifth view, I agree with you. This goes back to my earlier post in another thread about "The same, only different". It does seem that there are certain tropes in fantasy that people are still looking for, both in characterization and in setting, and in the story itself.


----------



## Devor

BWFoster78 said:


> I'm just not sure that the vast majority of the reading public takes part in online communities.  They go to Amazon, pick a book, read it, and then go back to Amazon.
> 
> Maybe you're right, and this is a good place to mine for information on what readers want. My problem with it is that I don't know enough about how representative those communities are.  I much prefer to base any conclusions on what is actually selling.



Marketers look at two groups of people:  High interest, and low interest.  Or, more bluntly, "hard core fans" and "casual fans."

You _need_ the hard core fans to get your foot in the door.

Your book is a risk, and nobody is going to buy it unless they're such avid readers that taking a chance on a (your-genre-here) book is nothing to them.  You have to reach some kind of popularity threshold, which you get through the hard-core fans, before anyone picks your book up casually.  But once they do, you need that casual appeal to keep the book going.

They key is to find a community of people who like what you like, and write a good "casual reading" book that they absolutely love.  That's how you get a lot of sales.

But sometimes that hard-core fan group isn't large enough, and sometimes their interests are completely at odds with the mass market casual readers (at least so far as you are able to figure it out as the writer).  That's where this conversation comes in.

When it comes to hard-core fans on gender, there's a big group on the left.  That's what you hear about on the internet.  But the casual market doesn't want to be "preached to" about gender. There's just a smaller percentage of them who bother going online to say so.  So at least insomuch as gender and sales are concerned, you're _best off_ with well-developed female characters who can appeal to that hard-core fan group without coming across as "preachy" to the casual reader.

I hope it goes without saying, but gender should only be one tiny part of your book and only one aspect of many by which you appeal to different readers.


----------



## Russ

Mythopoet said:


> The fact is, no one really knows anything about the market for books.




This is simply untrue.  There is tons of well collected and collated data available, both for free and for cost, publically and limited access, to allow people and companies to understand what readers want to buy and how they make their buying decisions.

It can take work/investment to get access to this information, but if one is interested and motivated it is out there.



> These are the people who are going to go on twitter complaining if they think there's an offensive racial stereotype in your book, and who are just as likely to rave about the books they really liked.



I am not sure this is a correct analysis of the current state of things.  I get the impression that the people who like to loudly complain about social injustice, don't spend the same energy in praising literary work they like.  Nor do I think they are the same people even.  I don't think there is a correlation between social justice advocates and people who run say fantasy book review blogs.


----------



## BWFoster78

> They key is to find a community of people who like what you like, and write a good "casual reading" book that they absolutely love. That's how you get a lot of sales.



Devor,

What you're describing doesn't seem to be the way that it works in practice.  I don't know much about marketing theory, but this is how people are making money selling books:

Step 1 - Write something that is similar to other books selling in a genre. Make sure that the cover is awesome and that the pitch is good.

Step 2 - Throw it into KDP (really helps with your exposure when you debut; once you build a following, you have to decide if it's better to go wide).  Amazon puts it in a new release category for its first month. Just being in that category drives sales hugely.  If your cover and pitch are good, you'll get enough sales to put your book in the also bought algos. If readers really like what you're doing, they'll either follow you on Amazon or even sign up for your email newsletter.

Step 3 - Promote the heck out of your book. I decided to wait to do much promotion until I get my third book out, but a lot of people advise hitting promo hard from the start.  The goal is to get your book high enough in the rankings for Amazon's algos to sell for you.

Step 4 - Put out the next book in the series.

A lot of people are making money doing this. They're seeing their audience grow with each book they put out.  I'm not sure how any of this strategy jives with what you said.


----------



## Mythopoet

BWFoster, what you're describing is a method that works for some authors and not for others. You can find dozens of formulas for publishing success on the internet and they will all only work for some individuals and the truth behind it all is that you simply can't predict publishing success. I realize you don't want to believe that. You've convinced yourself there is a formula. Whatever. But you're derailing the thread right now, so can we not talk about how to successfully publish a book here?

I was more curious as to what the general opinion among writers and readers about authors like me is. Honestly, I would consider myself neutral. I'm definitely not much of a "right" leaning person and I avoid "political" labels like the plague anyway.


----------



## evolution_rex

To answer the OP's question; unless your book will be a major success, I don't think you'll attract enough critics to point out any criticism over the traditional gender roles. I also don't think there will be many who'll notice, because there are plenty of traditional gender roled stuff in today's media.

The only thing I would say not to do is to have it be an underlying theme of the story. If the message of your story is that 'women should stay at home and you shouldn't support transgenders' then I wouldn't want you to write the story at all nor would I ever read such a thing. If your villain is a feminist character or a transwoman or transman, that's also an issue.


----------



## BWFoster78

> can we not talk about how to successfully publish a book here?



The only reason I commented on this thread in the first place is because it sounded like you were asking about what it takes to sell books (which I admit that I found confusing because I can't remember you ever really being interested in that topic before).  As far as I can tell, the issues you raised in the initial question do not appear to have any impact on successfully selling.

It seems that almost everyone on this thread is saying that, so I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for now.


----------



## Mythopoet

BWFoster78 said:


> The only reason I commented on this thread in the first place is because it sounded like you were asking about what it takes to sell books (which I admit that I found confusing because I can't remember you ever really being interested in that topic before).  As far as I can tell, the issues you raised in the initial question do not appear to have any impact on successfully selling.
> 
> It seems that almost everyone on this thread is saying that, so I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for now.



Well, you're mistaken. I was not concerned with what it takes to sell books. I was more interested in the cultural climate and how modern readers are likely view authors like me in general. I'm not really sure how to make that more clear. I don't believe I mentioned selling books.


----------



## valiant12

> If your villain is a feminist character or a transwoman or transman, that's also an issue.



Are you implying that a transgender  person never committed a crime or done something awful. 
On the other hand if all bad people in a book are  transgender or all transgender people are evil , that's really offensive.


----------



## Heliotrope

Funny enough, my four year old is playing lego and he just built a man/lady bad guy. He was looking for a hat, but put a woman's hair on the bad guy and said "oh, well, he can just be a man/lady bad guy." … but he also has man/lady cops as well. No clue that this is being hashed out on an internet forum by adults.


----------



## Devor

@BWFoster, I'll send you a PM.


----------



## evolution_rex

valiant12 said:


> Are you implying that a transgender  person never committed a crime or done something awful.
> On the other hand if all bad people in a book are  transgender or all transgender people are evil , that's really offensive.


 If the only trans character is a villain, it's not a good representation of transgenders. Same goes for anyone, if the only black person is a villain, it's not a good representation. Asian, gay, white, christian? It shouldn't be done. I did not imply that you can't have a transgender villain. Of course you can, just not in a story where all the good guys have traditional gender roles or a story that promotes a traditional gender role point of view. Because, to me, that's offensive.


----------



## Russ

Mythopoet said:


> Well, you're mistaken. I was not concerned with what it takes to sell books. I was more interested in the cultural climate and how modern readers are likely view authors like me in general. I'm not really sure how to make that more clear. I don't believe I mentioned selling books.



I have no idea how you can make that statement after you said this:



> The fact is, no one really knows anything about the market for books.* But we do know one thing: that word of mouth is the best promotion you can get.* Word of mouth generally takes off among people in the book audience who are vocal about what they like. Thus, I would suggest that online communities of fans are not a bad place to gauge reader reactions. These are the people who are going to go on twitter complaining if they think there's an offensive racial stereotype in your book, and who are just as likely to rave about the books they really liked.



If you are talking about promotion the reasonable reader can certainly believe you are talking about sales.


----------



## Deleted member 4265

Sure some people might criticize your book for its lack of diversity, but what's worse a book that lacks diversity or a book that panders?

There is nothing I find more offensive than books that say "see you should like this book look how diverse it is". Diversity is nice in a story, but it shouldn't be the selling point. The plot and personalities of a character should be a selling point.

I'm a human being. I don't relate to characters because their female and I'm female. I relate to characters regardless of gender, sexual orientation, or race because they posses qualities I admire.


----------



## Mythopoet

Russ said:


> I have no idea how you can make that statement after you said this:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are talking about promotion the reasonable reader can certainly believe you are talking about sales.



Sigh. Because I was responding to BW's comment. I didn't bring up the subject, he did. That's what I meant.


----------



## Miskatonic

Devouring Wolf said:


> Sure some people might criticize your book for its lack of diversity, but what's worse a book that lacks diversity or a book that panders?
> 
> There is nothing I find more offensive than books that say "see you should like this book look how diverse it is". Diversity is nice in a story, but it shouldn't be the selling point. The plot and personalities of a character should be a selling point.
> 
> I'm a human being. I don't relate to characters because their female and I'm female. I relate to characters regardless of gender, sexual orientation, or race because they posses qualities I admire.



You saved me some time!

I agree. 

The people that annoy me are the ones that attack works of fiction based on what _they_ think it lacks and what _they_ think it should have. They don't want to write their own books, they just want to throw a tantrum and demand other authors change things to make them, as a reader, more comfortable.

It's easier to make a big stink about "x" group being underrepresented in a TV show, movie, book, etc., and guilt the creators into changing it, than taking it upon oneself to create something that gives these other groups a chance to shine. That would take hard work and dedication, something far more demanding than parroting catch phrases and citing questionable statistics while trying to give everyone a guilt complex. 

I'd say there are far more people out there that just want a good story that will entertain them, than there are social justice crusaders that have appointed themselves fiction police of the universe.


----------



## Nimue

Devouring Wolf said:


> Sure some people might criticize your book for its lack of diversity, but what's worse a book that lacks diversity or a book that panders?
> 
> There is nothing I find more offensive than books that say "see you should like this book look how diverse it is". Diversity is nice in a story, but it shouldn't be the selling point. The plot and personalities of a character should be a selling point.
> 
> I'm a human being. I don't relate to characters because their female and I'm female. I relate to characters regardless of gender, sexual orientation, or race because they posses qualities I admire.


I'd like to disagree that zero diversity and pandering are the only options, as though you can't possibly have a good book with genuine diversity in it...

Also, it'd be good to know in what context you're being told to read a book based solely on its diversity?  If you're referring to those lists of diverse books that go around every so often, you may have to consider..._that list isn't necessarily for you_.  There are kids and teens and people out there who have been waiting to see themselves reflected in books.  Assuming that it has no value because you don't care about it is pretty narrow.


----------



## Russ

Miskatonic said:


> The people that annoy me are the ones that attack works of fiction based on what _they_ think it lacks and what _they_ think it should have. They don't want to write their own books, they just want to throw a tantrum and demand other authors change things to make them, as a reader, more comfortable.
> 
> It's easier to make a big stink about "x" group being underrepresented in a TV show, movie, book, etc., and guilt the creators into changing it, than taking it upon oneself to create something that gives these other groups a chance to shine. That would take hard work and dedication, something far more demanding than parroting catch phrases and citing questionable statistics while trying to give everyone a guilt complex.



They are called "consumers" and are perfectly correct to express their opinion of your product.

If I say to you a Lada sucks because it does not have ABS brakes, it does not mean that I have to build a better car or any car to have a say.  Did Ralph Nader have to build a better car when he wrote "Unsafe at any speed."?  Do I have to build a car before I get to say "Holy Cow, those Pintos are exploding!"?

I could go on for pages with the analogies but I think you get my point.

And with television and movies I think there are very serious issues with the way both gender and race and represented, and I am grateful for educated consumers and activists who point this out.

I think with fantasy literature it is a tad more complex.

I freely admit there are people who get outrageously offended on some very tenuous slights, but there is also lots of fiction that is  misogynous, racist (directly or indirectly) or just plain tone deaf to groups with real concerns.

If you suggest the consumer who takes the time to speak out is lazy, how lazy is the writer who simply parrots the genre and leaves aside any deeper considerations or worse doesn't even take the time to think about how their work will impact people?


----------



## Russ

Devouring Wolf said:


> Sure some people might criticize your book for its lack of diversity, but what's worse a book that lacks diversity or a book that panders?



I will go out on a limb and answer your question.

The book that lacks diversity that should have diversity is worse than the book that panders.

The book that panders is simply shallow and annoying.

The book that ignores diversity can be harmful.


----------



## Miskatonic

Russ said:


> I will go out on a limb and answer your question.
> 
> The book that lacks diversity that should have diversity is worse than the book that panders.
> 
> The book that panders is simply shallow and annoying.
> 
> The book that ignores diversity can be harmful.



And who determines whether a book should or shouldn't have diversity?

Give me an example of a book being harmful because it ignores diversity.


----------



## Deleted member 4265

I'm not saying zero diversity and pandering are the only options. There are plenty of stories that have characters which are diverse because the author likes writing diverse characters, but there are also quite a few books that feel like they're pandering. What I was saying is that books that lack diversity completely are better than books that pander in my opinion. Books where the characters are all stereotypical straight, white males might be a little boring, but I find books that pander offensive.

I never said books that include diversity have no value. Contrary to what you may believe, I rather enjoy fantasy not based on the typical medieval European model. Diversity is definitely a point in favor of any book that can do it well, but some people pretend like it excuses bad writing and non existent plot or that a lack of diversity is necessarily bad.

Maybe I'm unique in that I take issue with the idea of a book being marketed to anyone on the bases of "look the main character is just like you". I believe everyone should be represented in fantasy, because like any writing genre it ought to reflect the multiple facets of the human experience, but I find the idea that characters in books represent me because they share my sexual orientation/ gender/ race/ economic status ect. offensive because these things do not make me what I am and I resent the implication that they do. My values make me who I am. Books about diversity are a breath of fresh air, but I take issue with them being marketed towards children like something holy.


----------



## Ban

As long as you don't portray your worldviews as if they are the one and only truth in your fiction, then no one except for a few fanatics will care either way. For example, no one will think of you as a lesser writer if you choose not to write lgbt couples. If you don't start the discussion, by for example stating that you believe gay marriage to be wrong in your book (which would be an extraordinarily badly thought-out move anyway), you won't be criticised. Just don't poke the hornet nest and you'll be fine.


----------



## Mythopoet

Nimue and Heliotrope, it's good to know that you two do not personally look down on the housewife, but in my experience this is not how the majority of feminists are. I have experienced far more condescension from feminists than I have acceptance. So I'm not sure that you two are truly representative or whether there really is a "modern feminism" that is better than "the old feminism". It just doesn't ring true with my experience. 

In addition, this thread isn't about "diversity" as such. There are all kinds of interesting spectrums of human experience than I love to explore. But gender and sexuality is one of the defining issues of our times and more and more the places on the internet I go to act like if you don't accept the mainstream view of these things you might as well be less than dirt. I started this thread because I was interested to see what you guys as individuals think about an author who doesn't subscribe to the mainstream view of these things and just wants to tell stories while maintaining gender and sexuality on the traditional side. This isn't about sales, or audiences really. I'm more interested in having person conversations about what this makes you think about an author.


----------



## Ban

Mythopoet said:


> Nimue and Heliotrope, it's good to know that you two do not personally look down on the housewife, but in my experience this is not how the majority of feminists are. I have experienced far more condescension from feminists than I have acceptance. So I'm not sure that you two are truly representative or whether there really is a "modern feminism" that is better than "the old feminism". It just doesn't ring true with my experience.
> 
> In addition, this thread isn't about "diversity" as such. There are all kinds of interesting spectrums of human experience than I love to explore. But gender and sexuality is one of the defining issues of our times and more and more the places on the internet I go to act like if you don't accept the mainstream view of these things you might as well be less than dirt. I started this thread because I was interested to see what you guys as individuals think about an author who doesn't subscribe to the mainstream view of these things and just wants to tell stories while maintaining gender and sexuality on the traditional side. This isn't about sales, or audiences really. I'm more interested in having person conversations about what this makes you think about an author.



Do you want a completely honest answer to that question?

I don't mind that you're a housewife in the slightest. As long as you can provide for yourself and your family somehow than that is good. The social and emotional education of one's child should always be most important. If one has the financial means of course.

However when it comes to your other worldviews i whole-heartedly disagree. Equality for all regardless of sexual orientation or gender identification is something i find very important. Without becoming too political here, i believe that gay people should have the same rights as straight people. There is nothing that makes them less capable of being loving spouses and parents. 

If you write the world in such a way that it makes a statement against these things then i would certainly put the book down and never read it again. Your ideas as a writer might be uncompromisable, but then you should also accept that i won't compromise mine as a reader either.


----------



## Deleted member 4265

Russ said:


> And with television and movies I think there are very serious issues with the way both gender and race and represented, and I am grateful for educated consumers and activists who point this out.



It's true you don't have to know how to fix something to know there is a problem. I don't have a problem with people people bemoaning the lack of diversity in TV and movies or stating what they don't like, but I hate it when they expect pre-existing content to change because they think it has a problem. I hate a great number of "strong" female characters. I rant about them constantly, but I understand that this is my personal opinion and not a problem other people should be addressing. It is not the author's job to fix their portrayals of women because I don't like it. They should be able to portray woman however they want no matter how offensive I find it. I can say I don't like it, but rather than asking them to change it, I should create original content that has female characters I do like.

You can tell people what you want, but don't expect them to make it. No one is obligated to meet your standards.


----------



## Mythopoet

Banten said:


> If you write the world in such a way that it makes a statement against these things then i would certainly put the book down and never read it again. Your ideas as a writer might be uncompromisable, but then you should also accept that i won't compromise mine as a reader either.



How about if I write in a world where my views on these things are just part of the background, never emphasized, but there are no homosexual relationships and no gender fluidity. Not as an agenda, but just missing from the way the world works. Would that bother you? Would you decline to read such stories?


----------



## Ban

Mythopoet said:


> How about if I write in a world where my views on these things are just part of the background, never emphasized, but there are no homosexual relationships and no gender fluidity. Not as an agenda, but just missing from the way the world works. Would that bother you? Would you decline to read such stories?



That wouldn't bother me at all. Most traditional fantasy has no such things whatsoever. The problem only comes when and if you write the world in a way that makes it seem like these things don't exist, because they're "wrong". If you are adamant about not portraying certain things than make sure you go all the way and never even mention them. Better yet don't even come close to mentioning them, because people will criticise you for it if you do. And as a beginning writer you certainly do not need that kind of negativity in reviews.


----------



## NerdyCavegirl

I'm in a very different though similar position. I was raised Catholic and Evangelist, but while I agree with many things in the Bible, I realized a long time ago that it is fundamentally flawed. While inspired by God, it was transmitted through the human brain. I now consider myself a primitivist/rewilder both spiritually and politically, and you can't get anymore traditional than that. I believe that through cunning and/or hard work, men and women are capable of attaining equality in many areas, but that we were designed for different tasks. I enjoy sewing, cooking, and gardening as much as I like stalking someone in the woods and attacking them. I don't believe in marriage, but energy has no set gender and all consensual love is valid. I'm bi, many other natural species are, and I've always thought exclusive homosexuality to be a safeguard against overpopulation, which is a major problem and why I'm also an antinatalist. I'm sure my work reflects all of this and I don't care.


----------



## Russ

Miskatonic said:


> And who determines whether a book should or shouldn't have diversity?
> 
> Give me an example of a book being harmful because it ignores diversity.



The answer to your first question is "the consumer."

I would rather not give specific examples because that is simply  unfair to the author and that is not what I am trying to achieve.  But the simplest example is a book set in the modern US in which the MC never encounters any gay or characters of colour of significance despite travelling and encountering many people.

That would be at the simplest and least harmful level.  It gets worse from there.


----------



## Russ

Devouring Wolf said:


> You can tell people what you want, but don't expect them to make it. No one is obligated to meet your standards.



Absolutely.  But I can chose not to buy their product, I can encourage other people not to buy their product, I can publically criticize their product and I can suggest how they can make their product better.  I can also tell their publisher or sponsors that I find their product deficient or offensive.

Last time I checked there was not PC oversight committee that controlled the publishing/broadcasting industry.  There are just people trying to influence those industries, some who you might call progressive and some who you might call conservative.


----------



## Miskatonic

Russ said:


> The answer to your first question is "the consumer."
> 
> I would rather not give specific examples because that is simply  unfair to the author and that is not what I am trying to achieve.  But the simplest example is a book set in the modern US in which the MC never encounters any gay or characters of colour of significance despite travelling and encountering many people.
> 
> That would be at the simplest and least harmful level.  It gets worse from there.



I don't consider a consumer, as I said previously, someone who pays little to no attention to the story or the quality of the story, and instead focuses entirely on whether it meets some diversity standard. To me that looks more like an idealist looking for ammunition to condemn and shame an author, or the company that published the book. 

So every time someone travels they are guaranteed to run into a particular group of people? And what if they have a negative opinion of these people and state it in no uncertain terms? Is that harmful as well?

And what if consumers have no interest in increasing diversity? Are they "uneducated" consumers then?


----------



## Miskatonic

Russ said:


> Absolutely.  But I can chose not to buy their product, I can encourage other people not to buy their product, I can publically criticize their product and I can suggest how they can make their product better.  I can also tell their publisher or sponsors that I find their product deficient or offensive.
> 
> Last time I checked there was not PC oversight committee that controlled the publishing/broadcasting industry.  There are just people trying to influence those industries, some who you might call progressive and some who you might call conservative.



Better according to your subjective beliefs. 

Progressive is another one of these terms that I wish would be replaced. As it stands it connotes only a positive. As if the alternative is backwards and negative.


----------



## Steerpike

Seems to me that books with traditional roles do just fine in the marketplace. It's nice that those aren't the only books we have, and I can understand why authors want more and more to break out of that mold. But there's nothing wrong with writing those stories if that's what you want to write. If the book is good, I'll read it whether the gender roles are traditional or not.


----------



## Miskatonic

Steerpike said:


> Seems to me that books with traditional roles do just fine in the marketplace. It's nice that those aren't the only books we have, and I can understand why authors want more and more to break out of that mold. But there's nothing wrong with writing those stories if that's what you want to write. If the book is good, I'll read it whether the gender roles are traditional or not.



I'm a huge Clive Barker fan and he has dealt with sexuality in a wide variety of ways. I'd say he was rather ahead of his times when it comes to introducing characters of different sexual orientations, both as MC's and supporting characters. Especially in the horror genre.


----------



## Russ

Miskatonic said:


> Better according to your subjective beliefs.



In the world of writing, and human nature,  one should be prepared to accept that subjective beliefs are very important.

If you are looking for true objective evaluations of your product, writing fiction is the wrong field.


----------



## DeathtoTrite

Mythopoet said:


> How about if I write in a world where my views on these things are just part of the background, never emphasized, but there are no homosexual relationships and no gender fluidity. Not as an agenda, but just missing from the way the world works. Would that bother you? Would you decline to read such stories?



Not at all. Plenty of authors have done this just fine. Hunger Games and Harry Potter both come to mind (barring later statements by J.K. Rowling). Game of Thrones just sort of has gay characters more as a ''historical'' note than political statement.

I have a story set in Victorian England, featuring no obvious LGBT characters. Racism is rampant. I don't condone either of these things, but I'm not going to make all the important characters my mouthpiece for everything wrong with that time and place.


----------



## Brithel

As long as it is not forced down the readers throat or mentioned in a way that suggests that this state of affairs (women being housewives etc.) is some kind of universal truth that applies to real life (by which I mean make it too preachy) I see no reason to not to have it. The most flack I imagine you'd receive is if women are presented as mere household objects, but expect that wouldn't be the case. If they receive characterisation it should be fine. 

I, personally, have never cared all too much about the 'pc-ness' of things and I expect the mass market cares less than I do, so it shouldnt be much of an issue.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

Speaking as a straight male I find this entire debate a little off target. There are several problems that stick out. 

The first can be summed up in the old mantra - "write what you know". I would not write a gay character etc, because I simply don't know how to. I have some friends who are gay, and I suppose I could ask, but really what I know is not that world so in attempting to write it I would probably be doing it a disservice. I try to write women well but even I know that when I do I'm really writing them as men with lipstick etc. I cannot get into the mindset of a woman. Having said that I once got rung up by my editor and thanked profusely for writing a strong self sacrificing female character - something that shocked me since she normally rings me up to abuse me!

The second thing that strikes me as not really well considered is this underlying assumption that there is one homogenous audience. There isn't. The world is comprised of individuals, and whatever you write is going to be received well by some and badly by others. Lets take this out of the realm of womens lib for the moment and simply look at magic. People love Harry Potter right? Well there are in fact whole protest movements against him because he is "in league with the devil etc".

Catch 22 - one of my favourite books ever - was lambasted as anti-establishment / communist / anti America and strangely to me another one Stranger in a Strange Land got similar treatment. Yet both were also powerfully supported by communities of readers. Clockwork Orange which I haven't read gets similar responces from the other side of the political spectrum. The authors dared to write some things that were controversial and got both praised and cursed by extremely loud vocal minorities. But I would guess that since the books were commercial successes, the majority of readers simply enjoyed the books for themselves and ignored the other stuff.

Last, there is the idea in this thread that you can simply write to please your readers. I don't think you can. Writing is communication and communication is about spreading messages that others will agree and / or disagree with. It really doesn't matter what you write, someone, potentially someone with a loud voice, is going to take issue with it. 

One of my books - Wildling - has a review on it that actually scares me. The reader goes so far as to say he objects to my character's acceptance of guilt for a brutal killing he carried out. Personally that shocked me. The idea that someone could do what he did no matter how necessary and not feel something like guilt, shame and remorse does not sit well with me. But I do not respond and I do not let the opinion phase me. I wrote my character as I know and I am comfortable with him and the way he thinks. 

If some of my readers aren't happy I cannot stop them being so or saying bad things. As long as others are happy with it and say so, than I'm happy. Though actually that's not correct. I could stop them. I could simply never publish a book. Though that seems rather self defeating!

My avice is write the books as you want and as you feel is right, and then give them to the world and stop worrying about what people think of them. Some may call them anti this or pro that. There's nothing you can do about that save not to publish.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Mythopoet

Yeah, I wasn't looking for practical advice or anything. I was just interested in an intellectual discussion. Clearly I failed so I don't know.


----------



## Chessie

Hi, I'm rather late to this conversation (been killing Deathclaws in the Wasteland of Boston, ahem) but this is an interesting discussion. 

Mytho, what it boils down to is the same righteous advice as always, write what YOU want to write with a specific audience in mind. It's great that there's such a trend towards diversity in literature. More people get what they'd like to read. However, that doesn't mean that traditionalist views are dead, or that you have to write about social issues that you aren't comfortable with because it's the trend. I don't see it as being trendy, but more authors exploring ideas that are becoming more socially acceptable. 

There's a certain style/brand that we all lean towards in our writing. That's what we should stick to because it's where the heart of our art comes from. We do better writing about certain topics versus others. For example, I love to write about messed up heroines. I pretty much only write from the female perspective (although I enjoy writing from the male perspective too). But the reason I do this is because that's what I'm into. Women who have various issues and change over the course of the story. There are certain moral/social/thematic issues that I enjoy exploring in my stories that make them mine.

Other writers explore ideas that call to them, and readers who are into those ideas buy their books. Readers who want to read what I write buy my books, etc. There's a market for everything out there. Write a book to the best of your potential, polish it, beautify it with a nice cover, write follow up books, and market them. That's the formula. The content inside of those books will call to a specific audience, YOUR audience, and they'll look to your books for a certain feel and mind play. 

What I'm saying is, don't think that you have to write anything you don't feel comfortable with or understand. I have no idea what it's like being any person other than a Hispanic female in her 30s, a mother, and wife. Therefore, my stories explore themes that come from my life experiences of addiction, co-dependency, marriage, whatever.


----------



## Russ

Devouring Wolf said:


> I have no problem with people not liking something and not buying it. I support people's right to criticize and make suggestions. However, *I do find it incredibly annoying when people boycott something that in no way really effects them*. If you don't like something, don't read it, but too often the people who dislike something attack others for liking something they personally dislike or find offensive. I have a "live and let live" philosophy which a lot of social justice warriors don't seem to understand.



I find this approach so strange, a complete abdication of responsibility.

As a straight white CIS well off male almost no social issues really effect me.  Does that mean I should stand by and not act when I see something happening when I think it is wrong?  

Many people, me included, feel we have a responsibility to make society or the world a better place rather than simply stick our head in the sand when others are being harmed.

The "live and let live philosophy" you appear to espouse is actually quite frightening.  

I kind of like the term "social justice warrior".  If social justice is not worth fighting for...what is?


----------



## Devor

I want to say that I'm in a similar situation to Mythopoet as a traditional Catholic.  I'm not too concerned with traditional gender roles in my writing, but I also want the women in my stories to read as though their gender is a real part of them as characters, and not a simple interchangeable piece of the character's background.  That can mean different things for different characters.

I've said this before, but my primary focus in this area is to do right by my readers.  I'm not concerned about social movements or pushing a political message or worrying about hitting a checkbox ideal.  I don't have the emotional energy to get worked up about what anyone else is doing in their writing.  But I want my work to appeal to as many people as possible.  I want readers to be able to relate to the characters, and not feel "put off" because *they're too much of one thing and that has to mean this, that or whatever* (a statement which people will feel for things other than just ethnic or gender diversity).

That is, there's room in many books for both Hermione Granger and Molly Weasley, so let's not get too heavy handed.


----------



## DMThaane

Russ said:


> I find this approach so strange, a complete abdication of responsibility.
> 
> As a straight white CIS well off male almost no social issues really effect me.  Does that mean I should stand by and not act when I see something happening when I think it is wrong?
> 
> Many people, me included, feel we have a responsibility to make society or the world a better place rather than simply stick our head in the sand when others are being harmed.
> 
> The "live and let live philosophy" you appear to espouse is actually quite frightening.
> 
> I kind of like the term "social justice warrior".  If social justice is not worth fighting for...what is?



And what about when fighting isn't the answer? The problem with the 'social justice warrior', if such a thing can be said to exist, is not that they fight for what they believe in but that all they do is fight. All they do is engage and attack with no thought, consideration, or reflection. Believing oneself justified is not the same as pursuing justice. Do most of these self-righteous petitions and boycotts really make the world a better place or do they just make us feel better about ourselves?

At the end of the day I believe that we have a responsibility, be it motivated by morals, ethics, or simple pragmatism, to make society or the world a better place but that doesn't mean attacking a bigot simply for being a bigot. It means seeking to understand the world, analysing it, identifying effective strategies for accomplishing lasting change, identifying (as much as possible) the _actual_ effects of this change, and implanting those strategies that prove a positive influence. Good intentions are useful for paving a road to hell but it's good methods that help build a better world.

Sorry for drifting slightly off topic but I see that argument so often and wanted to respond with something slightly intelligibly.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Devor said:


> I also want the women in my stories to read as though their gender is a real part of them as characters, and not a simple interchangeable piece of the character's background.


^Well put.

When I write a woman, she's a woman. When I write "man in a dress," that's my failure to make a female character strong without making her masculine.

I probably have done (and continue to do) things that are off-putting to some, but I do try to write characters who are not defined by gender or sexuality. When it comes to love, lust, sex, nudity... I try to treat a female character no differently than I would treat a male character.

As a writer, I've always preferred to keep my nude scenes non-sexual, love/lust as feelings, and sex scenes I've written can be counted on thumbs and I plan to keep it that way.

As a reader, I'm more open. I can't think of what I don't like about a given "type" of female character. If she's a bad character, it may be she was written as a man in a dress or token female, or she's just badly written and gender has nothing to do with the turn-off.


----------



## Russ

DMThaane said:


> And what about when fighting isn't the answer? The problem with the 'social justice warrior', if such a thing can be said to exist, is not that they fight for what they believe in but that all they do is fight. All they do is engage and attack with no thought, consideration, or reflection. Believing oneself justified is not the same as pursuing justice. Do most of these self-righteous petitions and boycotts really make the world a better place or do they just make us feel better about ourselves?
> 
> At the end of the day I believe that we have a responsibility, be it motivated by morals, ethics, or simple pragmatism, to make society or the world a better place but that doesn't mean attacking a bigot simply for being a bigot. It means seeking to understand the world, analysing it, identifying effective strategies for accomplishing lasting change, identifying (as much as possible) the _actual_ effects of this change, and implanting those strategies that prove a positive influence. Good intentions are useful for paving a road to hell but it's good methods that help build a better world.



In the first part of your post I think you put too literal an interpretation on the word "fighting."  For instance both Ghandi and MLK eschewed violence per se but both could be said to be fighting for people's rights.

There is no doubt that some people act in an ignorant, uniformed or overly aggressive fashion.  How one fights for social justice needs to change from case to case and situation to situation.  But a fight it is.  There are lots of people who are embarassingly ignorant, aggressive and vulgar in their claimed pursuit of social justice.  But just because some of the people who support the promotion of equality and freedom are misguided, despicable, selfish, egotistical morons, does not mean that the pursuit of social justice is any less worthy an endevour.

Which tactics are effective for which cause, at which time, is a much longer more complex discussion, likely not suited for this site.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Chesterama said:


> Hi, I'm rather late to this conversation (been killing Deathclaws in the Wasteland of Boston, ahem) but this is an interesting discussion.


What's happening in Boston? See? This is why I go to Quincy for Dim Sum. First it was the pigeons pooping on my daughter's face, and now we have Death Claws.


Uh... on topic, it's interesting that you prefer to write "messed up heroines." Not a bad thing; you have a type of character you enjoy writing and there's nothing wrong with that. I think if you write a type you enjoy, the character will be strong. (Readers want variety; they read the works of many writers.)

I tend to write characters that mean well and fight to protect the innocent rather than for collecting a bounty. There's no wrong reason to be the heroine. She just needs a flaw to be relatable. You choose addiction or whatever makes her messed up, while my heroine might be too inexperienced to fully understand the dangers surrounding her.


----------



## Nimue

Russ said:


> There are lots of people who are embarassingly ignorant, aggressive and vulgar in their claimed pursuit of social justice.  But just because some of the people who support the promotion of equality and freedom are misguided, despicable, selfish, egotistical morons, does not mean that the pursuit of social justice is any less worthy an endevour.



It's so strange to me to see the conversation turn to how awful and combative SJWs are when there's so many people attacking from the other side.  And not just the hate out there on the internet--there's been a lot on this forum over the last couple of days, to the point where I feel kind of appalled and incredibly unwelcome.

This entire thread is everyone except Russ attacking the very idea of trying to bring social progress into fantasy writing.  People who are looking for progressive fantasy are just "annoying", "offensive", "self-righteous", etc, etc.  Not to mention other threads--



NerdyCavegirl said:


> The prissy made-up damsel-in-distress type is pretty bad, but I prefer it over the Feminazi. Especially the ones who use it as an excuse to be bad cooks and have filthy houses, who think they're entitled to more and more in the name of equality, and who claim to be strong independent women but blame men for violent crime rather than have the common sense and initiative to harden their bodies and learn the skills to defend themselves.





Daughter of Hell said:


> Female characters in fantasy. I hate seeing feminist statements. Too many authors try to make their female protagonists as an ode to feminism.



Well, cool.  I'm a feminist, and it sounds like I should go jump off a cliff.

I don't know.  I need a break from this site.  It's possible that I'm being too sensitive about this, but it's hard to shrug it off when every other new post is a veiled insult towards "SJWs" or "Feminazis".  I don't know if it's backlash from other threads, but there seems to be just this massive upswell against anything liberal or progressive.  If you don't agree with modern social justice movements, fine, but is it really necessary to cast people as villains?   Are these the conversations that we want to have here?

How much sympathy is left for people who still like traditional gender roles?  Don't worry about that, there's plenty.  Sympathy in the other direction is feeling very scarce on the ground.


----------



## Chessie

Nimue said:


> *This entire thread is everyone except Russ* attacking the very idea of trying to bring social progress into fantasy writing.  People who are looking for progressive fantasy are just "annoying", "offensive", "self-righteous", etc, etc.


Making blanket statements like this are what's part of the problem. In my response, I mentioned that writers are exploring ideas that have become more socially acceptable and that's a good thing. I never said any of the things you mention in your response so I'd like to be kept out of it. I'm not a feminist but have no problem with others identifying themselves as such. People have a right to believe what they want and I'm always going to be respectful of their view points, so I'd like the same in return. 

I have mad respect for authors putting their work out there and creating a readership. Being a writer is so freaking hard, whether or not you do it full time. If anything, all of us should be supporting one another in this endeavor. Great minds think alike, right? And what a better thing to align us all than writing fantasy fiction and entertaining readers? Come on you guys. Love.


----------



## Chessie

Legendary Sidekick said:


> I tend to write characters that mean well and fight to protect the innocent rather than for collecting a bounty. There's no wrong reason to be the heroine. She just needs a flaw to be relatable. You choose addiction or whatever makes her messed up, while my heroine might be too inexperienced to fully understand the dangers surrounding her.


Having a character you can relate to is important whether it's a man, woman, dog, or monster. I draw up characters by choosing a theme and idea to explore, make that into a flaw, then draft up a character and story that best fits the idea I want to explore. It just so happens that I'm fascinated by broken spirits and how people rise out of that.


----------



## Steerpike

NOTE:

This topic can be discussed civilly and with respect, and that's how it should be approached. Fantasy, as a genre, is a huge tent. There is plenty of room for traditional stories, as well as stories that explore different takes on gender, sexuality, etc. There's a tremendous body of great fantasy and SF that explores these latter topics. As writers we should be able to discuss what we like and don't like about these works, and what they're attempting, without resorting to insults or derogatory language.

Words like "Feminazi" don't have any place in such a discussion, other than as an insult. Maybe the same is true of SJW - I don't take it as an insult, but it often seems, in context, to be offered as one. That level of discourse doesn't have a place on Mythic Scribes, so please refrain from it. Even if you want to argue against those kinds of works your comments should be made substantively, and without the use of such language.

Thank you.


----------



## Nimue

Chesterama said:


> Making blanket statements like this are what's part of the problem. In my response, I mentioned that writers are exploring ideas that have become more socially acceptable and that's a good thing. I never said any of the things you mention in your response so I'd like to be kept out of it. I'm not a feminist but have no problem with others identifying themselves as such. People have a right to believe what they want and I'm always going to be respectful of their view points, so I'd like the same in return.



I'm sorry, I think that was an overexaggeration.  It seems as though this discussion started out fairly well or at least neutrally, but somewhere in the middle the conversation turned from offering Mytho reassurance and, well, sympathy about what she wants to open hostility towards people who want something different from their fantasy.  It's the nature of something like this that it will attract more extreme views, but I was genuinely blindsided by the tone that emerged here & elsewhere.  It's not something I'm used to seeing in this corner of the internet.


----------



## Guy

Nimue said:


> This entire thread is everyone except Russ attacking the very idea of trying to bring social progress into fantasy writing.  People who are looking for progressive fantasy are just "annoying", "offensive", "self-righteous", etc, etc.  Not to mention other threads--
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I need a break from this site.  It's possible that I'm being too sensitive about this, but it's hard to shrug it off when every other new post is a veiled insult towards "SJWs" or "Feminazis".  I don't know if it's backlash from other threads,


I think that's part of it. Over the time I've been here I've read an awful lot of threads that gave (to me, at least) the impression that if your story doesn't have some sort of progressive idea in it, you're failing as a writer. I don't object to stories that have progressive messages, but I think it's silly for it to be a requirement. If a writer wants to send such a message, all well and good. Have at it. But I reject the notion that a story *must* have a progressive message/theme/whatever. And the hazard that looms large in writing a story with a message is that the author goes from telling a story to delivering a sermon. 

Gender roles is a common theme that is bandied about here. It's not a topic that particularly interests me, but I think the Dragonsword Trilogy by Gail Baudino did a beautiful job of exploring it. An elite band of warriors in an ultrapatriarchal society is hit with powerful magic by an enemy sorcerer and turned into women. Most of these warriors, these uber manly men, were so devastated they committed suicide. The survivors responded in a number of ways. The captain of the troop adjusted to life as a woman, remaining a warrior yet gradually finding herself falling in love with a man. Others, also women who remained warriors, were attracted to women, and these relationships were portrayed quite beautifully. None of these characters were in the story for shock value or the token LGBT character. They were well realized, fully fleshed out characters. Another character was an uber "feminazi" and quite obnoxious about it - she was marinated in hate. But as the story progressed the reader finds out why she was like that, and then we get to see her confront that unpleasant aspect of herself and make a conscious choice to leave it behind to become someone better. I, someone who has no interest in themes of gender roles, was fascinated by how the author handled them. If an author has a message to send, this is how it should be done. All too often it becomes heavy-handed and preachy. That, I think, is what a lot of people here object to. That and in trying too hard to be progressive and diverse, their "diverse" characters end up as stereotypical caricatures of the demographic they want to portray, thus defeating the purpose of diversity.


----------



## Incanus

psychotick said:


> The second thing that strikes me as not really well considered is this underlying assumption that there is one homogenous audience. There isn't. The world is comprised of individuals, and whatever you write is going to be received well by some and badly by others. Lets take this out of the realm of womens lib for the moment and simply look at magic. People love Harry Potter right? Well there are in fact whole protest movements against him because he is "in league with the devil etc".
> 
> Last, there is the idea in this thread that you can simply write to please your readers. I don't think you can. Writing is communication and communication is about spreading messages that others will agree and / or disagree with. It really doesn't matter what you write, someone, potentially someone with a loud voice, is going to take issue with it.
> 
> My avice is write the books as you want and as you feel is right, and then give them to the world and stop worrying about what people think of them. Some may call them anti this or pro that. There's nothing you can do about that save not to publish.



Well said (the quote above is abridged from the original).  This is why I mostly don't participate much in threads that talk about what the contents of a project should or shouldn't be (well, except for right now).

I know what I want to include in my stories.  I'm not going to change those things whether people badger me about them or not, or praise me for them or not.  The way I see it, if I change the content of my story to please the perceived preference of some group or another, I'm likely going to displease some other group.  I see no compelling reason to try to swap one potential audience for another.  If I stick to what I know and the things I want to comment on in the first place, I'm largely in the same boat anyway, but without the disengenuousness.

Also, I intend for my stories to raise questions, not provide answers.


----------



## Nimue

Okay, I think we agree on some points--diversity should be meaningful and well-written and not simply token. (Although I really wish you could find *some* way to do that without comparing an entire political movement to Nazism, which among other things is disrespectful of the actual Holocaust.)

However, regarding the proliferation of threads about writing diversely, I think they're just more necessary than threads about writing the same old.  Many of us here don't have a lot of experience writing about groups outside of our own.  It makes sense to have threads to talk about how to describe skin tone respectfully and how to use non gender binary pronouns when writing.  These are new questions, and ones we need to muddle through and ask for sources.

Absolutely, you can start a thread saying "I'm writing with a cast of all straight white characters!" And the response would be "okay, cool...?"  Because that topic doesn't need advice and resources.  It's been built into fantasy writing in the West since its inception.

I guess I can see how, if you hang out on the Internet a lot, this might seem like an imbalance.  But only if you don't look beyond the very thinnest surface!  Acceptance and encouragement of writing white, straight characters is everywhere, it's implicit in everything.  If you really feel like there's too much of an emphasis on diversity... Go to the bookstore or the library and look at what's there.  Talk to the average person.  Maybe accept that writing discussions and writing blogs are going to focus on new and salient issues.

Christ, that's rambling.  I'm not sure there's anything more I can say about this without repeating myself until I go hoarse.  I'm traveling at the moment, and should probably focus on that--Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.


----------



## Miskatonic

Guy said:


> I think that's part of it. Over the time I've been here I've read an awful lot of threads that gave (to me, at least) the impression that if your story doesn't have some sort of progressive idea in it, you're failing as a writer. I don't object to stories that have progressive messages, but I think it's silly for it to be a requirement. If a writer wants to send such a message, all well and good. Have at it. But I reject the notion that a story *must* have a progressive message/theme/whatever. And the hazard that looms large in writing a story with a message is that the author goes from telling a story to delivering a sermon.



You aren't the only one. That's been my impression from the beginning.


----------



## Russ

Guy said:


> I think that's part of it. Over the time I've been here I've read an awful lot of threads that gave (to me, at least) the impression that if your story doesn't have some sort of progressive idea in it, you're failing as a writer.



I love a good "impression" as much as the next guy.  But has anybody actually said that?


----------



## Guy

Russ said:


> I love a good "impression" as much as the next guy.  But has anybody actually said that?


One does not have to explicitly state an idea in order to communicate that idea. And there have been entire threads devoted to fantasy having certain progressive ideals and the many virtues that entails.


----------



## Russ

Guy said:


> One does not have to explicitly state an idea in order to communicate that idea. And there have been entire threads devoted to fantasy having certain progressive ideals and the many virtues that entails.



I thought so.


----------



## Guy

Russ said:


> I thought so.


Meaning what?


----------



## Caged Maiden

Going back to the original question (because I too am late to the conversation), I'd like to say that I tend to write different things based on my goals.  I think even if an author, whether he be an Agnostic gay white male, or she is a Catholic housewife and mother, has a comfort level, that is their comfort level and it's no one else's business to say they should or must write outside it.  There are multitudes of career-women who make a decent living writing historical romance, and their books do not at all reflect their personal lives or professional pursuits.  Just as there are many straight white men who have made great writing careers out of writing completely made-up worlds of fiction where gender roles are abandoned and the characters aren't even human. 

 If YOU want to write books about elves who are genderless and procreate by creating children out of sand and asking the gods to bless their sculpture with a soul, GREAT!  If YOU want to write a story about a convent in 14th century France that is attacked by a demon and the nuns hire a band of brutish mercenaries to protect them, WONDERFUL! If YOU feel like writing a gay man as an airship captain, and he's black and has an opium addiction, AWESOME!  The thing is, it's about an individual's comfort level, and while I could see myself writing any of these, my tone and style would be adapted in each to perform a specific job and deal with the issues at hand.  My genderless elves might have a view of sexuality very contrary to my nuns or my airship captain, and that's fine if I FEEL I can accomplish my goals.  But if YOU feel like you can't write it or have no desire to, that's okay.  NO writer should ever feel like they MUST include any elements in their fiction that they're uncomfortable with. Readers have comfort levels too!

 However, I think what the majority of people are trying to say, is that if you don't FEEL like writing a gay captain and a bunch of scared nuns who hire men to save them, or elves who have more problems than the continuation of their species, then don't feel like you MUST pander to people who desire to read about something you don't feel you could produce.

There are readers who probably specifically search out stories with homosexual main characters, as there are readers who would immediately shun those stories and favor something with more traditional family values, and that's not meant to imply they're Christian readers or whatever. It's up to each writer to decide what their comfort level is, and while I take a pretty open viewpoint of what my own comfort level is, I'd never call a writer "limited" for choosing material within their own comfort level.  If we look at books that sell, there are arguments for any viewpoint, and I think it's up to each individual to not only be true to their own personal beliefs, but to push the boundaries if they feel inclined to.  Consumers will speak if they feel a line has been crossed, or not crossed far enough, but that's not why we write, is it?  I mean, if I had to write a book that felt sympathetic to an issue to which I wasn't sympathetic, I imagine the resulting story would just suck.

If you feel traditional gender roles is important to you (I'm a housewife and mother of four kids, too), then leave gender roles as you see them.  I appreciate the life I have.  Without an immensely supportive and hard-working husband, I wouldn't have any of the freedoms I currently enjoy.  But that's not to say I believe my traditional role is the only valid one.  I appreciate all the women who make great strides to promoting equality in the workplace and in society.  

I also appreciate how people who are affected by gay marriage feel, because it's something that is important to them, even though it doesn't affect me personally.  I want all people to enjoy freedom and equality, but when it comes down to my own writing, I can only write what I think is right for a character.  And for the record, I've never written a gay main character into a novel, not because I am somehow against the thought, but because when I write, I tend to stick with my instincts, and I just don't want the story to somehow become a study of that aspect of the human condition.  I don't personally feel like it's my inclination to publicly explore something I don't personally feel I can relate to.

And one last note, I think all writers come across this in some form or fashion.  One of my personal feelings revolves around alcohol.  I have friends who drink a lot.  I have friends who can't have fun without a bottle in their hands.  But I personally don't drink often if at all, and that affects my writing.  I do mention drunkenness, but it's usually a negative sentiment in my stories.  I can imagine this is something many people don't give a lot of thought to, but I consider very carefully how I portray things like vice, and while I've written a fair amount of addicts (of various substances) and drunks, I wouldn't expect it's a subject that gets a lot of attention on writer forums (compared to sexuality and race...and I know these things are not equal because substance abuse is a choice vs. inborn trait, so please don't read too far into this message), but my point is, it's impossible to write without sometimes putting your own personal thoughts into your work. Would anyone be offended that I take a negative view of an opium-addicted young lady, or a character choosing to drown his sorrows, or a character ending up in a situation he can't control when he's drunk?  I hope not.  But because sexuality is a thing that's so personal, it's easy to find objections to portrayals.  It can anger folks who have opposing views.  And let's face it, some folks are just unhappy with a lot of things.

Basically, if you have traditional family values and you feel that's something you aren't willing to compromise, look then to works that feature those values, and see what's important to those readers.  It doesn't in any way take you out of the game.  It's just who you are, and there are loads of people just like you out there.  Just as there are a lot of people who believe portraying gay characters is important, or people of their race, or people who thwart traditional gender roles. If you write a good story with whatever values you choose, the right readers will pay you for your efforts.  Just like I hope they will pay me for whatever inspired me to write today.

Best wishes.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

I have zero issue with your position. They are your stories, your worlds, your books, your characters. Fantasy fiction has had a bad rep with Christians in general, Tolkien had to deal with that... all magic is magic of the devil, that sort of thing. CS Lewis tap-danced around it too. 

As a fantasy writer/reader I believe in being true to your world and yourself. And if writing the real world, be true to that also. I once was writing a Western screenplay in a UCLA class that used real world historical figures. One of them was a black guy known by the name N***** Jim. He is actually a relatively famous black cowboy, and he had zero problem with the N-word, but then, in the 1870's it just wasn't the same. Even his tombstone has that name on it. So, when writing the character I gave his name, and immediately I got the 20-21st century reaction of him getting into a fist fight with anyone who dared call him that... and I was like, nooooo, the real person did not care, it was what they called him on cattle drives, it simply was not offensive. This was a running battle I had with that script, but at no point would that have kept the thing from selling. That reminds me I should actually finish that script or novelize it, it was really a good tale of historic fiction. But I digress! 

The moral is, you always get a certain amount of flack no matter what, even when speaking of historic fact! but be true yourself, and be true to your story, those are the things that matter.


----------



## psychotick

Hi, 

Devouring, jut to take issue with your last paragraph. Actually there are ideas that can cause harm. Immense harm. Nietzsche's uberman was the idea used as a justification for the rise of the Third Reich / Hitler and his ideal of the ayrian man. Marx's ideals about communism etc have been used as the basis for any number of corrupt political agendas / tyrannies.

My thought is that ideas do have power, and as authors we have to consider that. To think what might be potential impact upon readers of what we write. I'm not saying don't write it. But I am saying think about the message your work sends. Do you want to be glorifying pedophilia? Justifying personal drug use? Promoting racism?

Writing objectionable characters doing objectionable things is one thing. But promoting objectionable ideals is another.

I think as authors we always have to consider the impact of what we write. Remember Stephen King pulled his book Rage from the shelves after the sudden advent of school shootings was rightly or wrongly attributed to it.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Steerpike

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> Devouring, jut to take issue with your last paragraph. Actually there are ideas that can cause harm. Immense harm. Nietzsche's uberman was the idea used as a justification for the rise of the Third Reich / Hitler and his ideal of the ayrian man.



A misreading of Nietzsche, I'd submit.


----------



## skip.knox

Mythopoet said:


> My recent observations is that the outspoken fan community has become much more outspoken about what they want out of stories, and often what they want is a very modern approach, regardless of genre.



I think that is true of any fan community. The voices you tend to hear are those that are the most strident. Were you to go to your local library and simply buttonhole patrons there, I believe you would come away with a rather different impression.

I'm male, straight, 64 years old. I'm a historian. I play guitar. Not sure any of that is relevant, but since we're discussing people by groups, I figured I'd join in.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,



Steerpike said:


> A misreading of Nietzsche, I'd submit.



Actually no - not in my opinion. An unintended consequence of what he wrote. Freddy you have to remember was highly influenced by Wagner and he was thinking in terms of the ideals of the Greek heroes. He never foresaw how others would interpret his work.

But rather than getting into a debate about Freddy, he still wrote the basic idea of the ubersmensch and it was used to cause immense harm.

To use a personal example. I'm just in the process of editing my new book Banshee Hunt and in it one of the scenes is a sort of torture scene where a man is chained up has petrol poured over him, and then has matches thrown at him. Nasty I know. But in the original draft I explained that the reason it didn't light was that it was diesel that was actually used. So he was safe and it was just to scare him. Double checking revealed that there are certain circumstances under which diesel can actually light when matches are thrown at it - eg absorbtion into soil and fabrics. So I rewrote it to become "magic water" just to make certain that no one got the idea of trying it. Not from me anyway. It has been used elsewhere - "Vexed" for a start.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Annoyingkid

Mythopoet said:


> Lately, I have become increasingly aware of how much today's modern morals and worldview are pushed by fan communities and communities of writers. It seems to be becoming more and more expected that all writing should represent today's world. I can't do that. Is there still a place for my stories in this environment?



Yes, there is. There's clearly many Christian readers. That said, I would advise against the writer - regardless of what they believe - from being too in the limelight. We're supposed to be the people behind the curtain. Ideally the readers shouldn't know that much about you, because the goal of the writer is to disappear from the reader's consciousness when our characters are being read or viewed.


----------



## Steerpike

psychotick said:


> But rather than getting into a debate about Freddy, he still wrote the basic idea of the ubersmensch and it was used to cause immense harm.



Intentionally misused by his sister, as I recall. I don't think you can fault someone for the intentional distortion of their work.


----------



## pmmg

Annoyingkid said:


> Ideally the readers shouldn't know that much about you, because the goal of the writer is to disappear from the reader's consciousness when our characters are being read or viewed.



I wish many actors would take this same position... But this one is kind of old. I don't mind dragging them back out, but I suspect many of the attitudes on them have not changed very much.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

Mythopoet said:


> Let me get right to the point: I am a woman. I am a wife and a mother. I am a Christian (Catholic variety). And I still like traditional gender roles. I enjoy being a stay at home mom. I enjoy taking care of my children and my house rather than having a job or career. My only real aspirations are to have a healthy and happy family life and to become a self-published storyteller.
> 
> I enjoy being female and feminine. I like that my partner in life is male and masculine. I try my best to let my children, 2 girls and 3 boys, develop naturally but as a Catholic I do believe that human beings are either male or female, there is a distinct biological difference. Though I do not automatically subscribe to all of the male and female stereotypes of society. I prefer to think about such things for myself and decide whether they truly have anything to do with being male or female or whether they are just the image our warped society chooses to believe is male or female. I do, however, believe that only women can be mothers and only men can be fathers. And yes, I do believe that marriage is only between a man and a women, for their mutual spiritual edification and for the formation of a family.
> 
> Despite laying this all out, I don't want to argue or debate here about whether anything I believe is true. I'm 33 years old and I've spent the better part of the last 10+ years contemplating what I truly believe so it's not likely an argument on the internet is going to sway me.
> 
> No, what I want to know is, how much sympathy is there among writers and reader in today's society for someone like me who has such strongly founded beliefs and is not willing to compromise them?
> 
> I'm not going to write homosexual couples. I'm not going to represent any kind of gender fluidity in my writing. Nothing about my stories is going to celebrate anything that goes against Catholic doctrine. On the other hand, I have no intention of making my personal morals the center of my stories. I do not write Christian Fiction. I would say the way I approach it is closest to J. R. R. Tolkien. As he said, his LOTR was fundamentally Catholic, even though he went to great pains to keep "religion" out of it. Honestly, I prefer to focus on magic and adventure and universal themes.
> 
> Lately, I have become increasingly aware of how much today's modern morals and worldview are pushed by fan communities and communities of writers. It seems to be becoming more and more expected that all writing should represent today's world. I can't do that. Is there still a place for my stories in this environment?
> 
> I'm not likely to stop writing, whatever the answer. But I am curious. And I would really, really like this thread to not descend into flaming. Let's try to respect each other's beliefs as much as possible.



i don't know why this thread is back from the dead and my comments are probably totally out of place by now, but i am caught by the idea that personal beliefs about homosexuality being wrong have to mean that there are no homosexual characters. It interests me. Personally, I wouldn't feel that, by writing a LGBT character, I was necessarily saying anything about LGBT people other than that they exist. And...they do. 

I guess if you don't feel comfortable writing one, it's best to avoid; that's understandable. 

But i just thought about the idea that content of world/story=views of author. Must it be this way? 

Say I wrote a character who was racist. I didn't even paint them as an antagonist or a particularly unsympathetic character, apart from them being racist, of course. I don't think this character's existence would say anything about whether I was racist or not.


----------



## A. E. Lowan

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Say I wrote a character who was racist. I didn't even paint them as an antagonist or a particularly unsympathetic character, apart from them being racist, of course. I don't think this character's existence would say anything about whether I was racist or not.


That brings up a very interesting thought. We have a character in _Faerie Rising_, a protagonist, who _is_ racist. Deeply, openly so. Granted, it's towards a variety of fae, but still, he's racist and he gets called out on it time and time again.

What strikes me as surprising is how many of our readers never trip on it. And when I ask readers their thoughts on his racism, the most common answer is, "Well, I'm sure he has a reason." He doesn't. It's a kneejerk, ingrained response to his upbringing.


----------



## Mythopoet

Woah, look at this ancient thread back from the dead.



A. E. Lowan said:


> That brings up a very interesting thought. We have a character in _Faerie Rising_, a protagonist, who _is_ racist. Deeply, openly so. Granted, it's towards a variety of fae, but still, he's racist and he gets called out on it time and time again.
> 
> What strikes me as surprising is how many of our readers never trip on it. And when I ask readers their thoughts on his racism, the most common answer is, "Well, I'm sure he has a reason." He doesn't. It's a kneejerk, ingrained response to his upbringing.



I would suggest that this is mostly _because_ the racism is toward a creature that isn't human. It seems, in my experience, that readers are less likely to see it as related to real world racism if it involves a fantasy race. And this is probably due to the very complicated nature of racism which would really need its own thread to address.



DragonOfTheAerie said:


> i don't know why this thread is back from the dead and my comments are probably totally out of place by now, but i am caught by the idea that personal beliefs about homosexuality being wrong have to mean that there are no homosexual characters. It interests me. Personally, I wouldn't feel that, by writing a LGBT character, I was necessarily saying anything about LGBT people other than that they exist. And...they do.
> 
> I guess if you don't feel comfortable writing one, it's best to avoid; that's understandable.
> 
> But i just thought about the idea that content of world/story=views of author. Must it be this way?
> 
> Say I wrote a character who was racist. I didn't even paint them as an antagonist or a particularly unsympathetic character, apart from them being racist, of course. I don't think this character's existence would say anything about whether I was racist or not.



You know, it's been a long time since I wrote this post. I feel like the original post was partly my own knee jerk reaction. My beliefs haven't changed at all, but how I relate to these issues in the real world has, I think, developed. Part of me is cringing as I read the OP. For one thing, I would no longer say that I would _never_ write LGBT characters or relationships, though I'm still not _likely_ to. But I wouldn't rule it out.

Though the type of stories I write tend to be stories that focus on magic and mystery and adventure. Not stories where social issues like racism and gender are likely to even come up at all. Though part of the built in nature of my world is a worldview without our society's arbitrary associations of gender and what constitutes "feminine" or "masculine". And I also intend to build a different worldview about relationships in general into my world. I don't want it to be a world where any kind of physical touch automatically means romance or any type of non-blood related love automatically lead to sex. I want to subvert such assumptions and but also not make a big deal about it. I want a lot more nuance, but I also don't want that to be what my stories are _about_.

And I don't like labels. If I have a couple of girl characters who hold hands and cuddle when they desire physical affection, I don't want them to be labeled by default as lesbians. I don't want to label any of the relationships in my book. I don't think labels do any good in any world. Labels are for things, not people. People should never be treated like things.


----------



## Dark Squiggle

To answer the original question of this thread, I don't care whether the book I'm reading is LGBTQ or not. Sometimes it's interesting if there is a gay POV character, but otherwise, it changes the story very little.


Mythopoet said:


> Woah, look at this ancient thread back from the dead.
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest that this is mostly _because_ the racism is toward a creature that isn't human. It seems, in my experience, that readers are less likely to see it as related to real world racism if it involves a fantasy race. And this is probably due to the very complicated nature of racism which would really need its own thread to address..


It is complex, and applies any time two groups get together. My Grandmother is a great person, but she is racist in many ways. It is interesting to watch how she deals with friends of hers who should be "evil" in her book according to her racism. She writes them off as "not really" whatever, or if she's really stuck, she says they are an exception. Many people, possibly including myself are racist and don't know it. Racism is a far more complex thing than many people will admit.
.





Mythopoet said:


> And I don't like labels. If I have a couple of girl characters who hold hands and cuddle when they desire physical affection, I don't want them to be labeled by default as lesbians. I don't want to label any of the relationships in my book. I don't think labels do any good in any world. Labels are for things, not people. People should never be treated like things.


People give things labels. People understand things by chategorizing them and comparing them to other things. That's just how it works.


----------



## Mythopoet

Dark Squiggle said:


> .
> People give things labels. People understand things by chategorizing them and comparing them to other things. That's just how it works.



Yes, give _things_ labels by all means. But not people. People are not just part of categories or groups. Every person is too unique for that and it's precisely this labeling that leads to racism, etc. I know it's the human tendency. But that doesn't mean it's good. We should resist the urge to label when it comes to people.


----------



## Chessie2

Caged Maiden said:


> Going back to the original question (because I too am late to the conversation), I'd like to say that I tend to write different things based on my goals.  I think even if an author, whether he be an Agnostic gay white male, or she is a Catholic housewife and mother, has a comfort level, that is their comfort level and it's no one else's business to say they should or must write outside it.  There are multitudes of career-women who make a decent living writing historical romance, and their books do not at all reflect their personal lives or professional pursuits.  Just as there are many straight white men who have made great writing careers out of writing completely made-up worlds of fiction where gender roles are abandoned and the characters aren't even human.
> 
> If YOU want to write books about elves who are genderless and procreate by creating children out of sand and asking the gods to bless their sculpture with a soul, GREAT!  If YOU want to write a story about a convent in 14th century France that is attacked by a demon and the nuns hire a band of brutish mercenaries to protect them, WONDERFUL! If YOU feel like writing a gay man as an airship captain, and he's black and has an opium addiction, AWESOME!  The thing is, it's about an individual's comfort level, and while I could see myself writing any of these, my tone and style would be adapted in each to perform a specific job and deal with the issues at hand.  My genderless elves might have a view of sexuality very contrary to my nuns or my airship captain, and that's fine if I FEEL I can accomplish my goals.  But if YOU feel like you can't write it or have no desire to, that's okay.  NO writer should ever feel like they MUST include any elements in their fiction that they're uncomfortable with. Readers have comfort levels too!
> 
> However, I think what the majority of people are trying to say, is that if you don't FEEL like writing a gay captain and a bunch of scared nuns who hire men to save them, or elves who have more problems than the continuation of their species, then don't feel like you MUST pander to people who desire to read about something you don't feel you could produce.
> 
> There are readers who probably specifically search out stories with homosexual main characters, as there are readers who would immediately shun those stories and favor something with more traditional family values, and that's not meant to imply they're Christian readers or whatever. It's up to each writer to decide what their comfort level is, and while I take a pretty open viewpoint of what my own comfort level is, I'd never call a writer "limited" for choosing material within their own comfort level.  If we look at books that sell, there are arguments for any viewpoint, and I think it's up to each individual to not only be true to their own personal beliefs, but to push the boundaries if they feel inclined to.  Consumers will speak if they feel a line has been crossed, or not crossed far enough, but that's not why we write, is it?  I mean, if I had to write a book that felt sympathetic to an issue to which I wasn't sympathetic, I imagine the resulting story would just suck.
> 
> If you feel traditional gender roles is important to you (I'm a housewife and mother of four kids, too), then leave gender roles as you see them.  I appreciate the life I have.  Without an immensely supportive and hard-working husband, I wouldn't have any of the freedoms I currently enjoy.  But that's not to say I believe my traditional role is the only valid one.  I appreciate all the women who make great strides to promoting equality in the workplace and in society.
> 
> I also appreciate how people who are affected by gay marriage feel, because it's something that is important to them, even though it doesn't affect me personally.  I want all people to enjoy freedom and equality, but when it comes down to my own writing, I can only write what I think is right for a character.  And for the record, I've never written a gay main character into a novel, not because I am somehow against the thought, but because when I write, I tend to stick with my instincts, and I just don't want the story to somehow become a study of that aspect of the human condition.  I don't personally feel like it's my inclination to publicly explore something I don't personally feel I can relate to.
> 
> And one last note, I think all writers come across this in some form or fashion.  One of my personal feelings revolves around alcohol.  I have friends who drink a lot.  I have friends who can't have fun without a bottle in their hands.  But I personally don't drink often if at all, and that affects my writing.  I do mention drunkenness, but it's usually a negative sentiment in my stories.  I can imagine this is something many people don't give a lot of thought to, but I consider very carefully how I portray things like vice, and while I've written a fair amount of addicts (of various substances) and drunks, I wouldn't expect it's a subject that gets a lot of attention on writer forums (compared to sexuality and race...and I know these things are not equal because substance abuse is a choice vs. inborn trait, so please don't read too far into this message), but my point is, it's impossible to write without sometimes putting your own personal thoughts into your work. Would anyone be offended that I take a negative view of an opium-addicted young lady, or a character choosing to drown his sorrows, or a character ending up in a situation he can't control when he's drunk?  I hope not.  But because sexuality is a thing that's so personal, it's easy to find objections to portrayals.  It can anger folks who have opposing views.  And let's face it, some folks are just unhappy with a lot of things.
> 
> Basically, if you have traditional family values and you feel that's something you aren't willing to compromise, look then to works that feature those values, and see what's important to those readers.  It doesn't in any way take you out of the game.  It's just who you are, and there are loads of people just like you out there.  Just as there are a lot of people who believe portraying gay characters is important, or people of their race, or people who thwart traditional gender roles. If you write a good story with whatever values you choose, the right readers will pay you for your efforts.  Just like I hope they will pay me for whatever inspired me to write today.
> 
> Best wishes.


Pretty much level 100 post here. Thank you, Caged Maiden.


_"I also appreciate how people who are affected by gay marriage feel, because it's something that is important to them, even though it doesn't affect me personally. I want all people to enjoy freedom and equality, but when it comes down to my own writing, I can only write what I think is right for a character. And for the record, I've never written a gay main character into a novel, not because I am somehow against the thought, but because when I write, I tend to stick with my instincts, and I just don't want the story to somehow become a study of that aspect of the human condition. I don't personally feel like it's my inclination to publicly explore something I don't personally feel I can relate to."_

I just want to point out that this sums it up for me. Who people take to bed and what they do with their lives is none of my business. I'm a housewife as well and we have a son. My life is the same as a lot of women and different than a lot of them, too. But I LOVE what you mentioned about writing from instinct because it's the only way something good comes out of what I create! I can sit here and think about what it might be like to write a homosexual character, or a genderless character (sorry guys, I don't really get that too much, just being honest) but I won't do anyone or anything justice because it's not what I'm familiar with. I'm Hispanic but I write about white people (although the main character in one of my series is Hispanic lol). I write about aspects of the adult woman's life I understand and can answer to. As writers, we're also philosophers in a way. Our best work comes from answers we're trying to discover or share. Aspects of the human walk we're trying to share with our fellow humans: our readers.

So staying true to who you are and what you understand is the key to preserving our individuality in art. I think you hit the nail on the head, Maiden.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

Devouring Wolf said:


> Short answer: yes
> 
> Being able to write a sympathetic racist character implies a level of empathy. It implies you don't believe racism to arise from inherent evil. But ask yourself honestly if you could write a sympathetic, balanced portrayal of a pedophile, the head of a corporation, someone who doesn't care bout the environment, bullies, ect.
> 
> If you can really do all of those sympathetically you are a more compassionate person than I will ever be.



To be honest its hard not to feel some level of sympathy based on the fact that a person is...human. Maybe not all people share this though. 

I couldn't portray a pedophile, rapist, abuser of any sort, etc. sympathetically, but I guess that racism seems to me to be culturally ingrained evil that its perpetrators often aren't even completely conscious of. Even if a person wouldn't admit to hating people of a different skin color, and not even believe they do, they still might hold racist beliefs that they can't or don't or won't confront as not okay. Deliberately abusing another person is somewhat different. I think racism arises from inherent evil only in the sense that all humans have some level of inherent evil. I feel like xenophobia is a human instinct that has to be consciously confronted and overcome. But that's another discussion. I'm not a sociologist, either. As repugnant as racism is, someone being a racist doesn't utterly dehumanize them to the point that no sympathy is possible. The only things that do that are those things that demonstrate that a character has no sympathy or human compassion for others. That's the line at which I can't portray a character sympathetically.

This is derailing the discussion though. I picked an unfortunate example; now it sounds like i'm making a comparison between writing an LGBT character and writing a racist character, and there shouldn't even be a comparison. O_O 

That's the thing, I guess. I was thinking of this as "must a writer avoid writing characters that don't align with their personal views?" but some people (not referring to anyone on this thread, but i've literally heard people tell me this before) see writing an LGBT character as closer to writing a rapist; that is, not a matter of personal views but of utter disgustingness. In that case, I guess it's different. -_- 

(No, really, I had someone tell me that if I wrote an LGBT character, that would be the equivalent of writing a rapist character.)


----------



## TheKillerBs

Devouring Wolf said:


> Being able to write a sympathetic racist character implies a level of empathy. It implies you don't believe racism to arise from inherent evil. But ask yourself honestly if you could write a sympathetic, balanced portrayal of a pedophile, the head of a corporation, someone who doesn't care bout the environment, bullies, ect.


Are you equating heads of corporations and non-environmentally-conscious people with pedophiles?


----------



## Deleted member 4265

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> To be honest its hard not to feel some level of sympathy based on the fact that a person is...human. Maybe not all people share this though.
> 
> I couldn't portray a pedophile, rapist, abuser of any sort, etc. sympathetically, but I guess that racism seems to me to be culturally ingrained evil that its perpetrators often aren't even completely conscious of. Even if a person wouldn't admit to hating people of a different skin color, and not even believe they do, they still might hold racist beliefs that they can't or don't or won't confront as not okay. Deliberately abusing another person is somewhat different. I think racism arises from inherent evil only in the sense that all humans have some level of inherent evil. I feel like xenophobia is a human instinct that has to be consciously confronted and overcome. But that's another discussion. I'm not a sociologist, either. As repugnant as racism is, someone being a racist doesn't utterly dehumanize them to the point that no sympathy is possible. The only things that do that are those things that demonstrate that a character has no sympathy or human compassion for others. That's the line at which I can't portray a character sympathetically.
> 
> This is derailing the discussion though. I picked an unfortunate example; now it sounds like i'm making a comparison between writing an LGBT character and writing a racist character, and there shouldn't even be a comparison. O_O
> 
> That's the thing, I guess. I was thinking of this as "must a writer avoid writing characters that don't align with their personal views?" but some people (not referring to anyone on this thread, but i've literally heard people tell me this before) see writing an LGBT character as closer to writing a rapist; that is, not a matter of personal views but of utter disgustingness. In that case, I guess it's different. -_-
> 
> (No, really, I had someone tell me that if I wrote an LGBT character, that would be the equivalent of writing a rapist character.)



And this is the point I'm trying to make. In your worldview someone can be racist without necessarily being a bad person which allows you to portray characters who are racist but can still be sympathetic. But some people who've been on the receiving end of race-based discrimination might not be able to portray someone who is racist as sympathetic in their writing, because their life experience hasn't given them anything but completely negative experiences with racist people. They might not be able to understand why people would be so cruel to them unless those people were just cruel people.

Being able to understand why people do the things they do, not just at an intellectual level but at an emotional level is really key to writing well rounded characters. So its not that all the characters have align with the author's personal views, its just I can't see someone who thinks homosexuality is unnatural being able to empathize with a lesbian character enough to make them a well-rounded (and therefore not stereotypical in a likely negative way) character.


----------



## Devor

I think people often hear one or two tidbits about an individual and assume the worst, and I don't think that's always fair. I've known people who come across as racist on the surface who otherwise treat people fairly, and I've known people who don't sound racist at all but will quietly live a perfectly segregated life and not have it any other way.  The absolute meanest things I've heard in person targeted at the LGBT community also happened to be followed by, "But whatever they do in their home, that's their business."

I often think we get so "political" that we end up judging people on all the wrong things.  The "meta-argument," as it were, doesn't always line up with people's actual behaviors.


----------



## LWFlouisa

1. I'm lesbian and trans.
2. I'll write about whatever characters I want to.
3. I consider people telling me what characters to write about on the same level as telling me whom to bed with.

I also don't think about whether my characters are sympathetic or not. I just write them.


----------



## ascanius

Sorry but this really bugged me



psychotick said:


> Hi,
> Devouring, jut to take issue with your last paragraph. Actually there are ideas that can cause harm. Immense harm. Nietzsche's uberman was the idea used as a justification for the rise of the Third Reich / Hitler and his ideal of the ayrian man. Marx's ideals about communism etc have been used as the basis for any number of corrupt political agendas / tyrannies.



I don't think you understand the implications of what you are saying are.  By this rational Salinger is responsible for the death of John Lennon and not Mark David Chapman.  Does this mean McCartney and Lennon are responsible for the Manson murders and not Tex Watson, Susan Atkins, Linda Kasabian, and Patricia Krenwinkel, and Charles Manson.  Its a great way to shift responsibility.



psychotick said:


> My thought is that ideas do have power, and as authors we have to consider that. To think what might be potential impact upon readers of what we write. I'm not saying don't write it. But I am saying think about the message your work sends. Do you want to be glorifying pedophilia? Justifying personal drug use? Promoting racism?



No idea can cause harm, an idea cannot get up and start beating people bloody.  An idea is nothing more than an abstraction to group an underlying thought or theme.



psychotick said:


> Writing objectionable characters doing objectionable things is one thing. But promoting objectionable ideals is another.
> 
> I think as authors we always have to consider the impact of what we write. Remember Stephen King pulled his book Rage from the shelves after the sudden advent of school shootings was rightly or wrongly attributed to it.



Stephen king is an great idiot for doing that.



psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> Actually no - not in my opinion. An unintended consequence of what he wrote. Freddy you have to remember was highly influenced by Wagner and he was thinking in terms of the ideals of the Greek heroes. He never foresaw how others would interpret his work.



Its not even a miss reading it is a complete selective bastardization of Nietzsche.  Common, Nietzsche hated the very thought of popular movements be they the church or nationalism (somehow the Nazis and Fascists didn't read that part).  Hell his entire point with the uberman is the idea that people are going to have to _Create_ their own values in the face of the nihilism that is/was the end product of how society has moved away from belief systems. 


psychotick said:


> But rather than getting into a debate about Freddy, he still wrote the basic idea of the ubersmensch and it was used to cause immense harm.
> 
> To use a personal example. I'm just in the process of editing my new book Banshee Hunt and in it one of the scenes is a sort of torture scene where a man is chained up has petrol poured over him, and then has matches thrown at him. Nasty I know. But in the original draft I explained that the reason it didn't light was that it was diesel that was actually used. So he was safe and it was just to scare him. Double checking revealed that there are certain circumstances under which diesel can actually light when matches are thrown at it - eg absorbtion into soil and fabrics. So I rewrote it to become "magic water" just to make certain that no one got the idea of trying it. Not from me anyway. It has been used elsewhere - "Vexed" for a start.
> 
> Cheers, Greg.



Does this mean you are responsible if someone actually tried to do what you had in your original draft.  Does that mean you should be tried for murder?  After all you gave them the idea right?  It's not like people have a choice to do terrible things.  This is the problem with your entire premise.  It completely takes the responsibility of ones conscious actions and places the responsibility upon  a different persons thought, not their command.  Your not commanding anyone to do anything are you? you are just putting pen to paper in creative expression.  Tell me how are you responsible for the actions of another or are they simply slaves to your every word?  People have a choice.

We follow this to its conclusion where would that leave us?   I guarantee we wont be writing diddly.


----------



## skip.knox

"An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. "
Said by the immortal Don Marquis.


----------



## Steerpike

ascanius said:


> Its not even a miss reading it is a complete selective bastardization of Nietzsche.  Common, Nietzsche hated the very thought of popular movements be they the church or nationalism (somehow the Nazis and Fascists didn't read that part).  Hell his entire point with the uberman is the idea that people are going to have to _Create_ their own values in the face of the nihilism that is/was the end product of how society has moved away from belief systems.



Yes, the Nietzsche argument made in this thread is sheer nonsense, and stems from a failure to have read (or at least understand) his writings. I'm not an expert on him by any means, but I have read enough of him and about him to know that the NAZI ideals bear no resemblance to his actual thoughts or philosophies.


----------



## Russ

Sorry, but this irresponsible way of thinking concerned me greatly.



ascanius said:


> I don't think you understand the implications of what you are saying are.  By this rational Salinger is responsible for the death of John Lennon and not Mark David Chapman.  Does this mean McCartney and Lennon are responsible for the Manson murders and not Tex Watson, Susan Atkins, Linda Kasabian, and Patricia Krenwinkel, and Charles Manson.  Its a great way to shift responsibility.
> 
> No idea can cause harm, an idea cannot get up and start beating people bloody.  An idea is nothing more than an abstraction to group an underlying thought or theme.
> 
> Does this mean you are responsible if someone actually tried to do what you had in your original draft.  Does that mean you should be tried for murder?  After all you gave them the idea right?  It's not like people have a choice to do terrible things.  This is the problem with your entire premise.  It completely takes the responsibility of ones conscious actions and places the responsibility upon  a different persons thought, not their command.  Your not commanding anyone to do anything are you? you are just putting pen to paper in creative expression.  Tell me how are you responsible for the actions of another or are they simply slaves to your every word?  People have a choice.
> 
> We follow this to its conclusion where would that leave us?   I guarantee we wont be writing diddly.



Let me start from the general and then move to the specific as I try to articulate my thoughts on this topic.

Firstly, ideas can be dangerous when they are communicated to others or acted upon.  The argument that ideas "don't punch people in the nose" as a great escape clause is just facile nonsense.

The idea that one type of person is less human or less worthy can be a dangerous idea (for example).  Communicating that idea is can be a dangerous act.  It is simple enough to design other examples.

Writing, or storytelling, is communicating for a purpose.  That purpose may vary, it might be for education, entertainment, a call to action, to teach morals and standards etc.  But writing or storytelling is an act that can have an impact on other people directly or indirectly.   If you think your writing cannot or will not impact anyone, stop writing now.

If we accept that fairly straightforward premise, then the second question is when or how should writers be held responsible for transmitting dangerous ideas.  Now that is a really complicated question on some levels.

In law we have a concept related to negligence that I think fits quite well here.  People are held responsible when the negative outcome from their action (or inaction) is found to be "reasonably foreseeable."   If I fire a gun into a crowd it is reasonably foreseeable that someone could be hurt or killed.  If I dislodge a hidden marble while walking that then rolls six miles downhill, bounces across a river and then the ends up in a jet engine and causes $1,000,000 in damages that is not reasonably foreseeable.  Then we can start debates about what is reasonably foreseeable and what is not.  But that is not our purpose here.

There is no reason a writer should not be held responsible for the reasonably foreseeable outcomes of their writing.  That engenders a much longer discussion about how we balance that with the value of free expression, and how people can and should be held responsible for various acts in a criminal or civil context, but once again those are just details that need to be worked out.  They take a bit longer than a post here can really accommodate.

So you can apply this to the specific example that is under discussion here.  I am fairly familiar with Nietzsche's work and don't think it was reasonably foreseeable that it could form part of the pseudo-intellectual underpinning for genocidal racism.  Another legal concept helps us here called "remoteness", but that again is a long detour from my main point.

But, say I wrote a piece of fiction called "The Protocols of the Elders of Orcdom" which made people think that Orcs did terrible things worthy of punishment and dangerous to my community?  That is a different story.   It may well be reasonably foreseeable that some group of people might read that and then boycott Orc businesses based on lies, thus causing economic harm that might well deserve redress.  

Writers, and storytellers, almost by definition are members of a community.   To suggest their actions are above review in some special way is irresponsible and kind of childish.  It fits a mindset where one wants the benefits of being a participating part of the community but don't want the responsibilities that go along with being part of the a community.   It is unhelpful and perhaps even destructive.

"Fire!" in a crowded movie theatre anyone?


----------



## Steerpike

Russ said:


> In law we have a concept related to negligence that I think fits quite well here.  People are held responsible when the negative outcome from their action (or inaction) is found to be "reasonably foreseeable."   If I fire a gun into a crowd it is reasonably foreseeable that someone could be hurt or killed.  If I dislodge a hidden marble while walking that then rolls six miles downhill, bounces across a river and then the ends up in a jet engine and causes $1,000,000 in damages that is not reasonably foreseeable.  Then we can start debates about what is reasonably foreseeable and what is not.  But that is not our purpose here.



I think this gets dangerous in a hurry. That's a lot of power to regulate speech that is potentially given over to a power structure. In the U.S., I think the First Amendment would protect against adopting a "negligence" standard against speech. The U.S. Supreme Court has pointed out in the past (I think in NY Times v. Sullivan) that an attempt to punish negligent speech would have a substantial chilling affect on speech that is intended to fall within the protection of that amendment. I think that strong protection should extend not only to the press, and to the type of advocacy most strongly associated with the amendment, but also to fiction, which often addresses exactly the same real world issues, but in a different manner. I would not be at all in favor of holding an author liable for someone purportedly acting on an "idea" embodied in their work.


----------



## Russ

Steerpike said:


> I think this gets dangerous in a hurry. That's a lot of power to regulate speech that is potentially given over to a power structure. In the U.S., I think the First Amendment would protect against adopting a "negligence" standard against speech. The U.S. Supreme Court has pointed out in the past (I think in NY Times v. Sullivan) that an attempt to punish negligent speech would have a substantial chilling affect on speech that is intended to fall within the protection of that amendment. I think that strong protection should extend not only to the press, and to the type of advocacy most strongly associated with the amendment, but also to fiction, which often addresses exactly the same real world issues, but in a different manner. I would not be at all in favor of holding an author liable for someone purportedly acting on an "idea" embodied in their work.



I am aware of this line of thinking and am glad you have brought it up.  While this approach exists, it is important to  understand it is a very American idea and quite unique in the world.  The United States approach to freedom of expression is the most liberal in the world, and the rest of the democratic world manages to run very well while restricting speech more than the US does.  When it comes to free speech protection, the US is an outlier.  A loud and often discussed outlier, but an outlier none the less.

For instance, hate speech laws that would never be upheld in the United States are common and constitutional in many other democracies.

Even in the United States, negligent speech can attract negative remedies.  If I negligently publish say my company's financials and people rely on that to their detriment, I can indeed be successfully sued.  And rightly so.

Now different types of speech, even in the US, attract different types of protection, with political speech usually getting the most protection, and commercial speech much less.

Personally I argue for a middle ground.   If a writer communicates something that they know could cause harm, and there is no special reason to protect that form of expression, that why should writers get a pass over everyone else in society?


----------



## Michael K. Eidson

Russ said:


> But, say I wrote a piece of fiction called "The Protocols of the Elders of Orcdom" which made people think that Orcs did terrible things worthy of punishment and dangerous to my community? That is a different story. It may well be reasonably foreseeable that some group of people might read that and then boycott Orc businesses based on lies, thus causing economic harm that might well deserve redress.



How can I write about anything negative if I'm afraid some idiot will let my _fiction_ writing influence him to act in that negative way? If my work states it is a work of _fiction_, is that enough to keep me from being held liable for someone else's actions, regardless of whether they say they were influenced by my words?


----------



## Russ

Michael K. Eidson said:


> How can I write about anything negative if I'm afraid some idiot will let my _fiction_ writing influence him to act in that negative way? If my work states it is a work of _fiction_, is that enough to keep me from being held liable for someone else's actions, regardless of whether they say they were influenced by my words?



That would depend on what you write and where you published it.  My argument though is no-one in society should get a free pass for doing things that could be foreseen to cause harm, not even writers.   

Fiction is a funny thing.  People don't always treat it like fiction.


----------



## Steerpike

Russ said:


> I am aware of this line of thinking and am glad you have brought it up.  While this approach exists, it is important to  understand it is a very American idea and quite unique in the world.  The United States approach to freedom of expression is the most liberal in the world, and the rest of the democratic world manages to run very well while restricting speech more than the US does.  When it comes to free speech protection, the US is an outlier.  A loud and often discussed outlier, but an outlier none the less.
> 
> For instance, hate speech laws that would never be upheld in the United States are common and constitutional in many other democracies.



Yes. I prefer our standards for speech protections to those others, personally.

Of course, speech can lead to liability in the U.S., as you mentioned. Publishing private information, defamation, incitement, and the like. But when it comes merely to the expression of ideas, it is extremely difficult to punish that in the U.S., if not nearly impossible. I like that.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson

Russ said:


> That would depend on what you write and where you published it.  My argument though is no-one in society should get a free pass for doing things that could be foreseen to cause harm, not even writers.
> 
> Fiction is a funny thing.  People don't always treat it like fiction.



If my intent with my fiction is to shed light on a negative aspect of society, but some reader takes it as a call to action, is it my fault? Should I have written it "better"? What if I have written it to the best of my ability? Does that mean I should have stayed silent instead?


----------



## Steerpike

Michael K. Eidson said:


> If my intent with my fiction is to shed light on a negative aspect of society, but some reader takes it as a call to action, is it my fault? Should I have written it "better"? What if I have written it to the best of my ability? Does that mean I should have stayed silent instead?



What you're describing is exactly the "chilling effect" the First Amendment in the U.S. is meant to avoid. The idea that a fiction writer might opt to stay silent out of fear of being prosecuted for a miscommunication, lack of ability to communicate intent as well as desired, and the like is anathema to our concept of free speech.

Also, I suppose I should note before the discussion proceeds that we should limit it to the context of writers, fiction, and expression relating to the same. I appreciate the fact that everyone has done so thus far, and that the exchanges have been courteous. Thank you for that.


----------



## Russ

Michael K. Eidson said:


> If my intent with my fiction is to shed light on a negative aspect of society, but some reader takes it as a call to action, is it my fault? Should I have written it "better"? What if I have written it to the best of my ability? Does that mean I should have stayed silent instead?



If you publish in English, the short answer is "probably not" but it is hard to say without actually seeing the work in question.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson

Russ said:


> If you publish in English, the short answer is "probably not" but it is hard to say without actually seeing the work in question.



If any of my work were ever published in some language other than English, it would have to be translated by someone other than me. Would I then be held accountable for the translation of my words, or would liability fall on the translator?


----------



## Russ

Steerpike said:


> What you're describing is exactly the "chilling effect" the First Amendment in the U.S. is meant to avoid. The idea that a fiction writer might opt to stay silent out of fear of being prosecuted for a miscommunication, lack of ability to communicate intent as well as desired, and the like is anathema to our concept of free speech.
> 
> Also, I suppose I should note before the discussion proceeds that we should limit it to the content of writers, fiction, and expression relating to the same. I appreciate the fact that everyone has done so thus far, and that the exchanges have been courteous. Thank you for that.



While this article is admittedly dated it certainly makes it clear that the first amendment offers no absolute protection for writers of fiction:

ttps://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3638&context=lcp


----------



## Russ

Michael K. Eidson said:


> If any of my work were ever published in some language other than English, it would have to be translated by someone other than me. Would I then be held accountable for the translation of my words, or would liability fall on the translator?



Assuming that he or she translated accurately, and you  had the intention to publish in that language, I don't see how the translator has a duty to change your words to something legally safe.

And, as an aside, if you are traditionally published you have a publisher with you every step of the way to help deal with these problems.


----------



## Steerpike

Russ said:


> While this article is admittedly dated it certainly makes it clear that the first amendment offers no absolute protection for writers of fiction:
> 
> ttps://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3638&context=lcp



Yes, that's defamation, which I mentioned can lead to liability for fiction writers and others. I said that liability in the area of mere expression of ideas is very difficult (as opposed to statements about a person or entity, though if you're dealing with a public figure even that is a high burden for a plaintiff to meet).


----------



## Russ

Steerpike said:


> Yes, that's defamation, which I mentioned can lead to liability for fiction writers and others. I said that liability in the area of mere expression of ideas is very difficult (as opposed to statements about a person or entity, though if you're dealing with a public figure even that is a high burden for a plaintiff to meet).



I agree with you in the United States it is quite difficult, but the option is still there.  In Canada we have for instance, the tort of intentional interference with economic relations, which I suspect would lend itself quite well to my "Protocols of Orcdom" scenario.


----------



## Steerpike

Russ said:


> I agree with you in the United States it is quite difficult, but the option is still there.  In Canada we have for instance, the tort of intentional interference with economic relations, which I suspect would lend itself quite well to my "Protocols of Orcdom" scenario.



We have torts for intentional interference with contract, business relationships, &c. What I'm curious about is whether in Canada a fiction writer could be held liable for an "idea" embodied in their work, rather than for something like libel or other tort. My understanding is that fiction writers there could potentially run afoul of hate crimes laws, whereas such laws would be inoperative in the U.S. under the First Amendment. Is that an accurate analysis of how fiction writers might consider Canadian law?


----------



## Russ

Steerpike said:


> We have torts for intentional interference with contract, business relationships, &c. What I'm curious about is whether in Canada a fiction writer could be held liable for an "idea" embodied in their work, rather than for something like libel or other tort. My understanding is that fiction writers there could potentially run afoul of hate crimes laws, whereas such laws would be inoperative in the U.S. under the First Amendment. Is that an accurate analysis of how fiction writers might consider Canadian law?



Partially.  Our hate crimes laws form part of the criminal code, so that would be getting charged with that crime.  If you wrote the right fiction you could definitely be convicted on that offence. 

Liable, in the civil sense, would, of course, require a cause of action, such a s defamation, intentional interference with contract etc.  The more interesting question for the fiction writer is how successful you could be in having them held liable as a party defendant in say...an assault case or something similar, either in the civil or criminal context.  I doubt there is much case law on it, but I believe the door to be open, particularly in jurisdictions, like Ontario, where we have joint and several liability for many torts.  If that makes sense.


----------



## Steerpike

Russ said:


> Partially.  Our hate crimes laws form part of the criminal code, so that would be getting charged with that crime.  If you wrote the right fiction you could definitely be convicted on that offence.
> 
> Liable, in the civil sense, would, of course, require a cause of action, such a s defamation, intentional interference with contract etc.  The more interesting question for the fiction writer is how successful you could be in having them held liable as a party defendant in say...an assault case or something similar, either in the civil or criminal context.  I doubt there is much case law on it, but I believe the door to be open, particularly in jurisdictions, like Ontario, where we have joint and several liability for many torts.  If that makes sense.



Not to get too far afield, but one last question: in the U.S. common law, an "intervening criminal act" traditionally cuts off the chain of liability. Thus, liability for something like an assault would not be easy. Is that true in Canada?


----------



## Russ

Steerpike said:


> Not to get too far afield, but one last question: in the U.S. common law, an "intervening criminal act" traditionally cuts off the chain of liability. Thus, liability for something like an assault would not be easy. Is that true in Canada?



In civil law, causation is now a very complicated issue.  Novus Actus, the doctrine that an intervening act can "break the chain" of causation is not a strong defence up here.  Very generally speaking, if a tortious act can be found to be have materially contributed to the negative outcome, then the chain of causation is not broken and the early tortfeasor can be held partially liable.  Material contribution has been defined as any contribution beyond "de minimus".  Which means that it would be a very brave defence counsel who would want to rely on Novus Actus.

I don't do enough criminal law to comment usefully on how that affects parties to a crime in that context.


----------



## Steerpike

Russ said:


> In civil law, causation is now a very complicated issue.  Novus Actus, the doctrine that an intervening act can "break the chain" of causation is not a strong defence up here.  Very generally speaking, if a tortious act can be found to be have materially contributed to the negative outcome, then the chain of causation is not broken and the early tortfeasor can be held partially liable.  Material contribution has been defined as any contribution beyond "de minimus".  Which means that it would be a very brave defence counsel who would want to rely on Novus Actus.
> 
> I don't do enough criminal law to comment usefully on how that affects parties to a crime in that context.



Thank you. I'll desist and let the conversation turn back to writing. I was just curious.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson

Russ said:


> Assuming that he or she translated accurately, and you  had the intention to publish in that language, I don't see how the translator has a duty to change your words to something legally safe.
> 
> And, as an aside, if you are traditionally published you have a publisher with you every step of the way to help deal with these problems.



I was thinking more along the lines of the translator choosing words for the translation that weren't legally safe, based on the translator's opinion of the original work, which might not exactly be what the original author had in mind. Sometimes translations can go more than one way. Ever tried using the online translators, putting in a phrase, translating it, and then putting in the translation to see what you get back? It almost always has a different meaning than what was originally entered. I'm not saying I'd ever use an online translator to translate a work of fiction to publish in a foreign market, I'm only using that as an example to prove the point that translators often have multiple choices for the words they use in their translations, and I, not being able to read the language, wouldn't be able to approve or disapprove the translator's choice of words.

Yes, I realize that one who is traditionally published would have a publisher's help. To me, your bringing up the point implies that self-publishers should be very cautious about hiring a translator to publish in a foreign language. Point taken.


----------



## ascanius

I want to point out one thing I'm not talking about an author telling people what to do, I'm talking strictly within the confines of an author telling a story.  I just want to make sure we are all on the same page.



Russ said:


> Sorry, but this irresponsible way of thinking concerned me greatly.
> Let me start from the general and then move to the specific as I try to articulate my thoughts on this topic.
> 
> Firstly, ideas can be dangerous when they are communicated to others or acted upon.  The argument that ideas "don't punch people in the nose" as a great escape clause is just facile nonsense.



An idea is not dangerous it has no means by which to impact anything. The person however is dangerous and a person can turn the most innocent idea into a nightmare.  An idea has no will, it is nothing more than the tool by which a person acts. 



Russ said:


> The idea that one type of person is less human or less worthy can be a dangerous idea (for example).  Communicating that idea is can be a dangerous act.  It is simple enough to design other examples.



see below.



Russ said:


> Writing, or storytelling, is communicating for a purpose.  That purpose may vary, it might be for education, entertainment, a call to action, to teach morals and standards etc.  But writing or storytelling is an act that can have an impact on other people directly or indirectly.   If you think your writing cannot or will not impact anyone, stop writing now.
> 
> If we accept that fairly straightforward premise, then the second question is when or how should writers be held responsible for transmitting dangerous ideas.  Now that is a really complicated question on some levels.



Look the problem with this is what determines a dangerous idea?  what?  what is popular such as Nazism at the time, but would they have thought it a dangerous idea?  or what about soviet communism?  Without a definition of dangerous idea it means, as history has shown, whatever a powerful group wants it to mean.  The problem with this is any idea can arbitrarily be a dangerous idea.  It is limited only by the ambition of those with their own idea.  However, does that mean they are actually dangerous?



Russ said:


> In law we have a concept related to negligence that I think fits quite well here.  People are held responsible when the negative outcome from their action (or inaction) is found to be "reasonably foreseeable."   If I fire a gun into a crowd it is reasonably foreseeable that someone could be hurt or killed.  If I dislodge a hidden marble while walking that then rolls six miles downhill, bounces across a river and then the ends up in a jet engine and causes $1,000,000 in damages that is not reasonably foreseeable.  Then we can start debates about what is reasonably foreseeable and what is not.  But that is not our purpose here.



Yes but going back to the idea cannot punch someone an idea is not something that has laws of physics that allows us to predict an outcome.  people are much to variable and unpredictable, the way one person reacts to an idea can and will be totally different from the way another reacts, it's why getting people to agree is so difficult.  An idea is intangible, an abstraction, a paradox of dualities, it exists yet doen't so tell me how do we predict the outcome of such an elusive thing.  Applying the concept of negligence to an idea is great in hind-site.



Russ said:


> There is no reason a writer should not be held responsible for the reasonably foreseeable outcomes of their writing.  That engenders a much longer discussion about how we balance that with the value of free expression, and how people can and should be held responsible for various acts in a criminal or civil context, but once again those are just details that need to be worked out.  They take a bit longer than a post here can really accommodate.



There is every reason a writer should not be held responsible.  Why is the writer responsible for the actions of another person?  why?  Did they choose to *act* in a terrible way?  We are responsible for the choices we as individuals make, I know the law says some something similar, so tell me why I should be held responsible for the action of another when I had no choice. 



Russ said:


> So you can apply this to the specific example that is under discussion here.  I am fairly familiar with Nietzsche's work and don't think it was reasonably foreseeable that it could form part of the pseudo-intellectual underpinning for genocidal racism.  Another legal concept helps us here called "remoteness", but that again is a long detour from my main point.



I'll bite, explain remoteness, because my next point was going to be what happens when things happen 10 yrs after or 60, is the author still responsible?  I have no idea what remoteness means i'm just guessing.



Russ said:


> But, say I wrote a piece of fiction called "The Protocols of the Elders of Orcdom" which made people think that Orcs did terrible things worthy of punishment and dangerous to my community?  That is a different story.   It may well be reasonably foreseeable that some group of people might read that and then boycott Orc businesses based on lies, thus causing economic harm that might well deserve redress.



So what. Tell me why you are responsible for the actions of other people.  Why is it ok to remove responsibility from the individuals in this "community" and hold you responsible for their actions.  Did they not have a choice?



Russ said:


> Writers, and storytellers, almost by definition are members of a community.   To suggest their actions are above review in some special way is irresponsible and kind of childish.  It fits a mindset where one wants the benefits of being a participating part of the community but don't want the responsibilities that go along with being part of the a community.   It is unhelpful and perhaps even destructive.



I never said they are beyond review others are free to counter their ideas with ideas of their own, it's the very foundation of a free society.  However what I do think is actually childish is to place blame for ones own actions on another person.




Russ said:


> "Fire!" in a crowded movie theatre anyone?



this is very different, this is malicious intent and not at all what I am talking about.  This is an understood warning of danger and to misuse it is deemed wrong by everyone.  however what about this scenario, two friends are in a theater Bob tells Tom, it would be funny to yell 'fire' as a joke never intending to ever do it.  Tome yells 'fire.'  Should we hold Bob responsible?

Basically I believe an individual should be held responsible for their actions, not an author, nor their hairdresser, father, etc.  The person still has a choice to act in such a way.


Legally speaking I agree 100% it's better to be on the safe side and not get sued or thrown in jail because of the stupidity of others, it doesn't make it right though.


----------



## Deleted member 4265

Devouring Wolf said:


> The truth is books don't actively hurt anyone. There is no such thing as a damaging idea. Ideas are neutral. What is damaging is a single narrative, the idea that there is only one right idea.



Since I said this my views have, well not changed so much as . . . mellowed. I used to be the sort of person who would argue for arguments sake and my stubbornness sometimes makes me dig my heels in and my stance can come off as more extreme than I really intended. I confess I am not yet above this and sometimes when I am frustrated or angry I pick fights I have no business fighting and say things I don't really mean. Nonetheless since this particular quote has sparked a discussion, and though the discussion has grown beyond my post, I feel it only right that attempt explain what I meant because I'm not sure it was properly understood (and a large part of that is the defensive and off-putting tone of the original post)

I was trying to say something, and I said it badly. People have focused on my saying ideas are not damaging. And I do believe that but with one big caveat. I do not think ideas are inherently damaging. I have long believed in something that I only recently have been able to put a name to: interdependent arising. I believe that idea like everything else do not exist in a vacuum. Like everything else they have very real consequences, but ideas also depend on the minds that perceive them and on the words used to articulate them, on the state of the world.

"All men are created equal" seems a simple enough idea. But what does equality mean? Who are all men? These are not easy questions and the answer has not been the same across time and certainly not from person to person. The importance of intention vs action has ever been a debate between philosophers and I will not indulge it here, but it is clear to me that the road from intention to action is not always a straightforward one. Sometimes people do the wrong thing for the right reasons or the right things for the wrong reasons and so a good idea executed poorly can lead to terrible damage and a bad idea need not by necessity lead to a bad end. I never meant ideas are blameless, only that the full burden on consequence is not wholly, or even always primarily, on their shoulders.

But my real point was in my last sentence which seems to have been overlooked. I think a single-story is far more damaging than any "bad" idea. This is why stereotypes, even "positive" ones are so damaging. They reduce a group of people down to one trait and don't allow them to be anything else. One story where there's an Asian kid and his only personality trait is being smart, is just one person's interpretation of reality. One hundred such stories start to become a narrative, something we "just know" to be true. Yet if those one-hundred stereotyped portrayals are counterbalanced with a hundred multi-dimensional portrayals, then people have a choice in what they want to believe. Some people are still going to believe the stereotype, but at least it will no longer be because they weren't given any other viewpoints.

I do not write this to get into a debate. I just wanted to try to explain myself more properly since my original post is unclear. I am not certain I have done a satisfactory job, but since this thread has been resurrected I have not had peace of mind because I regret many of my earlier posts.


----------



## Hallen

FifthView said:


> I'm currently on my third Robin Hobb _Farseer_ trilogy, and I don't recall a single case of a homosexual couple or gender-fluid individual in the whole lot.  It's not exactly something I've "noticed" missing, while reading.  And her books sell pretty well.
> 
> In her very latest book, there is one character who is female but dresses as a male much of the time, but this relates to her past.  She was born and raised in a brothel, and her mother treated her as a son from the very beginning, in order to protect her.  Plus, she's in training to be a spy/assassin, so being able to be a convincing boy or girl comes in handy.  But I don't have the impression of her that she's authentically gender-fluid (even if she's more comfortable in her male persona, simply due to her upbringing.)  In fact, she has a budding crush on a young male character in the book.
> 
> I'm a gay man, so I'm somewhat open to finding gay characters or gender-fluid characters in the books I read–_somewhat_, because I can be extremely annoyed by poor portrayals or simplistic sterotypes.  Even so, I not only tend to expect a primarily traditional sex/gender cast of characters, I'm not at all annoyed when an entire cast fits that bill.  Most of the great stories are neutral:  They can be told with traditional sex/gender characters _or_ with a mixed cast of characters.  This doesn't mean that I won't be _especially_ pleased when a well-written gay character appears in the cast or indeed is the MC–I probably will find a slightly deeper connection.  But I don't miss the absence of such a character.



Hobb puts all kinds of characters in her books, eventually. They are generally well thought out and are who they should be for the role they play in the story. It's her story endings that sometimes fall a bit flat. 

She includes gay characters in the Rain Wild trilogy. That's the trilogy prior to the last 2 books. If you are on the Farseer trilogy, you will need to read two more trilogies before you get there. 

The character "The Fool" is also gender fluid, if you will, but he's also not strictly human.


----------



## skip.knox

>Is there still a place for my stories in this environment?

When a thread goes on for a long time, as this one has, I find it worthwhile to go back to the inciting incident (to coin a phrase <g>). 

In a word: yes. A couple of places. There is a whole genre of Christian fantasy in which traditional values would not only be accepted but expected. But beyond that, so long as one does not become preachy (how ironic!), plenty of folks will read a story as a story and not think much about social issues. Most folks, I daresay.  And some will raise red flags of criticism or protest. Don't worry about that. There will be plenty of other authors who speak to their beliefs.

Or, as Chairman Mao said, let a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend.  (quotation chosen with a deliberate eye to irony; I still have my little red book)


----------



## Peat

I would still read a story in which we see basically "traditional" gender roles. I put traditional in inverted commas as I'm not sure that what I see as traditional as a 31 year old born and bred middle class Londoner is the same as what everyone else sees as traditional - I'm honestly not sure I've ever met a stay at home mother - but I do recognise a vague general sense of what traditional means.

I'm also pretty sure they're still getting published. Not in huge numbers maybe, but the most recent big publishing house debut I read seemed to basically have those traditional roles.


----------



## skip.knox

And traditional roles doesn't mean the story is traditional or hackneyed or in any way unworthy of being told. The book I recently finished, _Angle of Repose_, is very much aware that the 19thc wife and husband are traditional. This is made clear by the narrator, who writes in 1970. The book becomes a commentary on relationships in both centuries.


----------



## Hallen

There is a lot of room for latitude when designing your civilization, cultures, and societies. There are reasons why social structures evolved the way they have on this world. But that doesn't mean your world can't have a society that evolved differently for different reason whether it's biology, religion, society, or environment. (Aiel vs Emond's Field...)

Our societies on earth today are all about raising children. There is virtually no point in a civil society that builds to last if there is nobody to carry on, appreciate, and use those things. Plus, we always want to leave our children something to make their lives better. Without that, society devolves into a me against them situation. 

Even in fantasy, people need things to hold onto and represent something familiar. It grounds them in the story. If your race is mostly humanoid, and they have children, there is a very high probability that they will have a family with a mother and a father. There are reasons for this. So, not only do I think there is sympathy for families, it's what most people know and understand so it is expected. The families do not have to be perfect or idealistic, but they will exist in one form or another. 

That's not to say you can't do it other ways, or can't have races/societies that do things differently, but it must make sense and have enough explanation that people can see it working -- at least within the constraints of the story. It's definitely more work to do well than using a simple family structure. But, this can be an interesting way to explore the human condition or to add a level of wonder to your stories.


----------



## Lisselle

This is a long and old post, and I have read many replies, though not all, so I apologise if another has already stated this opinion, however I honestly believe you have to write what you know, and thus, write what you love.

My MC's are hetero, though many of my supporting characters are gay and gender fluid. My female MC's best friend is a Trans girl. This reflects the society I live in. Our community is very inclusive, and we have a strong LGBTQI environment here. There is no judgement,  I doubt people bat an eyelid when seeing the 'rainbow' of gender diversity we have here. I am also the mother of teenagers, and I see young people today in Australia are very open and accepting of gender differences. It's a catch-cry for my sons and my daughter to demand "Are you assuming my gender identity?!" Ha! Many of their teachers at school are gay, and it's a world they have grown up accepting, without knowing they were accepting it; it is just their world. I want to reflect this in my writing, this lack of a need for gender differences, and sexuality differences, to be an issue.

When we write, we write reflecting 'our' worlds. This is the best we can do, and while we soar upon wings of fancy, imagination and extremes, ultimately, our stories may merely be mirrors held up to ourselves.


----------



## bdcharles

Mythopoet said:


> how much sympathy is there among writers and reader in today's society for someone like me who has such strongly founded beliefs and is not willing to compromise them?.



In terms of your writing, my view - and this applies to any perspective or viewpoint or life choice - is that as long as it doesn't overshadow the story and get too obviously "messagey" you will be fine - unless it is a key thing, of course; I enjoyed the _Left Behind_ series because although it was ostensibly Christian fiction, it was in the end a relatively good read. In terms of you as a reader, I guess that will vary with as many as there are different sorts of people in general, and who your market is. Some will sympathise with your views, others less so, and as others have said, it is quite the hot topic.


----------



## Mythopoet

Ugh. Can we just close this thread? The OP is outdated and the question doesn't need to be answered anymore. If people want to discuss this subject, I'd rather it was in a new thread where half the replies weren't responding to a post I wrote years ago and no longer find relevant.


----------



## Devor

Mythopoet said:


> Ugh. Can we just close this thread? The OP is outdated and the question doesn't need to be answered anymore. If people want to discuss this subject, I'd rather it was in a new thread where half the replies weren't responding to a post I wrote years ago and no longer find relevant.



That's fine. This thread is now closed.


----------

