# Diversity Lioness misfire?



## Graylorne

I'm a bit upset atm. Here I was writing _Lioness _in the hope of creating a fantasy adventure with POC and gay people. The first review was 5 stars, but the second will be the exact opposite.
I don't even know how to react to it. I won't, probably, but it is so counter to what I wanted.
Read it here.

Comments, please, to get it into perspective.


----------



## Svrtnsse

Ouch, that's gotta hurt a bit.
I haven't read Lioness myself, so I can't comment on it. What I get from the reviewer though is that they probably have expectations or frames of reference that differ very much from yours and from what your book does. 

I haven't really had anyone review my work, so I haven't had to deal with anything like this, and I can't give any advice on it. I expect I'll get reviews like this as well, provided I get my work out there. I'm not looking forward to it, but hopefully there will be good reviews too and the people I've written my story for will enjoy it.

Best of luck dealing with this, and hopefully you'll have some better reviews soon.


----------



## Reilith

I haven't been published ever, nor have I read your book, but to put it bluntly I can't understand people who review books they haven't read ar least a half. I think it is too presumptious as all books usually have the first third of them teaching you about the world and the characters, and the full plot is not yet revealed. The "black powerhouse of brawn' can be a thorn is some people's eyes, but the point that the person has a problem with your world building is probably more personal than anything else. It is your choice how you're going to portray the people, and so what? If he feels ofended it is his problem that he can't discern a fantasy world from the real one. And that your prefereance how to portray black-skinned people is not your actually view on real people. I say don't sweat it too much - someone is always going to conplain no matter how you write it. Not ecery book is for every person. Lioness sounds like a great book to me and I can't wait to get the chance to read it.


----------



## Jabrosky

I just bought your book for my iPad's Kindle App, Graylorne. Give me a few days to read it and see if I disagree with that reviewer.

I can confidently say I have no problem whatsoever with the concept of a sexy black female warrior, especially if she's the heroines. Lots of white and other non-black women get to be sexy warrior heroines in this genre, so it's only fair to see black heroines receive the same treatment. The "big powerhouse" trope is the only trope I see that might be construed as offensively masculinizing, but on the other hand it does make sense for a warrior race. And I presume she's the love interest anyway?

As for the cover art, I agree that it whitewashes your heroine, but your reviewer (who frankly sounds to me like a social justice troll) should take that up with the cover artist.


----------



## Mindfire

Ouch. Well it's clear that you didn't intend any offense, and the reviewer was a little harsh. However, I think it's important for you to recognize that he/she does actually have some good points couched in that barbed language and I think the best thing you can do is to ignore the tone and listen to the message itself. And that message is: despite your good intentions you have fallen prey to unintentional racism and authorial "blind spots". This is something that can happen when you write about people whose perspectives differ from your own. I don't have time right now, but later I'm going to come back and go point-by-point and try to do my best to rephrase the criticism in a more helpful way. 



Jabrosky said:


> I can confidently say I have no problem whatsoever with the concept of a sexy black female warrior, especially if she's the heroines. Lots of white and other non-black women get to be sexy warrior heroines in this genre, so it's only fair to see black heroines receive the same treatment. The "big powerhouse" trope is the only trope I see that might be construed as offensively masculinizing, but on the other hand it does make sense for a warrior race. And I presume she's the love interest anyway?



There are nuances to this issue that, being white, you might not be aware of. So I don't think this is something that you can just handwave away. Good intentions or no, there is a problem here and it should be addressed.



Jabrosky said:


> As for the cover art, I agree that it whitewashes your heroine, but your reviewer (who frankly sounds to me like a social justice troll) should take that up with the cover artist.



I agree. Graylorne, fact is your cover artist let you down. _HARD._ Never work with them again. However, I would not advise that you dismiss the reviewer as a "social justice troll". They actually have good points you'd do well to listen to, as I will elaborate later.


----------



## Devor

I have to say that reading the review, I didn't come away thinking highly of your handling of race and gender.  Among other things, it's always a bit shaky to use magic as an explanation for why men or women or people of a certain real-world-ethnic-parallel behave a certain way.  That gets complicated, so I won't say much without having read the story.  But right off the bat, I was put off by connecting black skin to blue eyes, with what she calls a "militant matriarchy," and even by the word "big."  Couldn't the black people of your world have been more . . . normal?


----------



## Philip Overby

I'm sure any of these things people may pick up on weren't intended intentionally in any way. However, I think having beta readers from different backgrounds might help in the future to avoid these kind of issues cropping up. It seems the reviewer almost exclusively focused on your world-building and not much on the story. I also agree with Reilith that I don't understand doing a review of a book the reviewer's not finished with yet. 

I'm worried that this may keep you from trying more diverse fiction in the future because this might prove to be an example of why a lot of writers tend to be afraid to write diverse casts. It's stepping out of a comfort zone and they feel it's better to just play it safe and let other writers worry about diversity. I do admire you for doing your best to create a diverse world and to try something different. 

This brings up a good point though. Should writers shy away from writing diverse characters if they get backlash like this? Is it kind of proving those who say "I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't?" (We had an example from another thread of writer's eventual choice was "I don't want to deal with it.") I would hope the answer to these questions would be a resounding "No." 

I have lots of different kinds of characters in my stories. One of my main characters in a current project is a tall, bald woman from an Asian-like country who is good at finding weak spots on monsters with her fists. Because she fights with her hands, am I going to get backlash? I would think from teaching so many Japanese martial arts students throughout my years (teaching them English, I mean) that it's fine for me to focus on a character like this. But others may see it as stereotyping Asians at being good at martial arts. In truth, she's just good at punching the shit out of monsters because she studied their weak points for years and years. 

All in all, while I think we should all attempt to create diverse characters, I guess we all have to be wary that some people view our stories through a different lens than we may. 

Graylorne, I'm sorry you got a bad review, but I hope this helps you learn in some way and doesn't discourage you from trying more daring ideas in the future.


----------



## Nimue

Yes, that.  Without having read the book, going primarily off the race-describing excerpts, I think you have run into some problematic points.  In general, I don't think it's a good idea to ascribe objective differences in physiognomy or magic to human races in fantasy.  Why are the magical warlock people white(ish)? Why is the magic used by the black people "bad"?  And why do they have blue eyes, anyway...  I think Devor covered the issues with creating gendered personalities in a single culture, but I would like to add that there is a harmful stereotype about the "strong black woman", who is considered aggressive and unfeminine.  Making an entire people follow this trope is not a good idea.

I think that human "races" in fantasy need to include a wide variety of behavior from all races--there shouldn't be a racial imbalance among heroes, villains, strong characters, weak characters, etc.  Setting up race-specific natures or personalities is not the same as creating a culture, and I think you're just opening yourself up to immensely problematic themes.

That having been said (not as eloquently as I would like, typing this from my phone), writing a problematic book does not make you a bad person, if you were unaware of these implications.  However, remaining unaware really isn't an option.  For your next book, it would be a good idea to think about messages and implications, and run your worldbuilding by as many semi-objective people as possible.

(I'd also like to say that I think that as an author, you are responsible for what ends up in the cover of your book (As an indie, at any rate, publishers are another kettle of fish.) And also that readers, even reviewers, aren't obligated to read your entire book before passing judgement.  I mean, first impressions are what they are.  With something as huge as race perception, you need to make intent clear in the writing.  Readers aren't able to read your mind, just the book.)


----------



## Graylorne

Devor: They are normal. Blue eyes, see below. It is not at all that sort of militant matriarchy. In short - it was a patriarchy, ruled by warrior-shamans. The clans fought for power and dominion and in doing, decimated themselves. Then an outside enemy came and they had to flee. They came to another continent, where they were (barely) accepted. Their remaining shamans and wisewomen realized this had to change and so they wanted to bring some balance between the too aggressive men and the too comtemplative women. But they did something wrong and the result was the males became too meek and the females warlike (only not against each other). Now the women fight for their queen, or for the high king who gave them shelter. But they are honorable soldiers, no more. 

The warlocks (the 'white' people) have their own queerness. They fled for the same enemy and weren't allowed to practice in public anymore. So instead they went for (artificial) beauty. They didn't mate anymore, because their number couldn't grow larger than 99, so all had to wait for a death to produce a child by insemination.

The point was that both groups of war refugees were being unnatural and that it became necessary to reconquer their original homes, so that they could go back to a normal life again.

I ran this whole concept past six beta readers and an editor and no one saw any problem. They did read the whole book, as the blogger didn't (yet).



(Mindfire I would appreciate your assistance, Mindfire. I'm not an American and some of the blogger's criticism I don't even know what is suggested.

Re. the cover, the girl isn't as dark as I wanted. There aren't very many stock images that depict fierce black warrioresses, and probably not one that fit the composition. So actually she is the opposite of whitewashed, she's a white girl made darker. The armor was my idea, for I didn't want some quasi-native and half-naked tribal outfit, so I asked for sensible leather armor. The blue eyes were my idea, as this is another world with other peoples.

Re. the white boys - perhaps I should have made them more Asian-like, but I thought I had made it clear it weren't European whites. No earthly race has skin ranging from alabaster-white to slate-gray.

Re, the Jenkatans and the Thali, they aren't white either. The Jentakans are low-caste Chorwaynie and the Thali are more like Saami or if you wish, Inuit. And yes, I should have said that. The only caucasian whites are the Garthans, and they are most shady lowlives (meant as a tongue-in-cheek to all those white heroes).



(Phil) I was thinking this is the reason why many fantasy writers keep to the good ol'  medieval times.

I'm trying to get grip on this thing. But I dearly would people read the whole book before putting their thoughts on the web.


----------



## Philip Overby

> I'm not an American and some of the blogger's criticism I don't even know what is suggested.



I was going to mention above that since you're from the Netherlands, you may not see as much focus on race issues as others see in other parts of the world. But that's why having beta readers from different backgrounds will help you in the future. 



> I was thinking this is the reason why many fantasy writers keep to the good ol' medieval times.



But that can also be too safe. And I believe that's becoming the default defense for "I don't want to write diversity in fantasy because it's too hard, so I won't do it." As writers, I think we should always try new things and get out of our comfort zones. If some don't like what you're doing, you can learn from it and make your stories stronger in the future. Now that you know your world has some issues people are picking up on, you can address them and find others who might help you tackle them head on. 

I personally think writers who take risks are awesome. So I hope you get a lot of great feedback that will help you out for the future.


----------



## Graylorne

Nimue: The magic used by the black people isn't bad. I never said it was bad. I said their shamans got power mad. Bit in the Shaka Zulu style. The women and their magic were perfectly fine. 

This is awful! Maud is big and strong, and 18 and playfully amorous, and pretty, and very very feminine. And a highly educated officer of the queen, trained as both liaison officer and commando. And she had blue eyes, like http://afritorial.com/black-people-with-blue-eyes/. And she get a very happy, joyous relation with one of the 'white' boys. 

I've been a teacher; I worked with refugees from all over the world. I wouldn't dream doing silly things. This whole book is based on equality.

Sigh, I'm getting upset. Sorry, Nimue.


----------



## Graylorne

> I was going to mention above that since you're from the Netherlands, you may not see as much focus on race issues as others see in other parts of the world. But that's why having beta readers from different backgrounds will help you in the future.



That's the point. I had six, both from the US and the UK. And my editor is American, too.


----------



## Philip Overby

Graylorne said:


> That's the point. I had six, both from the US and the UK. And my editor is American, too.



I see. I'm just curious what elements they focused on when reading it? Did anyone raise any flags about the world-building aspects?


----------



## Graylorne

Not at all. But then, 'Lioness' is over 400 pages and at the blogger's 13% you've barely scratched the surface. 

I give you part from the review I got a few days earlier: 





> The Lioness of Kell, Maud, was an amazing character. Her society is very much like the fictional Amazonian society. The women are strong warriors who are a force to be reckoned with. Some of my favorite parts were in the little details of the character like when she would say “Old man’s tales” or when she references female anatomy when cursing her deities. If you like Xena the Warrior Princess or Wonder Woman than you will love Maud. Being a warrior is only a part of her, a part of her that is awesome of course but just one aspect. This is her first mission and it quickly is spiraling out of control as factors she could not even imagine guide events. While she is a capable warrior, Maud is a virile, horny, 19 year old who has the rebellious side of teenage years but also the want to prove her worth.


----------



## Jabrosky

@ Graylorne, having already read the first few chapters, I am already liking Maud. She may be a big strong warrior, but not unfeminine since several of the male characters comment on her beauty. So at least you've made good impressions on me.

Unfortunately the fact that your heroine is recognizably black might subject her to harsher judgement that an equivalent white heroine. People seem to read stereotypes into black characters, and real living black people for that matter, without applying the same lens to their white counterparts.


----------



## Devor

So, first, in my experience, I think black skin and blue eyes are an absolute no no as a race.

White people have blue eyes.  Everybody "knows" that blue eyes are "beautiful."  If you're using blue eyes on a "likable" black person, you're making them likable by being more white.  And . . . IRL, I've heard people talk about black people with blue eyes, and it's always been in the context of their ancestors being raped by white slave masters.  It was the first thing I thought of.

So, I would definitely cut that one out.

As for the magic, I won't comment because I don't know how absolute it is, or the context.  Even if it's ultimately problematic, it's probably just a worldbuilding fluke (at least, I would hope!) from trying to put magic everywhere.  But I will say, usually, if you want to toy with people and behavior and magic, you should usually make a new race like orcs or elves to explore those possibilities, instead of messing with the counterparts of a real world people.


----------



## Graylorne

Devor said:


> So, first, in my experience, I think black skin and blue eyes are an absolute no no as a race.
> 
> White people have blue eyes.  Everybody "knows" that blue eyes are "beautiful."  If you're using blue eyes on a "likable" black person, you're making them likable by being more white.  And . . . IRL, I've heard people talk about black people with blue eyes, and it's always been in the context of their ancestors being raped by white slave masters.  It was the first thing I thought of.
> 
> So, I would definitely cut that one out.
> 
> As for the magic, I won't comment because I don't know how absolute it is, or the context.  Even if it's ultimately problematic, it's probably just a worldbuilding fluke (at least, I would hope!) from trying to put magic everywhere.  But I will say, usually, if you want to toy with people and behavior and magic, you should usually make a new race like orcs or elves to explore those possibilities, instead of messing with the counterparts of a real world people.



Those people all have blue eyes. 
I took the trouble to google this subject, because I'm always careful not to offend. In this case it apparently didn't work.

And re. the magic, did you read my earlier posts? I explained the magic and how & why. 

I don't mess or toy with people. I gave a tribe of dark-skinned men and women blue eyes which they could have had naturally. I had no idea of making them whiter. If I had wanted them white I would have written them white. 

Besides, if I used an orc, everybody would say orcs are synonym for black people and the net result would be even worse.


----------



## Gryphos

Graylorne said:
			
		

> Besides, if I used an orc, everybody would say orcs are synonym for black people and the net result would be even worse.



Would they, though? That seems like a pretty big assumption, and anyways it would depend how you portray the appearances of your orcs. I doubt anyone would think your orcs were a synonym for black people if they had green skin.

Back on topic, I would echo points that have been made that while this critique was perhaps rather harshly phrased and aggressive, it has some points, and you should really look over what they've said and consider the fact that you may have inadvertently made some wrong moves with regards to diversity and representation.


----------



## Graylorne

Gryphos said:


> Would they, though? That seems like a pretty big assumption, and anyways it would depend how you portray the appearances of your orcs. I doubt anyone would think your orcs were a synonym for black people if they had green skin.



I didn't dream that one up; it was a series of discussions on another forum where there points were discussed.
Of course you're right, it's a matter of how you portray your orcs.

But that's beside the point. I want to write books about people and to me the color of their skin isn't very important. Their characters are, and the things they do.



> Back on topic, I would echo points that have been made that while this critique was perhaps rather harshly phrased and aggressive, it has some points, and you should really look over what they've said and consider the fact that you may have inadvertently made some wrong moves with regards to diversity and representation.



I'm quite willing to listen and learn, only several points literally make no sense to me, because I don't understand the insinuations. 

By now I get the blue eyes, I think. 

I get the mulattoes, too, although they aren't and I only said many of them were halfbreeds. Ah, now I reread it, they probably mean the word *light-skinned* To me that means white, Mediterranean white, but certainly not mulatto. 

So a lot of the problem is in the description of the peoples that goes with the map. I can rewrite that, no problem.

Still, seeing this blog post is part of a Virtual Book Tour, it would be nice if she'd read the whole book before blogging.



NB: I sent an email to the tour coordinator, with the request to pass on to the blogger that I am quite willing to discuss things and see what I can do to take the bad impression away.
Seems to me the most reasonable thing to do.


----------



## Svrtnsse

Graylorne said:


> NB: I sent an email to the tour coordinator, with the request to pass on to the blogger that I am quite willing to discuss things and see what I can do to take the bad impression away.
> Seems to me the most reasonable thing to do.



Definitely seems like the sensible thing to do.


----------



## Penpilot

First I like to agree that this was pretty ruthless, especially for having only read 13% of the book.

But as others have said, try to look past the snarkiness and see what you can glean. 

I read the synopsis, and I do think that first line does set off alarm bells and can put a reader in the wrong mind set, having them focus on stuff that isn't necessarily the story. It's like making a bad first impression. Once that happens, rightly or wrongly, it's hard to recover from. 

IMHO, if you remove the two instances of the word black in the synopsis, it silences those bells.  

I hope this doesn't discourage you. If anyone wants to grow as a writer, they have to step out of their comfort zone. And when that happens, there's always potential for mistakes. There's a couple of sayings I hear in playing sports all the time. Playing to win. Playing not to lose. The latter usually gets you nowhere.


----------



## Caged Maiden

:cloud9: This was the closest thing to a hug I could find.  It'll have to do.  

Firstly, I feel really badly that your work met with the kind of harshness present in the review.  Unkindness is an unfortunate result of people's anger.  I can only assume the person was really upset by what she read.  

Okay, I'm going to try to say something that concerns me about writing POC, and hopefully it won't sound repetitive or random.  I think one of the problems is that if you establish a character is, say, a dark-skinned beauty with yadda yadda features, you're bringing attention to her "race" right off the bat.  Then, to say, differentiate other characters, their "races" come into description too.  In essence, it may appear an overly-large focus is on racial features, characteristics, and so on and so forth.  It becomes as if the race is the story.  

Now, I haven't read your book, and I'm not suggesting you have done this, but by the way the reviewer analyzed all types of people by their race and pigmentation, it at least came off that way (or something similar) to them.  

I'm considering writing an airship captain who is dark-skinned and not at all remarkable vs. any other captain.  I'm not going to treat him any differently than any "white" character I might have written to fill his place.  I have reservations about his language (being afraid that readers may be offended if I don't write a certain vernacular to his character to match his "race" but I just have to give up worrying about it.  I mean, to me, he's just a captain and a MC and he's any other guy, not defined by his pigmentation, but rather his military background and life experiences that aren't at all linked to racial issues.)

If my opinion matters at all to you (because I'm probably not as sensitive to this issue as many other people, and not because I don't care, but rather because I disagree with making things about skin color), I'd say that perhaps you did too much to define "races" in your creative efforts?  Please, I am not intending any kind of offense to anyone, and I have deep respect for people's personal feelings here, but for me, I might be put off by a story that gives too much weight to race.  I feel it may have been part of why the reviewer was offended.  

I guess what i'm trying to say is that if you wrote a female warrior who is dark-skinned, I wouldn't think too much of it and just enjoy the tale.  But by adding in the different peoples of your world and each having thought given to their pigmentation, it puts a lot of emphasis on that single thing.  By adding in secondary and tertiary characteristics to each people, it can appear a rather over-simplification of "races" and an assignment of traits verging on "good" and "bad".  

I can't say anything specific about how to improve the story (because for all I know it's a wonderfully elaborate world full of rich characters with characteristics separated quite nicely from their "race") but I can say that for me as a reader, I would find it hard to read a book where a POC MC felt like a caricature, either by over-simplification or by over-emphasis regarding race.

If I'm being honest, the first review didn't really draw me in, either.  Please don't read malice in my words, but I felt the character sounded over-emphasized in that review as well.  I once had a critique kn a character that really bit deep.  He said she was unbelievable and almost unreadable because she was just too good at everything.  I was sort of speechless, because I didn't see her that way at all.  But there it was, a critique against my character because the reader wanted to see her flaws and weaknesses and as I presented her, she was unappealing.  I don't know anything about your character but I find the first review a little unflattering for the character and maybe that reviewer loved her aggression and sexual angst, etc.  but to me it sounded like the character was a little out of proportion.  Maybe too big a personality, all things considered.  

I hope my thoughts help in some way.  If they don't, ignore them and just know that I have respect for you as a writer and fellow scribe, and even if this particular story met with harsh criticism, it doesn't define you as a writer.

Best wishes.


----------



## Graylorne

Thanks, CM, I could do with a hug 

A pity is, the comments are for a great part about a short description of the peoples I added to the map, just to avoid racial descriptions in the story itself. And then you get misunderstandings, where 'light-skinned dropouts'  become mulatto, while I see them as white criminals, or 'a slender brown-skinned people' are sun-browned sailors, where I see Malay or Indonesians. And yes, I forgot to add that the two undescribed races are kin to the brown-skinned ones, that doesn't help. So my descriptive powers fell short.

Ah well. I'll redo the list, perhaps that will prevent any jumping to conclusions that aren't there.

I really am grateful, C.M.


----------



## Graylorne

Penpilot: I'll reword the synopsis and change the blue eyes together with the list of peoples.
And no, I'm not discouraged.  I'm frustrated that I'm not only writing in a foreign language, but in a foreign culture as well. And both together give unwanted misunderstandings.

I ran out of thanks, I see. I'll do it later.


----------



## cupiscent

Trying is important. Well done for trying! That was awesome. Your heart is in the right place. Thank you.

You can't win everything with everyone. This is just a guarantee in any sort of art, and particularly in writing.

Just because someone doesn't get what you're trying to do doesn't make their view invalid. It also doesn't mean that you failed. It means you failed to do it for that person. This is a situation where it's important to listen to what they're saying, why this has failed for them, and incorporate that into your next attempt. All we can to is _try better next time_. We might not succeed with everyone then - in fact, chances are we won't - but in listening and trying, we are helping make things a little better.


----------



## Graylorne

Thank you, cupiscent.

I do understand the blogger's side. It's the unknown nuances that make it difficult, not their view in general.


----------



## Graylorne

I'm thinking about changes.

I can't change anything about the shamans, the magic etc, for these are integral to the story. 
But I can take out the offending descriptions of the various peoples. Would silver do it for the boys? They are magic-genetically beautified already.
That means I must add a few descriptions when a character is introduced. And I'll keep this sort of thing to the barest minimum.
Like this:



> 1. Maud was a dark, handsome girl with close-cropped hair dyed the bloody red of active service. In her well-waxed body armor, she was the epitome of a Kell warrioress–strong, virile and dangerous. Yet underneath her brawn she was eighteen-year-old, and her heart hammered with the excitement of her first foray into the high kingdom of Malgarth.
> 
> 2. ‘A boy.’ With a wave of his hand, an image appeared of a young male about Maud’s age. He was small and slender, with long, wavy red hair accentuating the silvery beauty of his face and his large eyes.
> _Divine Otha! He’s delicious! _To her disgust, Maud felt her loins react to the boy’s delicate beauty. _Keep your pants on, girl. This time._ But the mirror reflected her face next to his, in dark contrast to his silver, and she couldn’t stop her breath speeding up.
> 
> 3. ‘He’s a pirate when it suits him.’ Darquine formed one brown hand into a make-believe pistol. ‘All our people are. As soon as I get my hands on a ship, I’ll be one. Shucks, I didn’t get my master merchant’s license just to ship dullfruit.’
> 
> 4. The veteran was asleep, snoring stertorously. Her dark skin had an ominous hue that frightened Maud. ‘How long has she been like this?’
> 
> 5. ‘There is something playing snowdance with my wires,’ the Thali engineer said. ‘And I haven’t a notion what it is.’ He looked up, the strain clear in his tawny face. ‘I know this blasted engine inside out, and I’ll swear there is nothing wrong with it. Nothing at all. Ahh, I’m going mad.’
> ‘Son of the Thi-a-Yuuk,’ Maud said formally. ‘Could it be magic?’
> 
> 6. _Damn, it’s him! The Spellwarden._ She took the knife from his unresisting fingers and looked him over. _No, he’s different. The same silver beauty, but more muscled. Not a rat at all. We must be of an age, too._



I am at a loss whether this would be a wise change, so I'd love some more collective wisdom.


----------



## Mythopoet

I would strongly recommend NOT making changes based on one review from someone who hasn't even read the whole book.


----------



## Graylorne

Thank you, Mytho; a clear answer 

My insecurity is playing up these days (not only for this), and I can use some clarity.


----------



## Nimue

Wait, um, you didn't have descriptions of people as they were introduced?  Or you just left out skin color?  I definitely think it'd be a good idea to mention that in-story.  It's possible that by not mentioning skin color, you could fall into "White as Default" territory--people tend to assume characters are white unless they've got cues to indicate otherwise.

I suppose the race descriptions would counter that, but they do come across as unnecessarily generalizing.  The Kells are black and militant.  The whitish warlocks are beautiful and magical.  If you introduce these peoples through characters over the course of the story, not through trait statements, that would lessen the instinctive "is this racism?  It kinda reads like it" reaction.


----------



## Graylorne

I did describe them, but most the main characters. For people like the Thali engineer I relied on the general description. 

I wondered if I was too much into detail, and too much in 'she's black and he's white'. So I looked for a way to tone that down by making her dark and him silver. Probably I'm just overreacting.


These were the two MC's from the cover. 



> Maud was a big, muscular girl, topping the crew by a head or more. Her skin shone in the purest black, her eyes were blue and her close-cropped curls dyed the bloody red of active service. In her well-waxed body armor, she was the epitome of a Kell warrioress–strong, virile and dangerous. Yet underneath her brawn she was an eighteen-year-old girl, and her heart hammered with the excitement of her first foray into the high kingdom of Malgarth.
> 
> a young male about Maud’s age. He was small and slender, with long, wavy red hair accentuating the alabaster beauty of his face and his large gray eyes.


----------



## Mythopoet

If Maud's skin is supposed to be "the purest black" then your cover artist really let you down. I would change the cover as soon as you can. Get some art that actually shows her as black and not just someone who could be really tan. That one is a valid criticism.


----------



## Graylorne

That's not really the artist's fault. I should have given her a free hand, as with the Trilogy. This one was made to my specification, and there wasn't a suitable black female model on the stock sites having the right pose, so she colored a white character darker. 
As covers are generally only an indication of the content, I didn't think it mattered all that much. How many cover persons do look like the book character they represent? 
I can talk it over with the artist what can be done about it, but I can't afford a new cover atm.


----------



## Mindfire

Alright, I promised to come back and translate the criticism into a more helpful form, and though others have already highlighted some of the issues present, I have returned to honor that promise. Bear in mind that I will be reading a lot into all of this, but I'm doing it to give you a fuller picture of what's going on here. Also bear in mind that I have only read the criticism, not the work itself. I'm just translating to give you a more helpful sense of what the reviewer was probably thinking. So please restrain your impulse to protest that "that isn't what I meant" or "that's not what the book says". Without further ado, let's begin.



> Got it so far?  Was it just me or did that descriptor ‘black powerhouse of brawn’ set off any warning bells?  If I’m being overly sensitive, absolutely tell me so.



First off, the "black powerhouse of brawn" thing- not a promising start at all. A lot of the stereotypes about us Black people is that we have a more "physical" nature than White people, with the corollary of course being that this physicality makes us, shall we say, less intellectually inclined. This is particularly true in America for various reasons. Even when a Black intellectual does appear in media, they are typically portrayed either as quite exceptional or an object of ridicule. Or both. Not being from America, I don't particularly blame you for not being aware of this but it's something you should consider in future. It's not the fact that the character is a Black warrior that's offensive. The problem is that the wording feeds into the stereotype.



> So we have a world filled with black female warriors, sun-browned sailors, two groups of white mages, a motley crew of mulattoes and everyone else is… generic?  Which by default in the Fantasy genre makes them white.  Moving on…



This is yet more problematic, but unconscious, stereotyping. We have the Black warriors, which feed into the stereotype I just mentioned, and possibly also a dash of Victorian ooga-booga tribalist stereotypes. But now we also have White mages to contrast with them. This is another unconscious blunder. Immediately after describing the Black Warrior culture, you present White mages. Why is this problematic? Because magic is associated with _intelligence_ and _wisdom_. So much so that in nearly every RPG ever the primary stats a wizard character relies on are called _intelligence_ and _wisdom_. So you've unwittingly created a contrast between a "militant" (aka savage), matriarchal (more on that later) Black culture and a magic-using (aka intelligent, wise, enlightened) White culture. _This. Does. Not. Look. Good._ Now there is one thing I disagree with the critic about. I would not have read the pirates as being "sun-browned" but as being perhaps Polynesian. But that's probably down to me having a different frame of reference. Now you may be wondering, why did the reviewer consider the Garthans to be mulattoes? Answer: because you didn't give a racial description for the Jentakans and Thali as you did for the other races. In fantasy, because of the proliferation of European tropes and perspectives in the genre, "no description" means "White by default". So if you didn't bother to describe the Jentakans and Thali (thus making them White by default), but did describe the Garthans, the logical deduction is that the Garthans are light-skinned, but not White. Because if they were white you would have given no description, as you did with the Jentakans and Thali, you see? And this brings us to another potentially problematic issue: the Garthans- which the reviewer interpreted as mulattoes- are described as "dropouts and renegades". In other words, they're outcasts. Pretty sure that could be construed as offensive to mixed-race people (for whom mulatto is now an archaic and somewhat pejorative term), who are stereotyped as "not belonging" in either White or Black culture despite comically trying and failing to.



> First, let’s go back to the cover and title: Lioness of Kell.  Does that look remotely like a black woman to you- ‘a black powerhouse of brawn’?  With blue eyes, no less?  And if you think it’s just me, Basil’s initial description reads: “…His finely cut white countenance…”  Even though that doesn't make much sense, I’m pretty sure what it means.



I cannot stress enough just how badly your cover art has failed you. It takes the issues already present and magnifies them. First, after invoking the stereotype of Black physicality, you have presented a woman on the cover who I think most people would agree does not remotely match the description given. And she has blue eyes to boot. What is offensive about this is difficult to put into words, but the best I can manage is that it seems to say: "Black women are not aesthetically pleasing. But don't worry I softened her features on the cover so you would buy the book." And the fact that you gave the ostensibly Black people blue eyes can feel like a slap in the face for the same reason: you're giving them White features (which are stereotyped as being more beautiful) to make them more palatable to the (presumably White) reader. As if Black people are not relatable enough on their own terms. And there's a LOT of issues surrounding how the aesthetics of blackness are perceived in our culture. I know this was not your intent, but that's how it looks. I'd advise you to change the cover art as soon as you possibly can. And make the Kell not blue-eyed if possible. And this is exacerbated by the fact that you describe Basil's "white countenance" as "finely cut": within the established context, this reads as nothing less than a paean to White beauty and even the supremacy of the White male in particular if one is inclined to be uncharitable (which the reviewer clearly is).



> And as you’re still wondering what’s up with black men in this book… you get your explanation at the 13% mark.  You ready?  You sure?
> 
> Once upon a time, everything was pretty normal.  Until their leaders started using Shamanic Magic- bad magic.  They got greedy, covetous, etc,- you know the drill.  They were so decimated by these wars when invaders arrived they had to flee their homeland.



The unintentional blunder pileup continues here. Within the established context, "shamanic magic" reads as "witch doctors" and all the terrible stereotypes about African culture that come with that. And the bit about the shamans being greedy and covetous further feeds into stereotypes about African-descended people being naturally morally deficient as compared to White people. The wars and infighting could be read as invoking that Victorian-era stereotype of African tribalism.



> The High King gave them land to settle in and with most of the shamans gone, the wisewomen took over and through herbs and magic began breeding aggression out of the men and into the women.  They strove for balance but it’s not nice to fool with Mother Nature.  So now all black men are pansies and black women do the heavy lifting.  And they’re so aggressive they often need release, so it’s to the point of fight or ****.  Is it any wonder Maud finds other men more attractive than her own?



And if you thought all that was bad, you've really stepped in it now. First: the women of the culture take over and breed aggression out of the men. You've basically said that Black men are violent, over-aggressive, and need to be controlled. This is a real-life justification for racism that goes back all the way to the time of slavery and is still present today. And then you follow that up by revealing that aggression has been bred out of the men and into the women, who now do all the work. This feeds into another racial stereotype with a long history: black women as domineering and unfeminine (and therefore more deserving or at least better adapted to harsh treatment while being simultaneously romantically undesirable) and black men as being lazy cowards. Unlike the previous issues I suspect that a mere superficial change will not solve this one. In spite of what Mythopoet says, I do believe your worldbuilding should be, at the very least, re-considered. How you solve the issue is up to you, but I personally would be extremely thorough: remake the Kell culture entirely from the ground up, but this time with input from Black beta-readers. Or at least someone better versed in these issues and stereotypes.



> But wait- there’s more!  Turns out there might be one shaman left in the world.  And he might have the means to cure Basil’s lameness and maybe even help set things right with the Kells.



And it seems you cap all of this off by introducing one of the most pernicious Black stereotypes in all of culture: the Magic Negro. And he _literally is_ a magical Negro in this story. That... Look, I can understand how every other issue brought up here could have been unintentional. And I sympathize with you. I truly do. Writing things beyond your ordinary perspective is a difficult and delicate task and you should be commended for a valiant attempt. But this right here is the one that I just have to stare at in open-mouthed bewilderment. I cannot fathom how you could possibly have overlooked this. I'm not saying that you did it on purpose. Only that your blind spots as an author are far larger than I would have thought possible. I highly, highly advise that you give your story and your worldbuilding another look and try to correct these issues as best you can. And please get some input from someone with a different cultural perspective.

All that said, good on you for trying to write outside the familiar. Don't let this scare you away from trying again. Even this is better than not trying at all. I wish you well on your project.


----------



## Svrtnsse

Thanks Mindfire. This is a bit of an eye opener. 
Much as I'm not proud of it, I'll have to admit that I might very well have stepped into any of these "traps" myself - including the last one.
It's also fascinating how there are so many things that others might pick up on that I spontaneously wouldn't have considered an issue at all. With the explanations I can definitely see how these are issues, but without them being pointed out, my train of thought would just have chugged along without even stopping to take on passengers.

I'll definitely try and get a black/brown person to beta read my next novel.


While I'm at it, I should ask: is it okay to use color of the skin of a person to refer to them, like black people, or white people? I can see how it may not be politically correct within certain communities/cultures, but if the words come with some baggage I haven't considered it'd be good to know.


----------



## Mindfire

Svrtnsse said:


> While I'm at it, I should ask: is it okay to use color of the skin of a person to refer to them, like black people, or white people? I can see how it may not be politically correct within certain communities/cultures, but if the words come with some baggage I haven't considered it'd be good to know.



For me, that would be less about political correctness and more about "does it make sense in the world of the story?" Referring to people as "Black" and "White" very much has an "our earth" feel to it and would seem out of place to me in a Fantasy world that isn't just an alternate version of our own reality.


----------



## Devor

I'm trying to figure out whether or not I've crossed one or two of those lines with a character in my notes.  Mindfire, would you be willing to engage on these topics a little more?  I'm especially curious about how firmly we should try to avoid making a connection between race and any kind of shamanism.


----------



## Graylorne

Mindfire - This is terrible. I look at this list and none of these things are even remotely known over here. It's not my personal blind spot, it goes much deeper. This may be common knowledge in the US, but not over here. How could it? The population of African descent in the Netherlands is about 3% (from Surinam/Antilles), not counting refugees directly from Africa. We have far more immigrants from Turkey/Morocco (over three times as much). 

I know the White by default-idea; the lacking descriptions for Jentakans/Thali was an oversight, they aren't white either. The idea making the Garthans lightskinned (= white) renegades and dropouts was a jab at my own people: the only European whites are no-goods. I knew the term mulatto was not popular, so I didn't use that idea.

I cannot rewrite the Kell culture, it is structural to the story. I can only stop making them black. I can make them white barbarians and leave the Chorwaynie/Jentakans/Thali what they are. They're based on S.E. Asian cultures.It plays hell with the idea of diversity without Europeans as MC's.
And it's even more a pity because the Kell are the most civilized of the lot, and Maud is not only pretty, she is intelligent, resourceful and an officer-cadet. They are a lot more clever and stable than the white warlocks, who are for the most a pack of fools. 

_*If I changed the Kells into white, will that take away all the problems??*_

It is dramatic, for I'm in the first week of a two-month Virtual Book Tour and I don't know how I'm going to arrange that.


----------



## Jabrosky

For what it's worth, the world I've just started planning for a project for my own has a black civilization as its earliest nation-state, and they used to be a dominant superpower. But over the past five centuries, they've withered and retracted much of their conquered protectorates, once of which has grown into a serious threat in its own right. This competing faction (actually a league of city-states tied together under one Senate) has Greco-Roman and Spanish trappings, but they're bronze-skinned like Mediterranean and Middle Eastern types. The white people on the other hand are almost all hunter-gatherers living in the far northern reaches, but they do have some limited iron-working for weapons like swords and axes. Their big, stocky physiques and warlike raiding culture make them popular as mercenaries for more southerly nations, including the black kingdom.

The story I'm still planning features a romance between one of these white mercenaries and a black princess, who has her own martial training but specializes more in agility and cunning than brute strength. Though their attraction is mutual, it's the white guy who's most eager since the princess is hesitant to "contaminate" her dynastic bloodline with a foreign "barbarian".

@ Graylorne

I wouldn't whitewash the Kells at all. I'm not even sure Mindfire has actually read your book himself, as opposed to just going off that other review's (presumably mis-)characterization. Not saying he isn't pointing out real stereotypes in the American context, but I'd have more confidence in criticism that didn't draw completely from a secondhand report.


----------



## Graylorne

I'm glad I posted the problem here! I'd say a big thank you to Mythic Scribe as a whole for giving of their thoughts and experience!


----------



## Graylorne

Jabrosky said:


> I wouldn't whitewash the Kells at all. I'm not even sure Mindfire has actually read your book himself, as opposed to just going off that other review's (presumably mis-)characterization. Not saying he isn't pointing out real stereotypes in the American context, but I'd have more confidence in criticism that didn't draw completely from a secondhand report.



The problem is not that all what Mindfire says really happens in my book, for I know it doesn't. But just as that specific blogger assumed the worst by that list of apparent problems, so can others. And if there is one thing I don't need is that the blogosphere starts whispering that I write racist books. I'd rather change the book now I can discretely do so, than being forced to do so later.


----------



## Mindfire

Devor said:


> I'm trying to figure out whether or not I've crossed one or two of those lines with a character in my notes.  Mindfire, would you be willing to engage on these topics a little more?  I'm especially curious about how firmly we should try to avoid making a connection between race and any kind of shamanism.



Well sure, if you have questions I'll gladly answer them as best I can. But I don't claim to be any sort of authority on this. And of course, not all Black people have identical opinions so others may view things differently.


----------



## Mindfire

Graylorne said:


> Mindfire - This is terrible. I look at this list and none of these things are even remotely known over here. It's not my personal blind spot, it goes much deeper. This may be common knowledge in the US, but not over here. How could it? The population of African descent in the Netherlands is about 3% (from Surinam/Antilles), not counting refugees directly from Africa. We have far more immigrants from Turkey/Morocco (over three times as much).
> 
> I know the White by default-idea; the lacking descriptions for Jentakans/Thali was an oversight, they aren't white either. The idea making the Garthans lightskinned (= white) renegades and dropouts was a jab at my own people: the only European whites are no-goods. I knew the term mulatto was not popular, so I didn't use that idea.
> 
> I cannot rewrite the Kell culture, it is structural to the story. I can only stop making them black. I can make them white barbarians and leave the Chorwaynie/Jentakans/Thali what they are. They're based on S.E. Asian cultures.It plays hell with the idea of diversity without Europeans as MC's.
> And it's even more a pity because the Kell are the most civilized of the lot, and Maud is not only pretty, she is intelligent, resourceful and an officer-cadet. They are a lot more clever and stable than the white warlocks, who are for the most a pack of fools.
> 
> _*If I changed the Kells into white, will that take away all the problems??*_
> 
> It is dramatic, for I'm in the first week of a two-month Virtual Book Tour and I don't know how I'm going to arrange that.



Well the first thing is, DON'T PANIC. Remember, I haven't actually read your book. So I wasn't actually criticising you so much as I was trying to put the reviewer's criticisms in a more easily digestible form and make you more aware of the potential issues at play here. I can't say how deep these issues go in your book. I can only say that at a glance, taking the reviewer at their word, it doesn't look good. As such, my advice to revise your plot and worldbuilding only applies if these issues are as deep as they seem to be. If they are more venial, a lighter touch may be all that's needed. The biggest issue to me is the magical negro problem. To see just how many changes are needed to everything else I'd have to read the book firsthand. And again, DON'T PANIC. You're not American, these things aren't common knowledge in your country. So I'm not calling for your head, just trying to raise awareness. 

Also, simply making the Kells white is not something I would suggest. (Though you may want to change their eye color). The answer to flawed representation is not to remove the representation, but to improve on the flaws. While making them white may be the easiest thing, I don't think it's the best. A more nuanced approach would be better I think.


----------



## Mythopoet

And people wonder why writers are hesitant to write characters of a race different from their own... Because it doesn't matter how good your intentions are, people are going to nitpick it to death.


----------



## Mindfire

Graylorne said:


> The problem is not that all what Mindfire says really happens in my book, for I know it doesn't. But just as that specific blogger assumed the worst by that list of apparent problems, so can others. And if there is one thing I don't need is that the blogosphere starts whispering that I write racist books. I'd rather change the book now I can discretely do so, than being forced to do so later.



I think the best first move you can make is to try and change the first impression your book makes. Take another look at the blurb, the culture descriptions. Those are what raise the initial red flags that may cause people to view the rest of the text with a suspicious eye. The little blunders early on make the later ones seem even bigger. After you've fixed that issue, then investigate the rest of the text to make sure the stereotypes implied by the opening aren't actually in use in the work itself. I honestly think the hardest thing to root out will be that magical negro bit.


----------



## Graylorne

Thanks. No, I don't panic yet . 

May I send you a copy of Lioness, that you can check it out? For no, things are not really like that in the story. 
I can PM you a Smashwords code if you would have a look.


----------



## Mindfire

Mythopoet said:


> And people wonder why writers are hesitant to write characters of a race different from their own... Because it doesn't matter how good your intentions are, people are going to nitpick it to death.



But this isn't nitpicking. One doesn't have to look particularly close or far to see these problems. In fact, I'd say the only reason these things weren't blindingly obvious to the author is that he doesn't live in America and probably has very few, if any, Black acquaintances. If an American author, from Georgia let's say, made these same mistakes, I would be far less forgiving.


----------



## Mindfire

Graylorne said:


> Thanks. No, I don't panic yet .
> 
> May I send you a copy of Lioness, that you can check it out? For no, things are not really like that in the story.
> I can PM you a Smashwords code if you would have a look.



That's fine. I'll look it over when I have time and give you my opinion.


----------



## Devor

Mythopoet said:


> And people wonder why writers are hesitant to write characters of a race different from their own... Because it doesn't matter how good your intentions are, people are going to nitpick it to death.



I didn't see it as nitpicking.  Reading the review, I saw several but not all of the same things Mindfire pointed out.  I think they're reasonably valid issues.


----------



## Gryphos

Mythopoet said:


> And people wonder why writers are hesitant to write characters of a race different from their own... Because it doesn't matter how good your intentions are, people are going to nitpick it to death.



No matter what you do? Really? Surely if you do representation well no one will complain. If you don't want to be criticised, don't give them anything to criticise.


----------



## Graylorne

Mindfire said:


> That's fine. I'll look it over when I have time and give you my opinion.



I sent the code. Thanks; for now I'll just sit back and wait.


----------



## Nimue

Mythopoet said:


> And people wonder why writers are hesitant to write characters of a race different from their own... Because it doesn't matter how good your intentions are, people are going to nitpick it to death.



This isn't nitpicking.  Just because it isn't something you think about doesn't mean that there aren't people who have to think about this kind of thing every day because it's part of their identity.  People who are sensitive to supposedly minor cues of racism _because they warn them away from people who end up throwing racist abuse_, verbal or physical, at them. These criticisms aren't baseless, and claiming that they are isn't going to make it true.

It is important to put thought and effort into a POC character because you don't want to end up adding bricks to the _edifice_ of negative, dehumanizing portrayals of black people that are out there.  As illustrated by Mindfire.  There are some terrible but _true_ TvTropes pages out there.


----------



## Svrtnsse

Something else that came to mind following this thread are comments along the lines of _"no matter what you do you'll always offend someone, so just write and don't worry about being politically correct."_

I'm absolutely not saying that that's what's happened in this specific case (my impression is that it's rather the opposite).

It really drives home how things can take unpleasant turns even with the best of intentions though. It probably does pay off to try and check out how people will perceive the concepts you're introducing in your story, regardless of whether it's about ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, or anything else that someone may be passionate about in a way you're not familiar with.

There's one thing to be provocative or offensive when you're aware about it and prepared to deal with it. It's entirely different when you accidentally step on someone's toes when trying to be open-minded and inclusive.


----------



## Devor

Mindfire said:


> Well sure, if you have questions I'll gladly answer them as best I can. But I don't claim to be any sort of authority on this. And of course, not all Black people have identical opinions so others may view things differently.



Okay.  Thanks for addressing all this with a level head!

The character that I'm outlining is a wizard, a black man who dabbled with tribal shamanism when he was young, but has long since switched over to the more academic magical studies.  But because of his experience with the tribal magics, he's able to recognize something in his scrying that the other wizards don't, that a spirit monster (to keep it simple) is on its way to attack the white king's new baby daughter.  He stops the creature in an epic magical smackdown, but the king, who has no idea what's going on, assumes that he somehow created the monster and has him arrested.

He's rescued/recruited to join the MC's spirit-monster hunting party from his prison cell.

Does that raise any red flags with you?


----------



## Mythopoet

If we're trying to rid our society of racism, emphasizing people's race is NOT the way to do it. Making lists of all the things people cannot do or say because of another person's race is only making the problem worse, not helping anything.


----------



## Svrtnsse

Mythopoet said:


> If we're trying to rid our society of racism, emphasizing people's race is NOT the way to do it. Making lists of all the things people cannot do or say because of another person's race is only making the problem worse, not helping anything.



Are you sure about this? I've generally thought that raising awareness of an issue is a good thing. Like, it helps me understand it and gives me a better vocabulary when dealing with it.
On the other hand, pretending that something isn't an issue - or ignoring it - when it really is, isn't going to make it go away.


----------



## Mythopoet

Svrtnsse said:


> Are you sure about this? I've generally thought that raising awareness of an issue is a good thing. Like, it helps me understand it and gives me a better vocabulary when dealing with it.
> On the other hand, pretending that something isn't an issue - or ignoring it - when it really is, isn't going to make it go away.



Awareness for the most part, no matter the issue, does jack squat.


----------



## Svrtnsse

I think that's probably a matter of personal opinion/belief/philosophy.

For example, if I'm aware of something, it means I can chose whether to do something about it or not. If I'm not aware of something, I don't have that option.


----------



## Devor

Mythopoet said:


> If we're trying to rid our society of racism, emphasizing people's race is NOT the way to do it. Making lists of all the things people cannot do or say because of another person's race is only making the problem worse, not helping anything.



While I'm inclined to agree with you on that, this review hints at so many of the biggest racial stereotypes.  This isn't a petty, nitpicky list.  This is "black guys are violent and had to be suppressed into lazy pansies by their aggressive black women.... but you'll like the MC because she has pretty blue eyes like those pretty white people!"  At least, that's what the reviewer saw.

90% of my issue with these conversations is the tone, and the "it's all so easy" attitude of it.  Take those away, and it's a real discussion of real issues with a real work.  That's what's happening here and I think it's worth saluting.


----------



## Mythopoet

So none of the rest of you see a problem with making sure that certain people are treated differently (you can't use certain words around them, you can't talk about them in certain ways, etc.) because of the color of their skin?


----------



## Mindfire

Devor said:


> Okay.  Thanks for addressing all this with a level head!
> 
> The character that I'm outlining is a wizard, a black man who dabbled with tribal shamanism when he was young, but has long since switched over to the more academic magical studies.  But because of his experience with the tribal magics, he's able to recognize something in his scrying that the other wizards don't, that a spirit monster (to keep it simple) is on its way to attack the white king's new baby daughter.  He stops the creature in an epic magical smackdown, but the king, who has no idea what's going on, assumes that he somehow created the monster and has him arrested.
> 
> He's rescued/recruited to join the MC's spirit-monster hunting party from his prison cell.
> 
> Does that raise any red flags with you?



The only thing I see that could be a _potential_ issue is the tribal shamanism thing and the fact that he seems to "graduate" from it to "real" magic. Now that, in and of itself, is not bad or offensive. But if your story makes the implication that tribal shamanism = African, academic "real" magic = European, ergo European > African, _then_ you could have a problem. But this is very easy to avoid. I'd simply suggest you carefully consider how shamanic magic is portrayed and what role it plays in the world as compared to academic magic so you don't end up relying on stereotypes accidentally. But really it's not shamanic magic per se that you need to be careful about handling, just the culture associated with it. The "trap" is not the shamanism itself, but rather the stereotypes of African culture that are often associated with shamanism and that shamanism is sometimes used as a shorthand for. Namely that African people are ignorant, superstitious, barbarian pagans.


----------



## Devor

Mythopoet said:


> So none of the rest of you see a problem with making sure that certain people are treated differently (you can't use certain words around them, you can't talk about them in certain ways, etc.) because of the color of their skin?



I don't think that's what's happening here.  I think what's happening here is a real discussion about trying to appeal to a racially diverse audience.

Regardless, we get enough of these debate threads without derailing this one - 

*Please, let's keep this discussion thread focused on actual, specific stories.*


----------



## Devor

Mindfire said:


> The only thing I see that could be a _potential_ issue is the tribal shamanism thing and the fact that he seems to "graduate" from it to "real" magic. Now that, in and of itself, is not bad or offensive. But if your story makes the implication that tribal shamanism = African, academic "real" magic = European, ergo European > African, _then_ you could have a problem. But this is very easy to avoid. I'd simply suggest you carefully consider how shamanic magic is portrayed and what role it plays in the world as compared to academic magic so you don't end up relying on stereotypes accidentally. But really it's not shamanic magic per se that you need to be careful about handling, just the culture associated with it. The "trap" is not the shamanism itself, but rather the stereotypes of African culture that are often associated with shamanism and that shamanism is sometimes used as a shorthand for. Namely that African people are ignorant, superstitious, barbarian pagans.



As I presently intend to write it, the tribal magic is forbidden by laws or some sort of treaty, which is why he has to pursue the formal, academic magic.  He thinks of the shamanistic magic fondly as a thing that connects him to his family and his people, and it's implied that it's wrong for the laws to suppress it.


----------



## Mindfire

Devor said:


> As I presently intend to write it, the tribal magic is forbidden by laws or some sort of treaty, which is why he has to pursue the formal, academic magic.  He thinks of the shamanistic magic fondly as a thing that connects him to his family and his people, and it's implied that it's wrong for the laws to suppress it.



I don't see any problems then. Not at a glance anyway.


----------



## Gryphos

Mythopoet said:
			
		

> So none of the rest of you see a problem with making sure that certain people are treated differently (you can't use certain words around them, you can't talk about them in certain ways, etc.) because of the color of their skin?



This isn't about _stopping_ writers from doing anything. This is about advising them against using harmful tropes and criticising them when they do use them.


----------



## Svrtnsse

I'll try and get back on topic then. 

My character Alene is, among other things, brown skinned. She's also a shape-shifter and her animal aspect is destined to eventually driver her insane. As the story starts out, the reader will know right away that she's brown skinned, but they won't know about the other shape-shifting and the impending madness. Alene herself is well aware of the beast inside though, and how its madness is slowly seeping into her own mind.

The scene where I'm introducing Alene has her getting ready for the day and putting on her uniform. She works as a hostess/stewardess on a long distance passenger train. As she gets dressed she reflects on how the uniform symbolizes order and how it's reflected in the sharp contrast between its white shirt and her brown skin.

To start with, the main issue I see here is that of putting people of color in the role of servants. She's also wearing a uniform, which doesn't really improve matters any. So right away I've got a horrible racial stereotype on my hands. What I'd like to do is try and portray her as a real and interesting character with more depth than what's hinted at by the stereotype. I want to show her as she's dealing with her internal issues (looming madness), and external issues (racism, sexism). Can I do this? I don't know, but I'm going to give it a go and see how it turns out, and hopefully I can do her justice.

Based on the above information. What other issues do you see with the character that I ought to pay attention to?


----------



## Penpilot

Since some of your cultures are refugees, could you not make them a melting-pot culture? Instead of them being comprised of all dark skinned people, could you not make them be of all different colors? 

I'm taking all this from the review and the synopsis and what I've read here so correct me if I'm wrong. So you have this basic premise where males were too aggressive and someone tried to breed that aggressiveness out and into the women. Maybe instead of all the men and women coming from one culture, they were drawn from cultures all around the world, so this wasn't a race specific problem. It affected everyone, so these people with anger issues were thrown together and someone tried to "fix" them resulting in a culture with different skin tones, kind of like America and Canada. There's the larger general culture of a country and then there's the subtle and fine grain shades where people bring bits of culture from their home lands to create something within the greater whole and enriching it.


----------



## Graylorne

I can try and give a quick sketch of the situation.

Over a century ago there were three peoples living next to each other, the Kell, the Vanhaari and the Unwaari. 
The Kell were a nation of warring shamanistic clans, each striving for domination. This internecine war was killing many of them.

The Vanhaari were a a nation of warlocks, each a nucleus of a village or town. All common people worked to enable the warlocks to study. (Not slavery, more like a business). The warlocks were old and reclusive, and the commoners had never developed a purpose of their own.

The Unwaari were ultra-religious mage-priests, following the four aspects of the Sky Goddess. They worked on major scientific projects with the Vanhaari, who were the more theoretically inclined.

Then the four masks that were center to the Unwaari were on transport from their place of safety on an island by ship to Unwaar for the four-yearly festival. The Unwaari followed the progress ot the ship through the magical signal of an amulet. When passing the Kell and the Vanhaari coast, the signal disappeared and the masks were gone. The Unwaari went collectively mad and accused the Vanhaari of stealing the masks. They sent their armies into their brother country and the Vanhaari, being mostly elderly ivory tower scientists and without an army, were mostly killed. Only 99 managed to escape to the island of Malgarth. They found no masks.

The Unwaari attacked the Kell, who were too weakened to offer much resistance. Most of the surviving clans fled, to end up on Malgarth as well. Unbeknownst, one clan joined the Unwaari side and sent only half its people to Malgarth.

A century passed. The Kell built up a new civilization. As they realized the next war would mean their end, they did this transformation thing, to tone down the male aggression. They miscalculated and now the women were bigger and dominant, the men lost too much drive and became weak and will-less. 

The Vanhaari were not very welcome, the populace feared their magic, so the high king ordered them to stay at 99 warlocks and to never show their magic power in public. The warlocks, having lost thousands of their kin, cowered in their tower and instead of competing for high places through being the most powerful, they went to being the most beautiful. To prevent more warlocks born, they abolished marriage and sex for themselves (not the commoners). Only when a warlock died, which was rare, could another be born and the Council decided who. This birth was through artificial insemination and after birth the mother was paid off and married away. Should a commoner baby be born with magic, which happened from time to time, he/she would be operated upon and became a magicless simpleton.

On the continent, the Unwaari had lost contact with their goddess and went into collective shock. They abandoned Kell to the one treacherous tribe who followed them (and who remained to old shamanistic patriarchy). Vanhaar became an occupied country of (part-) ruined cities, where the commoners, now without a purpose, declined into poverty. The mage priests went mostly bad, as to them the shock was the greatest. 

The story starts a century after the war.

That, more or less, is what happened. I took great pains to show each of the peoples as having their own problems, their own weaknessess and strengths.

Part of the story is that the MC's find out what really happened to those masks, finally end the war and let their people return to their homelands and a normal life. One of the MC's is a Kell boy who is determined to prove the males are not as weak-willed as supposed but more reacting to social pressure.

Besides, I never said anywhere that the Kell were African. I pictured the world of the story looking like South-East Asia, like the many Asian peoples populating the islands. The Kell society was tribal, their military ranks were called lioness, tigress, leopardess and such (all living in Asia), but their structure is more Celtic, even to the clan names (M'Brannoe, with the '  for c). I can imagine them having a Zulu flavor, but I wasn't going that way. 

Nor were the Vanhaari/Unwaari European whites. I clearly gave them a color range from alabaster to slate gray, wich doesn't exist, just to underscore their not being Europeans.

Al in all I must have majorly slipped up on the descriptive front, due to inexperience or whatever, to not create a clearer picture.

Then to think that those same 13% and more have been both on Wattpad and my webside for months (under the old name Warlocky). Not even a hint of anything wrong. I thought I had covered all paths.


----------



## Panda

Graylorne said:


> lioness, tigress, leopardess and such (all living in Asia)



Lions are African, not Asian.

Something I'm surprised no one has mentioned (unless I missed it earlier in the thread): what's with Basil needing to "repair his foot" to "prove his beauty"? I haven't read the book and the review doesn't go into detail, so I might be making an unfair assumption, but I'm kind of uncomfortable with the equation of disability to ugliness. Please tell me your story doesn't portray this kind of attitude as a good thing.


----------



## Graylorne

Panda said:


> Lions are African, not Asian.



Beg to differ  Asian lion



> Something I'm surprised no one has mentioned (unless I missed it earlier in the thread): what's with Basil needing to "repair his foot" to "prove his beauty"? I haven't read the book and the review doesn't go into detail, so I might be making an unfair assumption, but I'm kind of uncomfortable with the equation of disability to ugliness. Please tell me your story doesn't portray this kind of attitude as a good thing.



Panda, I wouldn't dream of it. On the contrary, it is the first thing that shows my male MC how stupid some of his Council's rules are (Why they are this way is a plot secret, but the rules were made with evil intent and will be overturned.)
The rule says that a warlock must be beautiful to prove his power. All their beauty is genetically created. Only somehow Basil's toes resist all tinkering. His father concealed this from the Council, but when at the start of the book they summon him, they will discover the truth, Basil will be judged incapable to make himself beautiful thus lacking in power thus unsuited to be a warlock, and they will take away his magic and his intelligence. That is why he flees.

To appease the Council, he sets out to find a spell that could repair his foot, but when he finally finds it, he for several reasons won't use the spell. He has learned to adventure with that foot and he has sworn to end all that beauty-idiocy.


----------



## Svrtnsse

"Beautiocity"


----------



## Panda

Graylorne said:


> Beg to differ  Asian lion



Cool, I had no idea. (You'd think someone with a username like mine would know more about Asian wildlife...)



> Panda, I wouldn't dream of it. On the contrary, it is the first thing that shows my male MC how stupid some of his Council's rules are (Why they are this way is a plot secret, but the rules were made with evil intent and will be overturned.)
> The rule says that a warlock must be beautiful to prove his power. All their beauty is genetically created. Only somehow Basil's toes resist all tinkering. His father concealed this from the Council, but when at the start of the book they summon him, they will discover the truth, Basil will be judged incapable to make himself beautiful thus lacking in power thus unsuited to be a warlock, and they will take away his magic and his intelligence. That is why he flees.
> 
> To appease the Council, he sets out to find a spell that could repair his foot, but when he finally finds it, he for several reasons won't use the spell. He has learned to adventure with that foot and he has sworn to end all that beauty-idiocy.



Awesome.


----------



## Graylorne

Panda said:


> Cool, I had no idea. (You'd think someone with a username like mine would know more about Asian wildlife...)










Here, then.


----------



## Panda

ROFL! That's what you get when you cross my username with my avatar.


----------



## Darkwriter

Jabrosky said:


> I just bought your book for my iPad's Kindle App, Graylorne. Give me a few days to read it and see if I disagree with that reviewer.
> 
> I can confidently say I have no problem whatsoever with the concept of a sexy black female warrior, especially if she's the heroines. Lots of white and other non-black women get to be sexy warrior heroines in this genre, so it's only fair to see black heroines receive the same treatment. The "big powerhouse" trope is the only trope I see that might be construed as offensively masculinizing, but on the other hand it does make sense for a warrior race. And I presume she's the love interest anyway?
> 
> As for the cover art, I agree that it whitewashes your heroine, but your reviewer (who frankly sounds to me like a social justice troll) should take that up with the cover artist.



I'm the person who wrote the blogpost and I've been watching this discussion unfold over the weekend and I'd like to say a few things.

First off- it's not a review; it was an update of my reading progress.  I find it comes in handy to keep running notes about a book, plus it often helps to generate interest in it.  I don't understand how everyone keeps calling it a review, especially when I clearly stated that I wouldn't be posting one for the book.

Second- can someone explain how any of you got the idea I was female?

To Jabronsky- thanks for the condescenion.  You don't know me so you should keep your snide judgments where you get them from.  At least until you get to know me.

And I think we all owe Mindfire a great deal of thanks.  He's articulated the problems I had with the book succintly and probably more eloquently than I ever would or could have.


----------



## Darkwriter

Graylorne said:


> Nimue: The magic used by the black people isn't bad. I never said it was bad. I said their shamans got power mad. Bit in the Shaka Zulu style. The women and their magic were perfectly fine.
> 
> This is awful! Maud is big and strong, and 18 and playfully amorous, and pretty, and very very feminine. And a highly educated officer of the queen, trained as both liaison officer and commando. And she had blue eyes, like http://afritorial.com/black-people-with-blue-eyes/. And she get a very happy, joyous relation with one of the 'white' boys.
> 
> I've been a teacher; I worked with refugees from all over the world. I wouldn't dream doing silly things. This whole book is based on equality.
> 
> Sigh, I'm getting upset. Sorry, Nimue.



To the question of Shamanic Magic, it's true the idea initially presented is skewed through history as Maud knows it to be.  But when encountering the kobolds the leader tells them that the mage used them to assist his experiments and he didn't care about their lives, inferring that he's just as power-mad and cruel as we've been led to believe the other males were, leaving one of two options: the Magic Negro as Mindfire explained, or the last of the evil Shamans to destroy.  Neither's very promising.


----------



## Darkwriter

Graylorne said:


> I didn't dream that one up; it was a series of discussions on another forum where there points were discussed.
> Of course you're right, it's a matter of how you portray your orcs.
> 
> But that's beside the point. I want to write books about people and to me the color of their skin isn't very important. Their characters are, and the things they do.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite willing to listen and learn, only several points literally make no sense to me, because I don't understand the insinuations.
> 
> By now I get the blue eyes, I think.
> 
> I get the mulattoes, too, although they aren't and I only said many of them were halfbreeds. Ah, now I reread it, they probably mean the word *light-skinned* To me that means white, Mediterranean white, but certainly not mulatto.
> 
> So a lot of the problem is in the description of the peoples that goes with the map. I can rewrite that, no problem.
> 
> Still, seeing this blog post is part of a Virtual Book Tour, it would be nice if she'd read the whole book before blogging.
> 
> 
> 
> NB: I sent an email to the tour coordinator, with the request to pass on to the blogger that I am quite willing to discuss things and see what I can do to take the bad impression away.
> Seems to me the most reasonable thing to do.



Mulatto is, in the context of the word, half-breed: an (in)direct mix of black/white genes.  Here in the US the term 'light-skinned' is the most common euphemism.  Having an entire region populated by such and catergorizing them as troublemakers didn't make a good impression.

And I understand your intent to discuss matters was sincere, but for future reference avoid trying to contact reviewers directly, regardless.  You may not be aware that bloggers/reviewers are being 'attacked', for lack of a better word, by lots of self-published John and Jane Does when they get a bad review (sort of like what happened here but on a more intensive scale).  You may recall a recent incident where a UK author tracked a woman down and assaulted her with a wine bottle because of her review, as well as the Kathleen Hale debacle here in the US.  You mean well but leave things alone; I'm only here because I found the discussion and felt it warranted a response to help clear things up.


----------



## Darkwriter

When writing outside of your experience, it's always helpful to get more perspective.  It's no different than writing about a city and traveling there to get the feel of the place.

As far as worldbuilding goes I'd strongly suggest Patrcia Wrede's excellent questionnaire, which remains freely available online.  There's also author Holly Lisle's series of books that expand of Wrede's work and really helps nail things down.  Imagine designing a culture from scratch and providing them not only their own language (complete with syntax) but also their own versions of King Arthur, the Tower of London, collected works of Shakespeare, Stairway to Heaven, etc.  I can't recommend those enough.

If you're having trouble with descriptors- skin tones, etc- I'd then recommend Gary Gygax's Worldbuilding books; while similar in many respects to Wrede and Lisle's work, to me their real value is in the appendices- comprehensive lists of just about every adjective and adverb you can imagine for anything ranging from body parts to architecture.


----------



## Jabrosky

Darkwriter said:


> To Jabronsky- thanks for the condescenion.  You don't know me so you should keep your snide judgments where you get them from.  At least until you get to know me.


My inference that you were a "social justice troll" came from a history of bad experiences with people whose rhetoric sounded superficially like your own, at least on that one blog post. It's a bit like how a guy saying anything critical of certain strains of feminist thought might be (mis)taken for a "men's rights activist" or even a full-blown misogynist. But you're right, people are always more complex than what one blog post might reveal, so I still owe you an apology for my brash judgement.

*PS.* I don't have enough information to presume you female, but the stereotypical "social justice warrior" is indeed a militantly "feminist" woman (or transwoman).


----------



## Darkwriter

Jabrosky said:


> My inference that you were a "social justice troll" came from a history of bad experiences with people whose rhetoric sounded superficially like your own, at least on that one blog post. It's a bit like how a guy saying anything critical of certain strains of feminist thought might be (mis)taken for a "men's rights activist" or even a full-blown misogynist. But you're right, people are always more complex than what one blog post might reveal, so I still owe you an apology for my brash judgement.
> 
> *PS.* I don't have enough information to presume you female, but the stereotypical "social justice warrior" is indeed a militantly "feminist" woman (or transwoman).



Accepted.  Shall we proceed with our katana fight?  

Followed your blog, btw.


----------



## Darkwriter

What's really odd about all of this is that everyone keeps overlooking the fact that I WANTED to read the book.  I signed up for it on the blog tour because I was eager to read it and give it a chance, despite the cover and the blurb.  I simply couldn't get past what I was reading.

It's also overlooked how no one owes an author anything.  When you read a book, all you know is what's in front of you.  Whatever story or journey lies behind it is not your concern or your business, nor should it be.  The idea that anyone who doesnt like a particular book is either filled with jealousy or wants to tear all authors down would be completely laughable if it wasn't such a rising tide.  It's saying that the book couldn't be bad simply because they liked it or are friends/family with the author.  God forbid someone should read a book they didn't like and say so.  If it's not because these readers have no clue as to what they're reading, it's because if they can't say anything nice then they shouldn't say anything at all... except when they should only email the author in private to tell only them what's wrong with it.

Reviews aren't written for authors; they're for other readers.  As was pointed out, it's what worked or didn't work for them and they're free to say so or not say so.  Period.


----------



## Svrtnsse

Darkwriter said:


> If you're having trouble with descriptors- skin tones, etc- I'd then recommend Gary Gygax's Worldbuilding books; while similar in many respects to Wrede and Lisle's work, to me their real value is in the appendices- comprehensive lists of just about every adjective and adverb you can imagine for anything ranging from body parts to architecture.



This came up in a somewhat related thread and this resource was linked: Writing with Color Ã¢â‚¬” Skin. Writing with Color has received several...
It's got some good suggestions as well as some explanations for why certain words may be problematic.


----------



## Penpilot

Panda said:


> Cool, I had no idea. (You'd think someone with a username like mine would know more about Asian wildlife...)



Just to add, the lion is also a significant part of Asian culture. There's a lion dance during Chinese New Year and during other celebrations like weddings etc. 

Lion dance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Penpilot

Darkwriter said:


> Reviews aren't written for authors; they're for other readers.  As was pointed out, it's what worked or didn't work for them and they're free to say so or not say so.  Period.



This is very true, but like any opinions that get express in public, they are open to being scrutinized too.


----------



## Darkwriter

One more thing.  I'm trying to take Paul at his word that he was striving for something other than what I interpreted things to be, but I find it utterly amazing how he could consistently not only hit so many wrong notes, he bullseyed them (sorry for the mixed metaphors).  Going back to the misappropriation of the black female image , here's an excerpt provided in the media kit for the book tour.

EXCERPT 5 – FROM CHAPTER 21
On his way forward, Jurgis stopped, his need to piss forgotten as a young girl came up the gangway. She was a Kell, nearly as black as Maud, but with her hair made up as a bird’s nest, and dressed in a flowing robe of gauze as thin as cobweb that betrayed every inch of the strong body underneath.
‘You, male!’ she said in a tone that roused hot rage in Jurgis’ breast. ‘I am seeking the Lioness Maud of the M’Brannoe. Tell her I come for her.’
Jurgis closed his mouth with an audible snap. He’d met plenty rough girls in Brisa. Harbor whores, tavern wenches, pickpockets; all coarse and often foul-mouthed women, but none had ever displayed the soul-wrenching arrogance of this barely dressed chit.
The girl frowned at his silence. ‘Are you dumb, male? Go quickly, and warn the lioness I am here. Jump to it.’
‘Well, it’s that you ask it so kindly,’ Jurgis said. ‘And who might you be?’
‘Don’t be impertinent!’ The girl’s eyes flashed. ‘My name is not your concern. Go and fetch the lioness.’
Without another word, Jurgis strode back to their cabin. He slammed the door shut behind him and Maud turned around, her sheathed sword in her hand. ‘Something wrong?’
Jurgis cursed. ‘There’s a girl come on board. A terribly arrogant, snotty girl in the most nekkid robe I ever saw. She wants to see you.’
‘A naked robe?’ Maud frowned. ‘Then she’s a wisewoman. The young ones like to go about in transparent drapes.’ She prodded Jurgis’ breastbone with a finger. ‘Don’t you believe for a moment her dress has anything to do with her being hot and cuddlesome. A wisewoman isn’t a warrioress. We’re generally easygoing; they are the opposite, and this girl’s nakedness is a deadly trap. She’d remove the manhood of any offender even quicker than I would.’
Jurgis growled. ‘That ill-mannered child cuddlesome? I’d rather mount one of those pewbara cats.’
‘Much safer. Was she alone?’
Jurgis thought back and shook his head. ‘No. She had an attendant. A boy. He wasn’t much bigger than I and looked scared as hell.’
Maud sighed. ‘They sent us a difficult one.’
‘Not all your wisewomen are wise?’
‘Forget it. They’re no better than warlocks.’

In addition to the Kell warriors constantly being in 'Fight or **** mode (sic), our introduction to a Kell Wisewoman- a future leader of their society- is of her flaunting her sexuality, parading around practically naked yet daring someone to approach her because of it.  Remind you of anything?


----------



## Darkwriter

Penpilot said:


> This is very true, but like any opinions that get express in public, they are open to being scrutinized too.



Scrutiny, absolutely.  Subject to attack, harassment, cyber-stalking, physical violence- no.


----------



## Mindfire

Darkwriter said:


> One more thing.  I'm trying to take Paul at his word that he was striving for something other than what I interpreted things to be, but I find it utterly amazing how he could consistently not only hit so many wrong notes, he bullseyed them (sorry for the mixed metaphors).  Going back to the misappropriation of the black female image , here's an excerpt provided in the media kit for the book tour.
> 
> EXCERPT 5 – FROM CHAPTER 21
> *snip*










Okay, Graylorne isn't from the US so he probably doesn't know but WOW. I'll do my best to look his work over and give him a comprehensive opinion as soon as I feasibly can.


----------



## Svrtnsse

Darkwriter said:


> In addition to the Kell warriors constantly being in 'Fight or **** mode (sic), our introduction to a Kell Wisewoman- a future leader of their society- is of her flaunting her sexuality, parading around practically naked yet daring someone to approach her because of it.  Remind you of anything?



I'll bite.
I may be overthinking it, or completely missing the point, but I don't see what you're getting at here that I should be reminded of.


----------



## Darkwriter

Svrtnsse said:


> I'll bite.
> I may be overthinking it, or completely missing the point, but I don't see what you're getting at here that I should be reminded of.



Stereotypical black woman.  Strutting around, aggressively flaunting their attributes yet surly, nasty attitude and hard to get along with.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

In Graylorne's defense, I'll say that I wouldn't have guessed the blue eyes would be problematic, aside from blue eyes being a recessive gene means blue eyes are rare among those whose ethnicity is partially European. (I realize the Kells are not mixed race, but are a fictional race.)

It all comes down to one's own experiences. I probably know more mixed race people than most, and by "know" I mean "see daily, especially the three who live in my house." My wife is Chinese, so our daughters are an Irish-Italian-Chinese mix. I have one cousin with a Haitian husband and mixed race daughter, and another cousin with a Japanese wife—and his daughter actually has blonde hair and blue eyes. (Extremely rare—the only other time I saw half-Asian children with blonde and blue was on a plane to Hong Kong ten years ago.) My daughter also recently made friends with a girl at Chinese school. Her mother is Irish and her father is African (from South Africa).

None of what I just said takes away from the validity of Darkwriter's objections to the blue eyes. As writers, I do agree we need to be aware of what works in a diverse cast and what doesn't.

We've had so many discussions on diversity, and one member in particular often made the point that there's more to creating a diverse cast than "just do it!"—and I'll add that he took quite a bit of heat for saying it. Since he's got too much class to say I told you so (while I, on the other hand, am a Masshole), let me just say that this thread validates his point. His point being to understand—and not underestimate—the challenges that come with including in your works cultures that you haven't experienced first-hand.


----------



## Svrtnsse

Darkwriter said:


> Stereotypical black woman.  Strutting around, aggressively flaunting their attributes yet surly, nasty attitude and hard to get along with.



Thanks. Got it. I was thinking there was some kind of historical/cultural reference I was missing.


----------



## Devor

Legendary Sidekick said:


> We've had so many discussions on diversity, and one member in particular often made the point that there's more to creating a diverse cast than "just do it!"–and I'll add that he took quite a bit of heat for saying it. Since he's got too much class to say I told you so (while I, on the other hand, am a Masshole), let me just say that this thread validates his point. His point being to understand–and not underestimate–the challenges that come with including in your works cultures that you haven't experienced first-hand.



Thank you - that - that wasn't necessary.


:bounce:


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Massholes don't worry about what's necessary. So… yeah, you told us so.


----------



## Graylorne

Darkwriter said:


> Mulatto is, in the context of the word, half-breed: an (in)direct mix of black/white genes.  Here in the US the term 'light-skinned' is the most common euphemism.  Having an entire region populated by such and catergorizing them as troublemakers didn't make a good impression.
> 
> And I understand your intent to discuss matters was sincere, but for future reference avoid trying to contact reviewers directly, regardless.  You may not be aware that bloggers/reviewers are being 'attacked', for lack of a better word, by lots of self-published John and Jane Does when they get a bad review (sort of like what happened here but on a more intensive scale).  You may recall a recent incident where a UK author tracked a woman down and assaulted her with a wine bottle because of her review, as well as the Kathleen Hale debacle here in the US.  You mean well but leave things alone; I'm only here because I found the discussion and felt it warranted a response to help clear things up.



First of all thank you for coming here, I really appreciate it.

I know about that reviews are not for authors, and i have followed too many of those battles to want to be part of it.
I asked the tour operator to contact you about this, only because I didn't understand half of your comments and I wanted to know what I did wrong. If I can't ask, I can't learn.


----------



## Graylorne

Darkwriter said:


> In addition to the Kell warriors constantly being in 'Fight or **** mode (sic), our introduction to a Kell Wisewoman- a future leader of their society- is of her flaunting her sexuality, parading around practically naked yet daring someone to approach her because of it.  Remind you of anything?



Actually, it doesn't remind me of anything. I only saw a troubled young teenage girl acting aggressive to give herself a pose.



> Stereotypical black woman. Strutting around, aggressively flaunting their attributes yet surly, nasty attitude and hard to get along with.



I see what you mean, but I wouldn't have known it as a stereotype, nor its implications.


----------



## Graylorne

Darkwriter said:


> When writing outside of your experience, it's always helpful to get more perspective.  It's no different than writing about a city and traveling there to get the feel of the place.
> 
> As far as worldbuilding goes I'd strongly suggest Patrcia Wrede's excellent questionnaire, which remains freely available online.  There's also author Holly Lisle's series of books that expand of Wrede's work and really helps nail things down.  Imagine designing a culture from scratch and providing them not only their own language (complete with syntax) but also their own versions of King Arthur, the Tower of London, collected works of Shakespeare, Stairway to Heaven, etc.  I can't recommend those enough.
> 
> If you're having trouble with descriptors- skin tones, etc- I'd then recommend Gary Gygax's Worldbuilding books; while similar in many respects to Wrede and Lisle's work, to me their real value is in the appendices- comprehensive lists of just about every adjective and adverb you can imagine for anything ranging from body parts to architecture.



I used Writing with Color for the skin descriptions. I also googled the blue eyes and found several sites discussing how they came about, and how possibly the original peoples coming out of Africa to colonize Europe were of dark skin with (again possibly) blue eyes. It were people like these I had in mind when I thought of the Kell, but in a more SE Asian setting. And nowhere I found a suggestion that blue eyes and dark skin were denigrating. 
I was purposely not writing about Afro-Americans, just as I wouldn't write about Native Americans, because I knew that was a sensitive area I didn't understand a thing about. I should have kept to my own Medieval Europe.
Damn, I only wanted to write about people of color having adventures.


----------



## buyjupiter

Graylorne said:


> Actually, it doesn't remind me of anything. I only saw a troubled young teenage girl acting aggressive to give herself a pose.



This might be another thing that is more stereotypically American. Personal opinion: It's odd to think that you guys don't have some similarly parallel belief, because I don't quite buy that Europe is so much more advanced and righteous than the rest of the world.

The belief is this: that black women (or indeed all women of color, and maybe even all women, come to think of it) are so "sexual" to the point that they go about naked (or close enough to it) to be provocative. This is a good starting point for the sassy, black woman trope: Sassy Black Woman - TV Tropes 

Arguments have been made often enough about this subject that it's a trope in fiction: the woman of color as a sexualized object. Key word here: _*object*_. She has no agency beyond her sex drive and lack of inhibitions and menfolk around will blame their behavior on her prancing about with no clothes on. (Or flirting, or being intelligent, or funny, or pretty, or having [x, y, z]). _*Women aren't responsible for other people's actions!*_

It's part of what drives people to ask "well what was she wearing" when a story about a woman being attacked is on the news.

And to be quite honest, that character--as described--is hitting just about all the markers of the madonna/whore thing for me. (This is a good starting point: Madonna—Whore Complex - TV Tropes).

I don't think you can't fix this, but as the work is described as of now--I'd be giving it a miss.


----------



## Graylorne

I can't speak for all of Europe, only for my own country. In the Netherlands we don't. Not to say that it doesn't happen, but on the whole the feminist movement was rather successful over here. One of the big problems we have with especially one of our own minority groups is (Moroccan youths) is that they tend to objectify Dutch (read unbeliever) girls. That is one of the differences that always amaze me following US news. We really are different cultures.


----------



## Philip Overby

About writing reviewers about your books: I think if this was a case of getting a bad review (or book update) that focused a lot on weak characters, a confusing plot, and these kind of things, then I think the author should just take the loss and hopefully learn from those mistakes by working on their craft more. It's not the reviewer's job to teach everyone how to write. But for things like including diversity, I think Graylorne is doing a good thing by trying to figure out what has made people so angry or upset. I don't believe he meant to offend intentionally, that's why he's trying to figure out how to prevent future incidents like this from happening. 

I mentioned this in an earlier post, but fiery responses (like "this is f***ing pissing me off") at the beginning of a blog post or review are going to cause people like Graylorne (although I hope he doesn't) to abandon writing diverse characters altogether. He's already said that he should have stuck to what he knew and that's Medieval Europe. I'm afraid if responses to attempts to include diversity are constantly met with anger and disbelief, then it's not helping the movement for writers to try new things. Everyone will just go back to writing only in their comfort zone and that bothers me. They'll be terrified to write characters of different races and genders for fear that someone is going to rip them to shreds. Sure, it's a person's choice to write a review however they like, but when it comes to including diversity in fiction, I'd like to see less "You're doing it wrong and I hate it" and more "This is very flawed for multiple reasons, so I hope my criticism doesn't ring on deaf ears." Hopefully Graylorne has gleaned some useful advice from this discussion and it will help him in exploring diverse characters in the future. 

I know it's not every writer and reviewer's duty to educate people on diversity, but if we want to see more of it in the genre, we need to do our best to try. But as writers we also have to do as much research as possible before writing a character that might be misconstrued as something it wasn't intended to be. In this case (a rare one I might add) the reviewer, Darkwriter, has chosen to address these concerns more. This is certainly a good thing and helpful for Graylorne going forward. But as writers we have to understand that this is a rarity and we always have to be prepared for good and bad when it comes to our work and how people will view it.


----------



## Jabrosky

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment on the topic of diversity and stereotyping...anyone else suspect if, once racism against African and other non-European people dissipates as a serious social pressure, stereotypes like those perceived in the OP's work actually _wouldn't_ be seen as so offensive?

I presume most of us wouldn't see jokes poking at the Irish, French, or Italians as offensive on the same level as those targeting African or Native American people. That's because very few of us in America seriously have strong feelings either way about the Irish, French, or Italians, to the extent that we even notice them as distinct from other white people. Over 150 years ago, attitudes towards the Irish and Italians would have been very different, but since then they've been given the chance to assimilate into "mainstream" white American society and so have lost practically all the stigma once attached to them. Thereby no one feels guilty of oppression when they playfully stereotype them, since those groups don't have much to lose from being stereotyped anymore. Perhaps the day when jokes about black and Native people aren't seen as such a big deal ether is the day they've finally gotten to integrate into the American mainstream.

Am I arguing that writers _today _shouldn't worry about stereotyping since those stereotypes might someday lose their hurtful power? Not necessarily, as you could just as easily add more fuel to that fire while it's still going, and stereotypes will always be lazy and one-dimensional characterization no matter when you're writing. Nonetheless, I wish to ask how much influence we as fiction writers really wield over the treatment of certain demographic groups. We are still writing _fiction_, not factual rebuttals to conventional prejudices, and our genre of choice is even further removed from reality than most others. And when you're dealing with the larger problem of _institutional _racism, also known as "racism without racists", you'll need something much more potent than a few fantasy novels to overturn its legacy. Somehow I doubt it was a trend in speculative fiction alone that let those Irish or Italians become socially white.


----------



## Devor

buyjupiter said:


> And to be quite honest, that character--as described--is hitting just about all the markers of the madonna/whore thing for me. (This is a good starting point: Madonna–Whore Complex - TV Tropes).



I just wanted to say that part of my family comes from an Jersey-Italian background, and they've always explained the Madonna/Whore thing as something else entirely.  As I was told, it's when the guy treats you like the sacred Madonna when you first meet, and then like a whore after you're married or together a while.  It's something that's let a lot of real a-holes make a lot of women very miserable.

It's an example of how I am often struck by how "small" many offenses feel to me in comparison to the things I've experienced.  This portrayal just strikes me as so . . . . I guess, inconsequential, I would say.

Don't get me wrong.  I did see the sassy sexual untouchable black girl stereotype thing.  I didn't find it appropriate.  But we're all affected by our own background lens shifting our perspective of how important things are.


----------



## Graylorne

Devor said:


> Don't get me wrong.  I did see the sassy sexual untouchable black girl stereotype thing.  I didn't find it appropriate.  But we're all affected by our own background lens shifting our perspective of how important things are.



Only it wasn't the sassy etc.   
Imagine the Kell culture (as told in the story) - male and female roles were reversed. The women had the dominant roles, the men were weak and served. No marriages, at most a consenting partnership. The girl had no reason whatsoever to flaunt her sexuality, no male would have refused her. The young wisewomen were proud of their bodies, and there being no nudity taboo, liked to show it. (No sexual taboo either, but anything else than consensual sex was considered not done.) Maud warned Jurgis the girl was a deathtrap, because a girl as haughty and touchy as Wemawee could react unpleasantly to any impertinence. (Not that Jurgis would have done so.)   
Besides, Wemawee is a late MC, who learns a lot about the world in only a few chapters.

I had expected comments on the rather free sexual mores in general, but the Madonna/Whore-complex doesn't fit anything I wrote.


----------



## Jabrosky

Graylorne said:


> Only it wasn't the sassy etc.
> Imagine the Kell culture (as told in the story) - male and female roles were reversed. The women had the dominant roles, the men were weak and served. No marriages, at most a consenting partnership. The girl had no reason whatsoever to flaunt her sexuality, no male would have refused her. The young wisewomen were proud of their bodies, and there being no nudity taboo, liked to show it. (No sexual taboo either, but anything else than consensual sex was considered not done.) Maud warned Jurgis the girl was a deathtrap, because a girl as haughty and touchy as Wemawee could react unpleasantly to any impertinence. (Not that Jurgis would have done so.)
> Besides, Wemawee is a late MC, who learns a lot about the world in only a few chapters.
> 
> I had expected comments on the rather free sexual mores in general, but the Madonna/Whore-complex doesn't fit anything I wrote.


Whatever may be said of your setting's sexual mores, or the Kells' gender reversal, I didn't get the impression that your Wemawee character was meant to represent the Kells in general, let alone black women from our world. In that excerpt, she didn't conduct herself the way Maud or Hala have in what I've read so far (I'm about to start Ch. 8 now). And I can tell from both your comments here and the book itself that you've put more thought into your characterization and world-building than I'd expect from a writer dependent on stereotypes. 

The key problem with stereotypes _isn't_ that they're _never _drawn from real differences, or that you can't find a few individuals in a group who coincide with them in at least one way. You could even say African characters having dark skin is technically a stereotype that glosses over albino individuals, or maybe North African Arabs and South African Dutch. The problem is that stereotypes are by nature simplifications, or caricatures, of complex truths, and are therefore lazy characterization.


----------



## Devor

Graylorne said:


> Only it wasn't the sassy etc.



Graylorne, don't take this the wrong way, but there's now an excerpt that we're looking at, and that kind of trumps your comments.

The excerpt has a young black woman, an elder, flaunting her sexuality while remaining so untouchable as to "take your manhood" if you try.  But it's more than that.  This isn't just this one character with her own personality; _it's what their elders do_.  That's not working out here.


----------



## Graylorne

> One more thing. I'm trying to take Paul at his word that he was striving for something other than what I interpreted things to be, but I find it utterly amazing how he could consistently not only hit so many wrong notes, he bullseyed them (sorry for the mixed metaphors). Going back to the misappropriation of the black female image , here's an excerpt provided in the media kit for the book tour.
> 
> EXCERPT 5 — FROM CHAPTER 21
> On his way forward, Jurgis stopped, his need to piss forgotten as a young girl came up the gangway. She was a Kell, nearly as black as Maud, but with her hair made up as a bird’s nest, and dressed in a flowing robe of gauze as thin as cobweb that betrayed every inch of the strong body underneath.
> ‘You, male!’ she said in a tone that roused hot rage in Jurgis’ breast. ‘I am seeking the Lioness Maud of the M’Brannoe. Tell her I come for her.’
> Jurgis closed his mouth with an audible snap. He’d met plenty rough girls in Brisa. Harbor whores, tavern wenches, pickpockets; all coarse and often foul-mouthed women, but none had ever displayed the soul-wrenching arrogance of this barely dressed chit.
> The girl frowned at his silence. ‘Are you dumb, male? Go quickly, and warn the lioness I am here. Jump to it.’
> ‘Well, it’s that you ask it so kindly,’ Jurgis said. ‘And who might you be?’
> ‘Don’t be impertinent!’ The girl’s eyes flashed. ‘My name is not your concern. Go and fetch the lioness.’
> Without another word, Jurgis strode back to their cabin. He slammed the door shut behind him and Maud turned around, her sheathed sword in her hand. ‘Something wrong?’
> Jurgis cursed. ‘There’s a girl come on board. A terribly arrogant, snotty girl in the most nekkid robe I ever saw. She wants to see you.’
> ‘A naked robe?’ Maud frowned. ‘Then she’s a wisewoman. The young ones like to go about in transparent drapes.’ She prodded Jurgis’ breastbone with a finger. ‘Don’t you believe for a moment her dress has anything to do with her being hot and cuddlesome. A wisewoman isn’t a warrioress. We’re generally easygoing; they are the opposite, and this girl’s nakedness is a deadly trap. She’d remove the manhood of any offender even quicker than I would.’
> Jurgis growled. ‘That ill-mannered child cuddlesome? I’d rather mount one of those pewbara cats.’
> ‘Much safer. Was she alone?’
> Jurgis thought back and shook his head. ‘No. She had an attendant. A boy. He wasn’t much bigger than I and looked scared as hell.’
> Maud sighed. ‘They sent us a difficult one.’
> ‘Not all your wisewomen are wise?’
> ‘Forget it. They’re no better than warlocks.’
> 
> In addition to the Kell warriors constantly being in 'Fight or **** mode (sic), our introduction to a Kell Wisewoman- a future leader of their society- is of her flaunting her sexuality, parading around practically naked yet daring someone to approach her because of it. Remind you of anything?



Devor, here is the whole fragment. Where does it say ' flaunt?'  She's walking around almost nude, yes. Is that flaunting? Is a nudist camp flaunting? To me, showing your body is only flaunting when you aim to arouse others. She doesn't.  

The other remark, about their elders, I don't understand.


----------



## Devor

> ‘A naked robe?’ Maud frowned. ‘Then she’s a wisewoman. The young ones like to go about in transparent drapes.’ She prodded Jurgis’ breastbone with a finger. ‘Don’t you believe for a moment her dress has anything to do with her being hot and cuddlesome. *A wisewoman isn’t a warrioress. We’re generally easygoing; they are the opposite, and this girl’s nakedness is a deadly trap.* She’d remove the manhood of any offender even quicker than I would.’



I used "elder" when I meant "wisewoman."  Her nakedness wouldn't be a "trap" if she wasn't flaunting it.

I've known people who behaved that way.  It happens.  But this is how you have their wisewomen behave as a matter of course.  I can see why people would think that's implying a lot.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Devor said:


> But this is how you have their wisewomen behave as a matter of course.  I can see why people would think that's implying a lot.



But is that implying the wisewoman as a person or wisewomen in general? And if it is general is it only for the younger group and the older group matures out if it?

I'm not defending the actions here, but it is a question that I think requires greater context. Because if this was a fad among the younger people it could just be attributed to young people being stupid, even if they are part of the wisewoman caste.


----------



## Graylorne

Devor: I can't and I'm not implying anything nasty.
I paint three peoples still recovering from a war. All three, Kell, Vanhaari and Unwaari have massive problems. I made the three peoples equal. No one is wiser or more successful than the other two. The Kell and Vanhaari are more or less cooped up in too small a territory, without purpose; the Unwaari have lost their beloved goddess and suffer from massive remorse. Yes, they are all reacting wrongly. They're refugees, seemingly whole but they're not. That's why the MC's decide their peoples need their old lands back and return to a normal life, what after all the point is of the book. 


Brian: It is mostly the young wisewomen who walk around naked if they want to. They are all arrogant. Only Wemawee is acting worse, and for a plot reason. It's all in the book. 

Though they as a caste are a hidebound lot, most wisewomen serve as well as they can. As advisers, for the leader is the queen. And the wisewomen carry the guilt of the transformation of the sexes that went so wrong. Many of the best wisewomen died through overtaxing, and the remainder are not so great.


----------



## Devor

Graylorne said:


> Devor: I can't and I'm not implying anything nasty.



I mean, you describe her as "arrogant, snotty," the "opposite" of easy going, whose "nakedness is a deadly trap."  And, "She’d remove the manhood of any offender....."

These are all the sorts of things certain people in America would say against black women.  But okay.  Some people behave all sorts of ways.  Whatever.  But you're now applying them to a whole caste of "wisewomen" who are the leaders of the tribe.  So all these stereotypes are now an identifying characteristic of how many young black women behave in your work.

You're taking a very negative stereotype and affixing it as a defining trait for a whole caste young black girls.

I asked earlier in the thread.  Couldn't your black people be a little more . . . normal?


----------



## Graylorne

They are only not normal when you compare them to your black girl next door (or perhaps not that, but at least in the US).
I didn't consider that girl for the book, because she is too obviously American.

Were I to look for a girl in a similar position in one of the great ancient African kingdoms, how would a priestess or princess there have reacted when some foreigner had tried to paw her?

And there was nothing primitive to those kingdoms. They were just different.

By now I am getting very unsure about what would seen as offensive, so I add the disclaimer that my arguments are meant respectful.


----------



## Nimue

I'm at a loss about how you can't grasp the problems with this.  Your instinctive image of an ancient African priestess is an overwhelmingly negative one where she's arrogant, sexually aggressive, and a danger towards men?

Your intent is not coming through in your writing.  Not at all.  All of these excerpts are incredibly off-putting.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

But isn't that just the problem Nimue, these are simply excerpts. I think if we were to take excerpts from many books, TV shows, and movies we would find problems with them. Like if you just focused on the parts of Huck Finn where the n-word was used and only looked at those excerpts and didn't put them within the context of the book. Or if you took a character that was at one point seemingly irredeemable and just a jerk and then failed to see the evolution of that character as the book went one.

I haven't read this book. I honestly don't plan on doing so until a bunch of other things get done (sorry Gray it's just a time issue). But, I think here a broader context is needed.


----------



## Graylorne

I am sorry, Nimue, but the only thing I grasp is that they upset you. But emotionally I don't see why. It must be one of those things that is part of your cultural history and not of ours.

As I don't want to offend people, I can only repeat that I better not write this diverse again.


----------



## Graylorne

No offense, Brian 

Drat it, ran out of thanks again.


----------



## Nimue

You have had several people, including your requested reviewer, give you detailed rundowns about the issues with your writing.  Your only response to this has been denying that anything is wrong with it and saying that you give up.  Is this how you react when your writing is criticized in any other way? Or do you put thought and effort into understanding the criticism and improving your work? I sincerely hope it's the latter.

You went in well-intentioned but made some pretty serious story-building mistakes.  That's not an unforgivable sin!  Do some research and next time you could really nail the diverse, vibrant, message-filled story next time.  But the first step is to listen and digest this criticism.  Maybe set this aside for reflection when you're less upset.


----------



## Graylorne

I am listening, believe me, I am. And groping for understanding. But I am missing a lot of context in the explanations, too. And info on the web. That doesn't make it not easier.

I'll wait for Mindfire's comments on the book as a whole; that will make it a lot clearer.

Less upset... I'm having those depressions, so that could take awhile. But I'm trying. 

Anyway, thanks, Nimue.


----------



## Devor

Graylorne said:


> They are only not normal when you compare them to your black girl next door (or perhaps not that, but at least in the US).
> I didn't consider that girl for the book, because she is too obviously American.



This, I think, should be a gut check moment for everyone.

What's the point of including diversity?  Is it about including _ever-more-exotic _worldbuilding elements to make it interesting?  Or is it about _appealing to a diverse audience?_

To me, if you're not considering the black girl next door, then you're not really shooting for diversity.  And that's fine - I know that it's challenging and I wouldn't tell people what their goals should be - but I do get annoyed when people try to take credit for diversity but don't even try to write stories that a diverse audience can actually relate to.

But I will say this.  Consider, for a moment, how much you personally relate to your MC.  And then consider how much you relate to the black girl next door.  If you relate to your MC more, you're not holding him to the same standard as everyone else in your story.  Because really, he would behave so differently from all of us, too.




> Were I to look for a girl in a similar position in one of the great ancient African kingdoms, how would a priestess or princess there have reacted when some foreigner had tried to paw her?



Yeah, it's a big challenge.  The landscape and societies of Africa are very different and we have trouble getting inside their heads the same way.  But there's no need to project aggressive, naked arrogance onto them.  I mean, you had no trouble portraying Maud differently in the same scene.  People are diverse _within_ a single culture.  I think you get that.

Truthfully, the problems in the scene aren't so much what you're showing, but what you're telling.  We're told in dialogue that she was snotty and arrogant.  Then it's confirmed as true by someone from their culture who didn't even meet her.  Thus we as readers now know it's true for all of them.  Even if we take for granted that those same words and demeanor - what was shown - are spot on accurate for what the character's would be, they could have been interpreted any number of ways.

And if Maud were really part of that culture, she wouldn't have reacted the way she did.  She would've said, "She is not being snotty and arrogant.  She is being a wisewoman, and she is due your respect."  But she not only accepts the negative interpretation, she amplifies it.

So actions aside, you're still offering readers ample commentary on how their behavior should be accepted - and it's a very modern, very western, "this is arrogant, snotty behavior" kind of interpretation.


----------



## Jabrosky

Nimue said:


> You have had several people, including your requested reviewer, give you detailed rundowns about the issues with your writing.  Your only response to this has been denying that anything is wrong with it and saying that you give up.  Is this how you react when your writing is criticized in any other way?


I've said something like this before, but if Graylorne finds himself on the defensive here, it's probably because this specific genre of critique has an additional, much more sensitive dimension to it than most other forms of literary criticism. Let's face it, the main reason charges of racism, sexism, and so on are prone to provoking defensive reactions is because those ideologies have acquired villainous connotations---and rightly so for the ideologies themselves, but it does mean calling someone racist etc. will be easily interpreted as an attack on their moral character. Calling someone a bad writer may not be flattering, but it can't hold a candle to calling them a terrible human being in sheer negativity. And if they don't agree with your specific idea of what's right and wrong, of course they're not going to sympathize with your efforts to impose your own worldview onto him. You're like missionaries going off to tell the "savages" what's right and wrong, as if they hadn't developed their own concepts of morality.

Speaking of which, may I point out that you're all taking this Dutch guy to task because you interpreted his portrayal of certain black female characters as similar to traditional _American_ stereotypes, as if Dutch people in the Netherlands (not to be confused with their colonial offshoots in South Africa) necessarily grew up with the same perception of black people that we Americans did? It's like you're projecting your peculiar American experience onto someone way on the other side of the Atlantic, never mind if his country doesn't share the same demographic and political history we Americans learned in our school.

Check your American privilege!


----------



## Devor

Jabrosky said:


> Check your American privilege!



I've never been to the Netherlands.  But when I was in Germany, the people we were visiting talked about blacks, and asked if we were afraid of them, saying very clearly "All we know is what we see in American movies."

So, I'm not really sure what you're getting at.


----------



## ascanius

I went back and read the excerpt and well, I didn't see anything wrong with it.  Yeah the girl is a complete ass but thats pretty much all I took out of it.  However.


Devor said:


> Truthfully, the problems in the scene aren't so much what you're showing, but what you're telling.  We're told in dialogue that she was snotty and arrogant.  Then it's confirmed as true by someone from their culture who didn't even meet her.  Thus we as readers now know it's true for all of them.  Even if we take for granted that those same words and demeanor - what was shown - are spot on accurate for what the character's would be, they could have been interpreted any number of ways.
> 
> And if Maud were really part of that culture, she wouldn't have reacted the way she did.  She would've said, "She is not being snotty and arrogant.  She is being a wisewoman, and she is due your respect."  But she not only accepts the negative interpretation, she amplifies it.
> 
> So actions aside, you're still offering readers ample commentary on how their behavior should be accepted - and it's a very modern, very western, "this is arrogant, snotty behavior" kind of interpretation.



I think what devor said is important.  I didn't know that Maud was part of the girls culture when I read the excerpt.  I was under the impression that she had had dealings with the culture that left a bad impression but an outsider.  I agree that her response would have been different because that kind of behavior would be considered normal thus the arogance would be of little notice.  Unless Maud has spent an extensive period away then things start to become muddled as to cultural norms.


----------



## Graylorne

Devor said:


> This, I think, should be a gut check moment for everyone.
> 
> What's the point of including diversity?  Is it about including _ever-more-exotic _worldbuilding elements to make it interesting?  Or is it about _appealing to a diverse audience?_
> 
> To me, if you're not considering the black girl next door, then you're not really shooting for diversity.  And that's fine - I know that it's challenging and I wouldn't tell people what their goals should be - but I do get annoyed when people try to take credit for diversity but don't even try to write stories that a diverse audience can actually relate to.
> 
> But I will say this.  Consider, for a moment, how much you personally relate to your MC.  And then consider how much you relate to the black girl next door.  If you relate to your MC more, you're not holding him to the same standard as everyone else in your story.  Because really, he would behave so differently from all of us, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's a big challenge.  The landscape and societies of Africa are very different and we have trouble getting inside their heads the same way.  But there's no need to project aggressive, naked arrogance onto them.  I mean, you had no trouble portraying Maud differently in the same scene.  People are diverse _within_ a single culture.  I think you get that.
> 
> Truthfully, the problems in the scene aren't so much what you're showing, but what you're telling.  We're told in dialogue that she was snotty and arrogant.  Then it's confirmed as true by someone from their culture who didn't even meet her.  Thus we as readers now know it's true for all of them.  Even if we take for granted that those same words and demeanor - what was shown - are spot on accurate for what the character's would be, they could have been interpreted any number of ways.
> 
> And if Maud were really part of that culture, she wouldn't have reacted the way she did.  She would've said, "She is not being snotty and arrogant.  She is being a wisewoman, and she is due your respect."  But she not only accepts the negative interpretation, she amplifies it.
> 
> So actions aside, you're still offering readers ample commentary on how their behavior should be accepted - and it's a very modern, very western, "this is arrogant, snotty behavior" kind of interpretation.




Yes, _now _I see what you mean.

You're right, I did make the wisewomen sound all the same. I didn't mean it so absolutely, but I did write it so. I can change that. 

Wemawee acts as intended, but I can change Maud's reaction. If I have her (Maud) recognize Wemawee from Jurgis' description as one who is a known troublemaker, would that ease the effect? For W. _is_ a special case and not at all like the other Kells.


And re. the girl next door, you're right as well. (Do remember I try to explain complex matter in a foreign language...) Of course she should be able to relate to my characters, else it wouldn't make much sense writing about diversity. But the culture of the Kells should be as different to her as to me. So I didn't consider using the girl's cultural background, not the girl herself. Do I express myself better now?


----------



## Nimue

Yes, let's talk about this example specifically!  I'm going to bang out a quick response before I fall asleep, so sorry if I don't make any sense.

If Maud belongs to this matriarchal society, why is she framing the nakedness of a female religious figure as _a temptation to men_?  That's a profoundly male-centered sentiment, and something that has to be reconsidered if you really want to treat this culture with depth.  Sure, Jurgis might find it brazen and titillating, but wouldn't Maud just see it as matter-of-fact, or a symbol of female virtue, or something like that?

Show us other wisewomen (with lines, preferably) and then you can turn this wisewoman into an antagonist.  Don't, for goodness' sake, generalize all wisewoman as being bitchy.  Maybe don't make this character the reader's introduction to wisewomen.

I think that part of your problem may be that you want specific characters, so you've created cultures to explain these characters, instead of making the character seem like genuine products of their culture.  Note that them being a product of their culture does _not_ mean that they are the average person of their culture.  (Main characters usually aren't average people, if you've not noticed!) Want Maud to be a badass horny warrior lady?  You don't need to say that every woman in her culture is a badass horny warrior.  Want a wisewoman antagonist?  All wisewomen don't need to be terrible, tempting people.  Societies don't work like that.  You can absolutely also have gentle weavers and headstrong musicians and meek rule-following soldiers.  If you paint with these broad, generalizing strokes, you run the risk of creating negative stereotypes because these characteristics apparently apply to entire racial and gender-based demographics.

Also, you end up with the unfortunate implication that Maud could not be a badass if this "unnatural" gender-flip in society hadn't happened.  How could there be a confident female warrior in a male-dominated society?  Well, ask history, why dontcha.  There are scads of examples.

(And what's the message intended to be about this unnatural magic-caused gender-flip?  Is it a bad thing that women are strong and sexual?  Or is it a good thing, and then you run into a weird "idealized" fantasy land where women sexually dominate men and we're getting into 1970s pulp fiction territory (I've no problem with this as a kink, but if this isn't intended to be erotica, I don't think "it's sexy" is a good reason to create a culture like this).  In short, what's the statement you're trying to make about gender?  Because this reads like some kind of garbled statement about gender.)


----------



## Graylorne

> Next morning, on his way forward to piss, Jurgis stopped as a young girl came up the gangway. She was a Kell, nearly as tall as Maud, but with her hair made up as a bird’s nest, and dressed in a flowing robe of forest green feathers.
> ‘You, male!’ she said in a tone that roused hot rage in Jurgis’ breast. ‘I am seeking the Lioness Maud of the M’Brannoe. Tell her I come for her.’
> Jurgis closed his mouth with an audible snap. He’d met plenty rough girls in Brisa. Harbor whores, tavern wenches, pickpockets; all coarse and often foul-mouthed women, but none had ever displayed the soul-wrenching arrogance of this feathered chit.
> The girl frowned at his silence. ‘Are you dumb, male? Go quickly, and warn the lioness I am here. Jump to it.’
> ‘Well, it’s that you ask it so kindly,’ Jurgis said. ‘And who might you be?’
> ‘Don’t be impertinent!’ The girl’s eyes flashed. ‘I am the Wisewoman Wemawee. Now go and fetch the lioness.’
> Without another word, Jurgis strode back to their cabin. He slammed the door shut behind him and Maud turned around, her sheathed sword in her hand. ‘Something wrong?’
> Jurgis cursed. ‘There’s a Wisewoman Wemawee come on board, some terribly arrogant, snotty girl in green feathers. Wants to see you.’
> ‘Wemawee?’ Maud frowned. ‘I’ve heard about that one. She’s only a novice, but she has the reputation of being a troublemaker. Was she alone?’
> Jurgis thought back and shook his head. ‘No. She had an attendant. A boy. He wasn’t much bigger than I and looked scared as hell.’
> Maud sighed. ‘Of all the wisewomen, the queen sent her?’
> ‘Not all your wisewomen are wise?’
> ‘Forget it. They’re no better than warlocks.’
> 
> Back on deck, the girl was standing stiffly at the gangway, her attendant like a shadow at her shoulder. All at once, Jurgis got an impression of insecurity in her stance. The boy is scared of her, he thought. But what is she afraid of?
> Maud lifted her hand in a ritual greeting. ‘I see you, little sister.’
> The girl returned the salute. ‘May you shine brightly, Lioness. I am the Initiate Wemawee of the M’Arrangh.’
> At this, Maud stared. ‘You’re a M’Arrangh? But they were all expelled.’
> ‘Not all,’ the girl said, and she pressed her lips together.
> A silence followed.
> ‘It’s not something I speak of,’ Wemawee said after a moment. ‘The Elder Wisewoman sent me. I know the key to the traitors’ gatherhouse. She told me to guide you, though I have never been inside myself.’
> So that’s it. Jurgis studied the thin, dark face. She’s one of those hated M’Arrangh. She’ll have been walking on eggs all her life.
> ‘That is most excellent, little sister,’ Maud said formally. ‘We are happy with your assistance.’
> Jurgis thought to see a flash of annoyance cross Wemawee’s face at the “little sister”, but she didn’t say anything.
> ‘Come with me,’ Maud said. ‘You can stay in our cabin while we prepare ourselves.’
> ‘I prefer to wait on the quay,’ the initiate said. ‘My male isn’t comfortable here.’
> The boy looked unhappy at this, but he didn’t say anything.
> Maud nodded politely. ‘As you wish.’
> Without another word, the young initiate left the ship, with the boy trailing behind her.
> ‘Her male?’ Jurgis said, as they walked back to their cabin. ‘Does that mean what it sounds like?’
> ‘She means her lover, yes.’
> ‘Body servant, more likely. And she isn’t as certain as she looked. The boy looked scared, but I’d say more of her than anything else. With her it’s something else.’
> Maud was silent for a moment. ‘All the M’Arrangh fled to the continent after Kelwarg’s fall. So how come she is still here?’
> ‘She seems a double handful of trouble to me.’ Jurgis shrugged. ‘Scared and very young.’ Then he thought of something. ‘She isn’t a warrioress; does she have those same urgings?’
> ‘She probably does,’ Maud said. ‘Wemawee at sixteen, and full of untried magic, will wrestle even more with her urges than I did when I met you. Hence the lover. He won’t have an easy life with her; she’s likely demanding a lot from him. And even with an attendant, she’ll be extremely unsafe, emotionally.’
> ‘Fine,’ Jurgis said. ‘An uncontrolled magic-user; just what we needed.’
> ‘And we do need her,’ Maud said.  ‘She’s got the key.’
> ‘I’ll go and fetch Basil.’ Jurgis turned away. ‘We might need his magic.’



Here is the same bit, adapted and with the second part added, it being integral to the first. Here I changed a few things as well.

A bit of explanation: The M'Arrangh were a traitorous clan. In secret they had joined the old enemy, and in the end they were expelled. Only the few M'Arrangh wisewomen, whose calling supposed them above treachery, remained. Both Wemawee and Wargall, her lover, were the last of these M'Arrangh.  

The message regarding the gender-flip is equality. Not patriarchal, like before the War, not matriarchal as it is now (through necessity, not choice), but equality between the sexes. I must study the text to see if and where I gave the impression it could be anything else.

Would this be acceptable, or am I overlooking more?


----------



## Gryphos

Graylorne said:


> The message regarding the gender-flip is equality. Not patriarchal, like before the War, not matriarchal as it is now (through necessity, not choice), but equality between the sexes. I must study the text to see if and where I gave the impression it could be anything else.



Equality may have been your intention, but based on the extract and the world building notes you've presented, I'm afraid I don't think you've really succeeded.

The thing is, if you're trying to argue for equality of the sexes, why is your novel presenting an inherently unequal society? If anything, it's probably more likely to be read as an anti-feminist work, the kind of sentiment expressed by all those neckbeard fedora-wearers who think the feminist movement is about female supremacy rather than equality.

If you wanted to argue for equality, then you should probably have created a society that was, well, equal. All you've done here is just swap the status of men and women.

Now, that's not to say your book can't have the message you intend presented within the story itself rather than the world building, but how many people do you think you're going to turn off before they actually get to that bit? First impressions are vital.


----------



## Graylorne

Gryphos said:


> Equality may have been your intention, but based on the extract and the world building notes you've presented, I'm afraid I don't think you've really succeeded.
> 
> The thing is, if you're trying to argue for equality of the sexes, why is your novel presenting an inherently unequal society? If anything, it's probably more likely to be read as an anti-feminist work, the kind of sentiment expressed by all those neckbeard fedora-wearers who think the feminist movement is about female supremacy rather than equality.
> 
> If you wanted to argue for equality, then you should probably have created a society that was, well, equal. All you've done here is just swap the status of men and women.
> 
> Now, that's not to say your book can't have the message you intend presented within the story itself rather than the world building, but how many people do you think you're going to turn off before they actually get to that bit? First impressions are vital.



I get a lot of comments on snippets. That's judging out of context. Maud's society (one out of several equally important and described ones) is unequal matriarchal. The Chorwaynie/Jentakans/Vanhaari are equal. The Unwaari are in-between. Everything now focuses on the Kells, but they are only part of the book. And equality is only one of the messages.

NB - If anyone here wants a copy of 'Lioness'  to judge for themselves, PM me and I'll send you a Smashwords code.


----------



## Graylorne

An emotional exercise, up to now. 
It is clear I unintentionally pressed a lot of wrong buttons. Some because I didn’t think a point far enough through, some because certain tropes and stereotypes aren’t items where I am sitting, and some simply because my English was insufficient to formulate ideas well enough.
Especially the last two posts of Devor and Nimue made that a lot clearer.
Up to now my books were pretty straightforward, with simple themes. ‘Lioness’ was a much bigger work, both in word count and in scope, and a lot of things were unfamiliar for me. 
What does bother me, is that none of my beta readers, some of them very professional, nor my editor gave even the slightest warning things were wrong. If these safety nets fail, that’s worrying. But I wrote this mess, so it’s my responsibility.

I can, when I’ve got all the problems clear, try and rewrite the worst parts, the slip-ups and such. I cannot change the gender-swap, that is integral in the story, but it must be possible to explain it better.

For a next book, I am at least more alert what I must watch out for, so that’s gained.


----------



## Nimue

I'll read the snippet in a moment when I have more time, but I'm glad some of this is making sense now.  If you have other specific concerns, we'd be happy to take a look at them.

A quick point about the gender-equality gender-flip, and some suggestions.  The fact that it was the Kells, the only black culture in this world, that needed to be taught about gender equality, is kind of unfortunate.  Because if the starting point was "the men are too sexually and physically aggressive", well... there are some really horrible stereotypes about black men being more violent, more prone to rape, and more animalistic that was used to justify the treatment of slaves and _still_ results in increased incarceration today.  On the flip side, there's also stereotypes about black men being irresponsible and leaving all the work to black women, and that black families are single-parent and matriarchal because of that. Yeah, it's hard to escape negative tropes about black people no matter which way you turn...says a lot.

If it's necessary for this cultural plot to happen, and it sounds like it is, I have a few suggestions about how to treat it more carefully.  Frankly, I would not have there be any transfer of “innate characteristics” between the genders, or downplay that.  It makes the men sound naturally brutish, and then the women get naturally butch.  Bleh.  What would be less problematic to transfer is magic and societal power.  While physical strength might not be, sexual dominance and aggressive personality traits are the kind of thing that could be created by socialization.  If there was a magical coup and women were suddenly the political heads of society, that would change how girls are raised and taught.  Their personalities and behavior would change, much as if you compared a woman from the 1800s to a woman from today.

Another thing that could rescue this is if you show that the initial problems with men and shamanism weren't caused by a culture-wide character flaw, but by a political or religious movement--something that can happen to any culture, given the right time and place.  Bonus points if it's led by a charismatic individual and has (male) dissenters.

Lastly, you know what would help diffuse all of the issues of race? If you had another black (Sub-Saharan African-analogue, specifically) culture in your world, and they were doing just fine, thank you very much.  The key to not falling into stereotypes or tokenism is showing the reader a spectrum of character portrayals, positive and negative.

...Ok, that wasn't very quick.


----------



## Graylorne

I need to re-read the major part again to get the gist 

But the last part: Wouldn't the fact that the Chorwaynie/Jentakan are brown peoples (and doing perfectly fine) work for this? 
They aren't even vaguely African, but there aren't any other peoples available. 

As an aside, the Kell as a whole are, in spite of their problems, a civilized people. They have a large (described) capital city, built into an immense cave, with stone houses, palaces, a major harbor, etc. Very disciplined, too. Maud visits a Garthan town early in the book, and remarks how all the drunks, the whores, the filth wouldn't be tolerated at home. 
There are other Kell professions, traders and artisans, only those play no significant role. 
The Queen of the Kell is a major power, on equal footing with the Prince-warlock of the Vanhaari and the Chorwaynie Overcaptain. And that does play a role.
The sex drive of the females is carefully controlled. They can have sex, because their anti-conception amulets are effective. Young girls are not allowed out of the country without a chaperone, like Veteran Hala was for Maud. Only the adolescent girls haven't learned how to live with it; after their early twenties they have it under control. All this is explained in the book. I must reword the role of the men, though.
But Kell is not a backward place at all. Wouldn't that help?


----------



## Devor

Nimue, thanks for responding to some of this, and with a level head - it was starting to get outside of my ability to tackle all of this.


----------



## Philip Overby

> What does bother me, is that none of my beta readers, some of them very professional, nor my editor gave even the slightest warning things were wrong. If these safety nets fail, that’s worrying. But I wrote this mess, so it’s my responsibility.
> 
> I can, when I’ve got all the problems clear, try and rewrite the worst parts, the slip-ups and such. I cannot change the gender-swap, that is integral in the story, but it must be possible to explain it better.
> 
> For a next book, I am at least more alert what I must watch out for, so that’s gained.



I think this might be fixed by having your beta readers and editor look for things that may specifically being racially sensitive in this regard if you want to avoid these kind of issues in the future. If you don't direct them towards these kind of things and they're not as aware of these issues being problematic, then they may focus on other aspects of the story like dialogue, description, plot points, etc. I think the primary issue tends to be both racially charged and gender charged. I would suggest to ask your beta readers in the future if they can pinpoint these kind of things. If they feel like they aren't as sensitive to these issues, you might want to recruit some extra readers to hone in that aspect. 

This seems to be sort of an issue with fantasy races now and again. Like all elves are majestic and beautiful or all dwarves are grumbling complainers that hate elves. Painting any race in broad strokes (which it seems some people are seeing here in regards to the Kell) can give a reader a bad taste in their mouth. 

From my experience, I have races in my novels with different cultures and such, but I try to always make the characters that are integral to my stories different than some conceptions of what people may think. For instance, in one of my novels, Yurgish people are tall, have olive skin, and are known for being very serious. Yurgish are very rare in the country of Abeth where my novel mostly takes place. So my main character is feared, whereas in her home country she is considered quite beautiful. I show that some characters view her in a stereotypical way, while others (like a little girl at the beginning) refers to her as "pretty lady." The girl sees what I hope the reader sees: that even though she is feared in some capacity, she is also recognized as gentle and beautiful, too. 

I think one thing that can certainly damage attempts for more diverse fiction is readers picking apart any depiction that is not wholly positive. There needs to be some kind of balance. You can do like Kameron Hurley did and remove white people from her books altogether. That way all of her characters, good and bad are people of color. I like this approach in some ways because it shows characters as more than just a skin color and a culture. It shows them as characters born from these backgrounds that may effect them positively or negatively.


----------



## Graylorne

Devor said:


> Nimue, thanks for responding to some of this, and with a level head - it was starting to get outside of my ability to tackle all of this.



But the last one came through alright, Devor. The density was on my part, not on yours.


----------



## Graylorne

Philip Overby said:


> I think this might be fixed by having your beta readers and editor look for things that may specifically being racially sensitive in this regard if you want to avoid these kind of issues in the future. If you don't direct them towards these kind of things and they're not as aware of these issues being problematic, then they may focus on other aspects of the story like dialogue, description, plot points, etc. I think the primary issue tends to be both racially charged and gender charged. I would suggest to ask your beta readers in the future if they can pinpoint these kind of things. If they feel like they aren't as sensitive to these issues, you might want to recruit some extra readers to hone in that aspect.



Perhaps being more specific would help. I generally ask them to watch out for anything that doesn't sound right, but it could be that isn't clear enough.



> I think one thing that can certainly damage attempts for more diverse fiction is readers picking apart any depiction that is not wholly positive. There needs to be some kind of balance. You can do like Kameron Hurley did and remove white people from her books altogether. That way all of her characters, good and bad are people of color. I like this approach in some ways because it shows characters as more than just a skin color and a culture. It shows them as characters born from these backgrounds that may effect them positively or negatively.



I tried to do this. I even thought making the Vanhaari alabaster-to-dark gray would be enough. Looking back, it is quite clear that wouldn't work. On the whole, I wanted too much. The problems should have been a lot smaller. Nimue's remarks about a political or religious movement would have been much more effective.


----------



## Mindfire

Hey guys. Just checking in to say that I've been having a particularly unproductive week and haven't been able to do as much reading or writing as I would prefer. But I plan to start on Graylorne's book after I get off work on Friday and hopefully finish it and my comments over the weekend. Many good points have been made during my absence however. Nimue has highlighted something I did not pick up on until now: namely that the Kells being the only black culture in the entire world magnifies the inherent problems considerably. And I don't think having "brown" people that exist without these social issues really lessens the problem because colorism is also a thing.

Also, what's the deal with the sexuality thing? Because after reading Nimue's comments on it, it sounds kind of... messed up to be honest. Like the creepy bondage elements that were part of early Wonder Woman comics. But I'll reserve judgment until I see it in context.


----------



## Darkwriter

> About writing reviewers about your books: I think if this was a case of getting a bad review (or book update) that focused a lot on weak characters, a confusing plot, and these kind of things, then I think the author should just take the loss and hopefully learn from those mistakes by working on their craft more. It's not the reviewer's job to teach everyone how to write. But for things like including diversity, I think Graylorne is doing a good thing by trying to figure out what has made people so angry or upset. I don't believe he meant to offend intentionally, that's why he's trying to figure out how to prevent future incidents like this from happening.



I'm not saying he isn't.  But it's just head-scratching how he could unintentionally hit so many wrong notes.



> I mentioned this in an earlier post, but fiery responses (like "this is f***ing pissing me off") at the beginning of a blog post or review are going to cause people like Graylorne (although I hope he doesn't) to abandon writing diverse characters altogether.



That's no one's dilemma but his.  If harsh, stinging criticisms make him want to quit the field, it was bound to happen regardless.  You can't say 'reviews aren't meant for the author' only to turn around and ask for the author's feelings to be considered.  Reviewing or not, any reader's only concern is what's in front of them- and there's only one person responsible for that.   How's it perfectly fine to give gushing 5-star reviews or tepid 3-stars but not blistering 1-stars?


----------



## Darkwriter

> Am I arguing that writers today shouldn't worry about stereotyping since those stereotypes might someday lose their hurtful power? Not necessarily, as you could just as easily add more fuel to that fire while it's still going, and stereotypes will always be lazy and one-dimensional characterization no matter when you're writing. Nonetheless, I wish to ask how much influence we as fiction writers really wield over the treatment of certain demographic groups. We are still writing fiction, not factual rebuttals to conventional prejudices, and our genre of choice is even further removed from reality than most others.



You're discounting the ability of human beings to rationalize anything.  I've had more than a few encounters with non-Black people who use certain words with regularity, only to come back with "but so-and-so says it/it's on that record/it was in that movie" to justify it when challenged.  I'm sure we all know all kinds of words we'd never use around certain types of company- race, gender, sexuality- because we know better.  If you know people will find them objectionable, why're you using them?

Again, this isn't saying Paul did this deliberately.  But when you claim to be seeking enlightenment and understanding for what went wrong, don't dig in your heels and resist it.


----------



## Darkwriter

> Only it wasn't the sassy etc.
> Imagine the Kell culture (as told in the story) - male and female roles were reversed. The women had the dominant roles, the men were weak and served. No marriages, at most a consenting partnership. The girl had no reason whatsoever to flaunt her sexuality, no male would have refused her. The young wisewomen were proud of their bodies, and there being no nudity taboo, liked to show it. (No sexual taboo either, but anything else than consensual sex was considered not done.) Maud warned Jurgis the girl was a deathtrap, because a girl as haughty and touchy as Wemawee could react unpleasantly to any impertinence. (Not that Jurgis would have done so.)
> Besides, Wemawee is a late MC, who learns a lot about the world in only a few chapters.



This brings me back to my post about worldbuilding, and it may seem as nitpicking, but in light of Paul's responses I don't think so.  Wemawee is our introduction to a Kell Wisewoman, and it's not a good one.  This is a diplomatic mission, representing their country and it's leadership... and this is who they send?  As the author, you're telling us that this is how Kell wants everyone to see them?  Since Hala was sent to help guide Maud along in dealing with other cultures, why is this uncouth, crass individual sent out alone as an emissary?  It's your story, and you're telling us no one else was available?  Why not introduce us to a more mature person to give a better idea of what they're about?

Worldbuilding isn't just creating a society, but also its counter-culture(s) and sub-culture(s).  Not everyone agrees with the way things are (which is how the Wisewomen rose to power) and they're willing to fight against it.  There's also layers to every level of a civilization and when designing one as the author you really need to detail these and how they came about and function, since they're probably the most important aspects of it.


----------



## Darkwriter

Graylorne said:


> Devor, here is the whole fragment. Where does it say ' flaunt?'  She's walking around almost nude, yes. Is that flaunting? Is a nudist camp flaunting? To me, showing your body is only flaunting when you aim to arouse others. She doesn't.
> 
> The other remark, about their elders, I don't understand.



She is flaunting it; she openly and deliberately displaying herself.  I've already addressed this in my previous post: how's she not aware of how she'll be viewed and what everyone's reactions will be?  If she's that clueless or pig-headed, what's she doing on this assignment in the first place?


----------



## Darkwriter

> Speaking of which, may I point out that you're all taking this Dutch guy to task because you interpreted his portrayal of certain black female characters as similar to traditional American stereotypes, as if Dutch people in the Netherlands (not to be confused with their colonial offshoots in South Africa) necessarily grew up with the same perception of black people that we Americans did? It's like you're projecting your peculiar American experience onto someone way on the other side of the Atlantic, never mind if his country doesn't share the same demographic and political history we Americans learned in our school.
> 
> Check your American privilege!



Since this portrayal of Black women in the book is a staple American stereotype, intentional or not, what's your point?

And not once did anyone call Paul a racist or a terrible human being.  I don't know how you're injecting that into the discussion.


----------



## Graylorne

Darkwriter said:


> This brings me back to my post about worldbuilding, and it may seem as nitpicking, but in light of Paul's responses I don't think so.  Wemawee is our introduction to a Kell Wisewoman, and it's not a good one.  This is a diplomatic mission, representing their country and it's leadership... and this is who they send?  As the author, you're telling us that this is how Kell wants everyone to see them?  Since Hala was sent to help guide Maud along in dealing with other cultures, why is this uncouth, crass individual sent out alone as an emissary?  It's your story, and you're telling us no one else was available?  Why not introduce us to a more mature person to give a better idea of what they're about?
> 
> Worldbuilding isn't just creating a society, but also its counter-culture(s) and sub-culture(s).  Not everyone agrees with the way things are (which is how the Wisewomen rose to power) and they're willing to fight against it.  There's also layers to every level of a civilization and when designing one as the author you really need to detail these and how they came about and function, since they're probably the most important aspects of it.



Darkwriter - You have the book, so you know what you say here is not what the book says. Did you read it?

First, there is no diplomatic mission. The only mission was to fetch Jurgis out of Brisa, early in the book. After that it is all the MCs own adventure.
Wemawee is no official representative, she was sent to Maud to unlock the door to a sealed building, no more. After that she manages to teleport herself, alone, to the old country and starts her own adventure.

It is my story, but if you don't read it, don't comment.

I repeat my offer to anyone here, I will mail you a free copy to check what I did write. Just give me a PM. 
But let us stop commenting on half-read snippets.

---

Ah, OK. Your next comment clears all up. I thought you had got a copy of the book from the Tour Operator. Now I get your comments.

Yes, I sent the excerpts. I had no idea of their impact. You said ' staple American stereotype'. I am not an American; I don't know all your stereotypes.


----------



## Darkwriter

> But isn't that just the problem Nimue, these are simply excerpts. I think if we were to take excerpts from many books, TV shows, and movies we would find problems with them. Like if you just focused on the parts of Huck Finn where the n-word was used and only looked at those excerpts and didn't put them within the context of the book. Or if you took a character that was at one point seemingly irredeemable and just a jerk and then failed to see the evolution of that character as the book went one.
> 
> I haven't read this book. I honestly don't plan on doing so until a bunch of other things get done (sorry Gray it's just a time issue). But, I think here a broader context is needed.



The excerpts came from the promotional kit.  In other words, they're the teasers to give us an idea what to expect and try to generate interest.  Who else but the author chose them to represent what the book's about?  I can post the others if you'd like to read them.


----------



## Darkwriter

Devor said:


> This, I think, should be a gut check moment for everyone.
> 
> What's the point of including diversity?  Is it about including _ever-more-exotic _worldbuilding elements to make it interesting?  Or is it about _appealing to a diverse audience?_
> 
> To me, if you're not considering the black girl next door, then you're not really shooting for diversity.  And that's fine - I know that it's challenging and I wouldn't tell people what their goals should be - but I do get annoyed when people try to take credit for diversity but don't even try to write stories that a diverse audience can actually relate to.
> 
> But I will say this.  Consider, for a moment, how much you personally relate to your MC.  And then consider how much you relate to the black girl next door.  If you relate to your MC more, you're not holding him to the same standard as everyone else in your story.  Because really, he would behave so differently from all of us, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's a big challenge.  The landscape and societies of Africa are very different and we have trouble getting inside their heads the same way.  But there's no need to project aggressive, naked arrogance onto them.  I mean, you had no trouble portraying Maud differently in the same scene.  People are diverse _within_ a single culture.  I think you get that.
> 
> Truthfully, the problems in the scene aren't so much what you're showing, but what you're telling.  We're told in dialogue that she was snotty and arrogant.  Then it's confirmed as true by someone from their culture who didn't even meet her.  Thus we as readers now know it's true for all of them.  Even if we take for granted that those same words and demeanor - what was shown - are spot on accurate for what the character's would be, they could have been interpreted any number of ways.
> 
> And if Maud were really part of that culture, she wouldn't have reacted the way she did.  She would've said, "She is not being snotty and arrogant.  She is being a wisewoman, and she is due your respect."  But she not only accepts the negative interpretation, she amplifies it.
> 
> So actions aside, you're still offering readers ample commentary on how their behavior should be accepted - and it's a very modern, very western, "this is arrogant, snotty behavior" kind of interpretation.



In a nutshell.


----------



## Darkwriter

Graylorne said:


> Here is the same bit, adapted and with the second part added, it being integral to the first. Here I changed a few things as well.
> 
> A bit of explanation: The M'Arrangh were a traitorous clan. In secret they had joined the old enemy, and in the end they were expelled. Only the few M'Arrangh wisewomen, whose calling supposed them above treachery, remained. Both Wemawee and Wargall, her lover, were the last of these M'Arrangh.
> 
> The message regarding the gender-flip is equality. Not patriarchal, like before the War, not matriarchal as it is now (through necessity, not choice), but equality between the sexes. I must study the text to see if and where I gave the impression it could be anything else.
> 
> Would this be acceptable, or am I overlooking more?



This added excerpt does clear things up a bit, but in a general sense it begs the question of sending someone so 'unstable' and inexperienced to handle such a potentially sensitive mission.


----------



## Darkwriter

I do have a copy of the book, as well as a Media Kit, supplied via the Tour.  I stopped reading it because I had problems with its content, remember?  I'm really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your snide remarks aren't helping any.


----------



## Graylorne

I'm not making snide remarks. Only to base a whole book evaluation upon a handful of excerpts meant to give a hint of the action and no more, serves no good. 

I'll wait till Mindfire is done reading and based on his advice and comments already made here I will decide whether to change pages and upload a new copy, or pull the book and rewrite it in total. That is a costly operation, so I want to decide carefully.


----------



## Steerpike

Gryphos said:


> The thing is, if you're trying to argue for equality of the sexes, why is your novel presenting an inherently unequal society? If anything, it's probably more likely to be read as an anti-feminist work, the kind of sentiment expressed by all those neckbeard fedora-wearers who think the feminist movement is about female supremacy rather than equality.



I don't know why this should be the case, to be honest. You can comment, via a story, on inequality by showing it. A book like Brave New World shows us a totalitarian society, but does not endorse it. Sheri Tepper, known as a feminist writer of fantasy and science fiction, set up just such a matriarchal society in one of her novels, but the point she was making was not "look how great this is." The point a writer is making is more nuanced than simply an overview of the status of equality in the world.

@Graylorne - I haven't read your book. I've read through much of the thread, and through the review you read. A few thoughts: 1) you can't let a single reviewer sway you from your course. The fact that the reviewer didn't get what you intended doesn't _necessarily_ say any more about your work than it does the reviewer. I think you're doing the right thing by having more people take a look; and 2) at some point you just have to trust your artistic judgment, your own vision of the story, and move forward with the understanding that it won't resonate with every reader.

If you identify particular passages or aspects of the book where you realize you really have created something contrary to your intent, then I think it makes sense to make some edits. But if you feel all of the necessary elements are there, I wouldn't wring my hands over it and make wholesale changes just because not everyone is connecting the dots.

That's my general thought, from the standpoint of not having read the work.

Tot ziens,

Steer


----------



## Graylorne

Steerpike said:


> @Graylorne - I haven't read your book. I've read through much of the thread, and through the review you read. A few thoughts: 1) you can't let a single reviewer sway you from your course. The fact that the reviewer didn't get what you intended doesn't _necessarily_ say any more about your work than it does the reviewer. I think you're doing the right thing by having more people take a look; and 2) at some point you just have to trust your artistic judgment, your own vision of the story, and move forward with the understanding that it won't resonate with every reader.
> 
> If you identify particular passages or aspects of the book where you realize you really have created something contrary to your intent, then I think it makes sense to make some edits. But if you feel all of the necessary elements are there, I wouldn't wring my hands over it and make wholesale changes just because not everyone is connecting the dots.
> 
> That's my general thought, from the standpoint of not having read the work.
> 
> Tot ziens,
> 
> Steer




That is encouraging!

Dank je wel, Steer.


----------



## Devor

Darkwriter said:


> I'm really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your snide remarks aren't helping any.



I do feel the need to say, I don't see Graylorne as making snide remarks.  I've been really impressed with the tone that everyone has taken in handling this conversation.


----------



## Darkwriter

Devor said:


> I do feel the need to say, I don't see Graylorne as making snide remarks.  I've been really impressed with the tone that everyone has taken in handling this conversation.



His comments about how I shouldn't be saying anything without having read the book, despite the fact that my trying to read it and having so many problems with it is the reason we're all here.  How'd he manage to forget that?


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Darkwriter said:


> If harsh, stinging criticisms make him want to quit the field


I think the harsh, stinging criticisms make him want to just write about European societies.

And I'm not blaming you for that. I'm saying it's a natural reaction for the writer to do one of the following:

Admit, "Yeah, I need to learn if I'm going to write these characters."
Decide, "Screw diversity. It pisses people off."

I will say that I know from a recent experience that the inverse is true. A reader who has a lot in common with my "diverse" character gave me some positive feedback, and the character resonated with the reader, it seemed, on a personal level. I was completely blown away by the comments. That makes me want to stick with this character as faithfully as that other writer from my hometown who keeps writing about some guy named Drizzt.



I should be clear that I'm *NOT* saying "don't criticize." By all means, do. I think there are genuine turn-offs from the sexuality of the wise-woman. I personally have no problem with a society of near-naked people or even totally-naked people, but if they exist in a world where people are normally fully clothed, running around in a cobweb-like dress doesn't come off as "wise." I do like having that crazed barbarian/amazon whose appearance is a few rags and painted muscles, but she's a damn fool.

But anyway, I think that whether you're the writer or the reviewer, your written word determines your credibility. If I read a fantasy novel about a bunch of "white knights," then the first two black women who enter the story are Grace Jones and a sassy naked native, yeah… my Blaxploitation Alert would be ringing. Or buzzing. I think it buzzes. Likewise, if feedback on my work was littered with F-bombs, I'd look for a second opinion. One that doesn't come with F-bombs or other kinds of bombs.


----------



## Nimue

> Next morning, on his way forward to piss, Jurgis stopped as a young girl came up the gangway. She was a Kell, nearly as tall as Maud, but with her hair made up as a bird’s nest, and dressed in a flowing robe of forest green feathers.
> ‘You, male!’ she said in a tone that roused hot rage in Jurgis’ breast. ‘I am seeking the Lioness Maud of the M’Brannoe. Tell her I come for her.’
> Jurgis closed his mouth with an audible snap. He’d met plenty rough girls in Brisa. Harbor whores, tavern wenches, pickpockets; all coarse and often foul-mouthed women, but none had ever displayed the soul-wrenching arrogance of this feathered chit.
> The girl frowned at his silence. ‘Are you dumb, male? Go quickly, and warn the lioness I am here. Jump to it.’
> ‘Well, it’s that you ask it so kindly,’ Jurgis said. ‘And who might you be?’
> ‘Don’t be impertinent!’ The girl’s eyes flashed. ‘I am the Wisewoman Wemawee. Now go and fetch the lioness.’
> Without another word, Jurgis strode back to their cabin. He slammed the door shut behind him and Maud turned around, her sheathed sword in her hand. ‘Something wrong?’
> Jurgis cursed. ‘There’s a Wisewoman Wemawee come on board, some terribly arrogant, snotty girl in green feathers. Wants to see you.’
> ‘Wemawee?’ Maud frowned. ‘I’ve heard about that one. She’s only a novice, but she has the reputation of being a troublemaker. Was she alone?’
> Jurgis thought back and shook his head. ‘No. She had an attendant. A boy. He wasn’t much bigger than I and looked scared as hell.’
> Maud sighed. ‘Of all the wisewomen, the queen sent her?’
> ‘Not all your wisewomen are wise?’
> ‘Forget it. They’re no better than warlocks.’
> 
> Back on deck, the girl was standing stiffly at the gangway, her attendant like a shadow at her shoulder. All at once, Jurgis got an impression of insecurity in her stance. The boy is scared of her, he thought. But what is she afraid of?
> Maud lifted her hand in a ritual greeting. ‘I see you, little sister.’
> The girl returned the salute. ‘May you shine brightly, Lioness. I am the Initiate Wemawee of the M’Arrangh.’
> At this, Maud stared. ‘You’re a M’Arrangh? But they were all expelled.’
> ‘Not all,’ the girl said, and she pressed her lips together.
> A silence followed.
> ‘It’s not something I speak of,’ Wemawee said after a moment. ‘The Elder Wisewoman sent me. I know the key to the traitors’ gatherhouse. She told me to guide you, though I have never been inside myself.’
> So that’s it. Jurgis studied the thin, dark face. She’s one of those hated M’Arrangh. She’ll have been walking on eggs all her life.
> ‘That is most excellent, little sister,’ Maud said formally. ‘We are happy with your assistance.’
> Jurgis thought to see a flash of annoyance cross Wemawee’s face at the “little sister”, but she didn’t say anything.
> ‘Come with me,’ Maud said. ‘You can stay in our cabin while we prepare ourselves.’
> ‘I prefer to wait on the quay,’ the initiate said. ‘My male isn’t comfortable here.’
> The boy looked unhappy at this, but he didn’t say anything.
> Maud nodded politely. ‘As you wish.’
> Without another word, the young initiate left the ship, with the boy trailing behind her.
> ‘Her male?’ Jurgis said, as they walked back to their cabin. ‘Does that mean what it sounds like?’
> ‘She means her lover, yes.’
> ‘Body servant, more likely. And she isn’t as certain as she looked. The boy looked scared, but I’d say more of her than anything else. With her it’s something else.’
> Maud was silent for a moment. ‘All the M’Arrangh fled to the continent after Kelwarg’s fall. So how come she is still here?’
> ‘She seems a double handful of trouble to me.’ Jurgis shrugged. ‘Scared and very young.’ Then he thought of something. ‘She isn’t a warrioress; does she have those same urgings?’
> ‘She probably does,’ Maud said. ‘Wemawee at sixteen, and full of untried magic, will wrestle even more with her urges than I did when I met you. Hence the lover. He won’t have an easy life with her; she’s likely demanding a lot from him. And even with an attendant, she’ll be extremely unsafe, emotionally.’
> ‘Fine,’ Jurgis said. ‘An uncontrolled magic-user; just what we needed.’
> ‘And we do need her,’ Maud said. ‘She’s got the key.’
> ‘I’ll go and fetch Basil.’ Jurgis turned away. ‘We might need his magic.’



First, the good things--I think this revised passage has made it clear that the problem lies with this particular girl, not the wisewomen as a whole, and now the negative attitude towards her sexuality lies in Jurgis's POV and isn't being echoed (out of character?) by Maud. And a more opaque choice of clothing can't hurt--although I think it is entirely possible to write a nearly-naked character and not offend, provided it's done with care and tact and doesn't portray the nudity through a modern lens of sexual objectification.  But maybe it's too much to juggle with the issues being presented in this story.  I'm still hesitant about Wemawee's characterization and the overtones of "uppity" black woman, but I guess it could be done if she's not a one-note character, and there are be other, more varied portrayals of black women in the book.  Describing her as young and scared humanizes her, and that helps a lot.  Put her arrogance into cultural perspective--some of it may be justified and some of it might not, and Maud would be a good mouthpiece for pointing out the difference.

(As an aside, I can't help but hope there's a passage in the book somewhere where someone points out to Jurgis that Wemawee treats him and her lover in the way that women are treated in other places.  Calling barmaids wenches, keeping whores and mistresses, etc. Turn his offended anger into empathy.  ...If you don't have that scene in there, you're missing an opportunity to drive home the equality message you're going for.)

However, this passage has brought up something else-- well, this:


Mindfire said:


> Also, what's the deal with the sexuality thing?





> The sex drive of the females is carefully controlled. They can have sex, because their anti-conception amulets are effective. Young girls are not allowed out of the country without a chaperone, like Veteran Hala was for Maud. Only the adolescent girls haven't learned how to live with it; after their early twenties they have it under control.



Sorry, but huh?  Why is there so much dancing and pointing around the Kell warriors' "urges"?  If these women have inherited men's sex drives, why is it suddenly this dangerous, unstable thing that needs to be controlled?  Last I checked, men can control themselves and live perfectly normal lives with their "urges".  What about this exchange would make someone emotionally unstable, more than the average 16-year-old boy?

The thing is, if you're aiming for a revealing reflection of patriarchy, this doesn't make any sense.  Thinking back to a sort of Early Modern sensibility (not sure if there is a comparable historical era for this book) there wasn't a lot of fuss about keeping men's sex drives "carefully controlled" or worrying about male contraception.  If this is a matriarchal, female-sex-centric society, then the women should have sex whenever they please and control their own bodies and shed children to other caretakers in the way that men used to sire bastards everywhere.

They shouldn't whisper about urges and birth control and dangers, it should be "girls will be girls" and indulgence for sexual appetites and female entitlement. 

I've written a few high-libido, casual-sex-having women, because it can be liberating to read about a character who acts that way.  Nothing wrong with sex-positive characters.  But... this is not the way to do it.  The whole setup seems like an extended "these women enjoy and seek out sex and isn't that _crazy and unnatural_?"  Do you really need to draw so much attention to it?


----------



## Philip Overby

Darkwriter said:


> That's no one's dilemma but his.  If harsh, stinging criticisms make him want to *quit the field*, it was bound to happen regardless.  You can't say 'reviews aren't meant for the author' only to turn around and ask for the author's feelings to be considered.  Reviewing or not, any reader's only concern is what's in front of them- and there's only one person responsible for that.   How's it perfectly fine to give gushing 5-star reviews or tepid 3-stars but not blistering 1-stars?



I find it's perfectly fine to give whatever review you want, but my point wasn't that he would "quit the field" (meaning quit writing altogether, I know he won't do that) but _quit writing diverse characters_, which is something I feel strongly about. If you say something like "this book pisses me off", people may read your review and say, "Well, shit I'm not writing diverse characters because of reviews like this. Just rather avoid the shitstorm if I can." 

It's not just about Graylorne, but about future writers who are going to avoid trying new things. Now I certainly put all the responsibility in the writer's hands. A reader can only get what they see from a book. A blistering 1-star review is fine if that's how you feel obviously. I'm assuming you want to see more diverse characters if you said you were excited about the book. I'm just saying it's more useful to the writing community to educate people for misfiring on diversity than eviscerating them. That certainly may not be your job as a reviewer, but keep in mind that many readers are writers, too. I would like to see loads more diverse fiction myself. But if reviewers are saying "No! You're doing it wrong!" I'm just worried it's going to discourage other writers from trying to include diversity.

This isn't only directed at this particular blog post/preview. But just a litany of things I've heard from writers recently about being "Damned if you do/Damned if you don't" when it comes to writing diversity. They don't want to bother with it if it's going to cause such anger if they do it wrong. Sure, it's ultimately the author's job to give their best representation of their vision to readers, but if readers honestly want more diverse fiction, they should try to foster the people that are actually attempting it. Which I think you've been doing since you've taken the time to explain your issues here on this thread. 

I certainly don't expect reviewers to curb their honest feedback or give in-depth critiques to every writer. It's just disheartening for me to hear someone that attempted diversity in earnest may be discouraged from doing so in the future.

Edit: I noticed Legendary Sidekick said what I meant more succinctly:



> I think the harsh, stinging criticisms make him want to just write about European societies.
> 
> And I'm not blaming you for that. I'm saying it's a natural reaction for the writer to do one of the following:
> 
> Admit, "Yeah, I need to learn if I'm going to write these characters."
> Decide, "Screw diversity. It pisses people off."



Option two seems the one I hear more and more from various writers. And that bothers me.


----------



## Feo Takahari

@Phil: I know this isn't your intent, but it comes off almost like you're saying that minority members should be _grateful_ for insulting or demeaning representation. Like if someone writes something bigoted about minorities, that's a blessing because they're at least writing about minorities, and it's minority members' job to gently nudge them into being less awful. (Without breaking out the cluebat, of course, because that might scare them away, and of course the writer's feelings are more important than the feelings of the readers!)


----------



## Mindfire

Feo Takahari said:


> @Phil: I know this isn't your intent, but it comes off almost like you're saying that minority members should be _grateful_ for insulting or demeaning representation. Like if someone writes something bigoted about minorities, that's a blessing because they're at least writing about minorities, and it's minority members' job to gently nudge them into being less awful. (Without breaking out the cluebat, of course, because that might scare them away, and of course the writer's feelings are more important than the feelings of the readers!)



I see where you're coming from, Feo. But I also get where Phil is coming from and I think I agree with the general thrust of his statement. Everyone wins if the criticism encourages the writer in the right direction rather than simply punishing them for getting it wrong. Doesn't cost me anything to be nice. Of course, I'm not always nice. If I think you've blown it in a big way, I can be downright snarky and pull no punches. But after the dust settles I'll always try to explain to you what went wrong, why, and (perhaps the most important part) how you can do better. Because without that last bit, the scorching criticism hasn't really accomplished much, regardless of how cathartic it is. It's not that minorities should be "grateful" (insert Dragon Age II Arishok here) for poor attempts at representation. On the contrary, we should expect and insist on better. But we're never going to get to better if nobody tries at all, which is what harsh criticism _without education_ will accomplish in most cases.


----------



## Philip Overby

@Feo: That's not the intent at all. You yourself posted a thread about "How do I convince someone to write diverse characters?" And the response from the person was, "I don't want to deal with this shit because it's too hard." If we as readers and writers want diverse fiction, then people have to be educated about it. Ultimately, it's up to them to figure these things out. I'm not saying "better negative portrayal than nothing, right?" I'm saying, if there is negative portrayal, it's better to address it in a constructive way. 

I'm not concerned about writers' feelings. I'm concerned of this attitude that I keep seeing crop up of writers not wanting to try new things because they get thrashed when they try. I don't think that a negative portrayal is better than nothing. I think if enough people give strong, but fair criticism (which I think this thread is doing) it will educate not only the writer, but others that certain portrayals are not acceptable. 

If my comments come off as "better negative portrayal than nothing" that's certainly not my intent. I guess it's more like "if there is negative portrayal, try to criticize it so that the author will change instead of throwing up their hands."

Edit: Mindfire cleared up what I meant, I hope. 

He makes an excellent point. Harsh criticism without education doesn't do much.


----------



## Devor

Feo Takahari said:


> @Phil: I know this isn't your intent, but it comes off almost like . . . .



Just.  Why?


----------



## Caged Maiden

Since we've turned the corner and are talking about educating, I just want to ask for some advice as I begin writing a novel I intend to publish, with a diverse cast of characters. I don't want to hijack the thread, but I think a little clarification would help me and maybe some other folks who are interested in writing more diversity in their stories, but have reservations about perception.

I'm trying to find out what "do it right" looks like.

First question, if I write a world where slavery and colonization didn't exist, is that insensitive?  I mean, I'm not bringing race into the book at all, because I have a sort of melting-pot steampunk world, and there never existed a situation similar to our own history.  Is it insensitive to African-American readers if my characters are described with characteristics decidedly more African than Asian, but not specifically from a place resembling Africa?

Second one, in the story, people are sort of identified with their jobs and wealth.  Is it insensitive if I "treat everyone the same"?  Like does it look like I'm trying too hard?  I was not so long ago called insensitive because I was ignorant of what it felt like to live as a POC ("You may be able to forget that you're white, but POC can't forget that they're not") and I didn't really know how to take that.  Is that really what I should keep in my mind?  I'm not sure I can do that, but since being told that, I do try to be more aware that I may have rose-tinted glasses and that might offend some people.

Okay, so there are my questions.  Maybe I'm taking the comment that I'm insensitive too seriously, but I want to make sure that I'm doing my part to promote healthy portrayals of POC, and it feels a sort of injustice to be too careful, in a way I wouldn't be if I were portraying a light-skinned person.  Mostly, I want to feel allowed to be myself as a writer.  If I can torture my white characters in a prison cell, I want to be able to do the same with my POC characters, without an inordinate amount of weight given to race or any symbolism that doesn't really exist.

I'd appreciate any advice on how to achieve my goals, while also increasing my sensitivity.  I don't do drama in my real life.  I went to technical school in 2001 and studied auto body repair (because I wanted to do custom paint).  I dropped out of school when I realized I wasn't going to get a job painting until I "proved myself" and to do that, I'd have to pull dents like all the other guys.  When I asked for applications for employment, I received comments like, "Is this for you or you're boyfriend, darlin'?" and what I decided in that moment, is that I'm not a fighter.  Some woman somewhere is a warrior and will fight tooth and nail for her cause, but it isn't me.  I want to write diverse characters and honor all people, but I'm not interested in pandering to individuals looking to be offended.  I want to feel confident, not ridiculed, and it sounds like other scribes are in the same boat.  Thanks in advance.


----------



## Graylorne

Nimue said:


> First, the good things--I think this revised passage has made it clear that the problem lies with this particular girl, not the wisewomen as a whole, and now the negative attitude towards her sexuality lies in Jurgis's POV and isn't being echoed (out of character?) by Maud. And a more opaque choice of clothing can't hurt--although I think it is entirely possible to write a nearly-naked character and not offend, provided it's done with care and tact and doesn't portray the nudity through a modern lens of sexual objectification.  But maybe it's too much to juggle with the issues being presented in this story.  I'm still hesitant about Wemawee's characterization and the overtones of "uppity" black woman, but I guess it could be done if she's not a one-note character, and there are be other, more varied portrayals of black women in the book.  Describing her as young and scared humanizes her, and that helps a lot.  Put her arrogance into cultural perspective--some of it may be justified and some of it might not, and Maud would be a good mouthpiece for pointing out the difference.
> 
> (As an aside, I can't help but hope there's a passage in the book somewhere where someone points out to Jurgis that Wemawee treats him and her lover in the way that women are treated in other places.  Calling barmaids wenches, keeping whores and mistresses, etc. Turn his offended anger into empathy.  ...If you don't have that scene in there, you're missing an opportunity to drive home the equality message you're going for.)
> 
> However, this passage has brought up something else-- well, this:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but huh?  Why is there so much dancing and pointing around the Kell warriors' "urges"?  If these women have inherited men's sex drives, why is it suddenly this dangerous, unstable thing that needs to be controlled?  Last I checked, men can control themselves and live perfectly normal lives with their "urges".  What about this exchange would make someone emotionally unstable, more than the average 16-year-old boy?
> 
> The thing is, if you're aiming for a revealing reflection of patriarchy, this doesn't make any sense.  Thinking back to a sort of Early Modern sensibility (not sure if there is a comparable historical era for this book) there wasn't a lot of fuss about keeping men's sex drives "carefully controlled" or worrying about male contraception.  If this is a matriarchal, female-sex-centric society, then the women should have sex whenever they please and control their own bodies and shed children to other caretakers in the way that men used to sire bastards everywhere.
> 
> They shouldn't whisper about urges and birth control and dangers, it should be "girls will be girls" and indulgence for sexual appetites and female entitlement.
> 
> I've written a few high-libido, casual-sex-having women, because it can be liberating to read about a character who acts that way.  Nothing wrong with sex-positive characters.  But... this is not the way to do it.  The whole setup seems like an extended "these women enjoy and seek out sex and isn't that _crazy and unnatural_?"  Do you really need to draw so much attention to it?



Because they got too much 'urges'. I see it as a body that makes too much testosterone and needs medication to keep the levels down. 

The women have sex whenever they please. All children are raised communal. There is no whispering, it's all open and above the board. And no, I don't really need to draw so much attention to it. The whole thing is one facet of one society out of several and it gets blown up to immense proportions by this discussion. 
That's why I am offering free copies of the book, that people can judge for themselves.

'Lioness of Kell' is not a book about the Kell. It is a fantasy adventure book about a group of teens who go on a heroic quest. Three of them are Kells, five others are not. Three are Black, three are alabaster White and two are Brown. Three are straight, two are gay, one is asexual. Five are boys, three are girls. Three are magic-users, two are warriors, one thief, one trader, one mariner.


----------



## Darkwriter

> First question, if I write a world where slavery and colonization didn't exist, is that insensitive? I mean, I'm not bringing race into the book at all, because I have a sort of melting-pot steampunk world, and there never existed a situation similar to our own history. Is it insensitive to African-American readers if my characters are described with characteristics decidedly more African than Asian, but not specifically from a place resembling Africa?



Why would it be insensitive?  The only reason it's a factor because even in fantasy things are written from a European-centered POV.  In short, it's hard for non-whites to be as effective because everything is based upon white cultures.  If everyone's always been on pretty much equal footing and moving about freely, it wouldn't matter much.



> Second one, in the story, people are sort of identified with their jobs and wealth. Is it insensitive if I "treat everyone the same"? Like does it look like I'm trying too hard? I was not so long ago called insensitive because I was ignorant of what it felt like to live as a POC ("You may be able to forget that you're white, but POC can't forget that they're not") and I didn't really know how to take that. Is that really what I should keep in my mind? I'm not sure I can do that, but since being told that, I do try to be more aware that I may have rose-tinted glasses and that might offend some people.



Again- it's how you develop your world.  If wealth and occupation are the basis of social standing, the only obstacle would be if certain races- regardless of what real life counterparts they're based upon- aren't able to achieve as much solely because of their race.  Not to say that for cultural reasons different groups can't excel or fail in some areas, but if everyone's able to rise up and mingle freely based upon their achievements, then there's no real problem.



> Okay, so there are my questions. Maybe I'm taking the comment that I'm insensitive too seriously, but I want to make sure that I'm doing my part to promote healthy portrayals of POC, and it feels a sort of injustice to be too careful, in a way I wouldn't be if I were portraying a light-skinned person. Mostly, I want to feel allowed to be myself as a writer. If I can torture my white characters in a prison cell, I want to be able to do the same with my POC characters, without an inordinate amount of weight given to race or any symbolism that doesn't really exist.



You want to do 'healthy portrayals of POC'?  Then portray them as people.  Put in the same amout of effort you gave to creating your viking culture or your roman-themed empire.  Simple as that.


----------



## Feo Takahari

Caged Maiden said:


> First question, if I write a world where slavery and colonization didn't exist, is that insensitive?  I mean, I'm not bringing race into the book at all, because I have a sort of melting-pot steampunk world, and there never existed a situation similar to our own history.  Is it insensitive to African-American readers if my characters are described with characteristics decidedly more African than Asian, but not specifically from a place resembling Africa?



I want to focus in on this, because it's the only way I can think of to be racist without ever writing about someone's race. The short version is that Fantasy Counterpart Culture doesn't usually offend people, but Space Jews do.


----------



## Penpilot

Caged Maiden said:


> Okay, so there are my questions.  Maybe I'm taking the comment that I'm insensitive too seriously, but I want to make sure that I'm doing my part to promote healthy portrayals of POC, and it feels a sort of injustice to be too careful, in a way I wouldn't be if I were portraying a light-skinned person.



Caged Maiden, Darkwriter said exactly what I was going to say.



Darkwriter said:


> You want to do 'healthy portrayals of POC'?  Then portray them as people.  Put in the same amout of effort you gave to creating your viking culture or your roman-themed empire.  Simple as that.



To elaborate a little more, all characters are a product of their past. How much of that past shows through is dependant on the story and that character's role in that story.

If you have a main character who is non-white there are as many different ways to portray them as there are ways to portray a white person. How this character is portray is dependant on who they are. And to get it "right" is simply to stay true to that character. And sometimes you may have to do a bit of research if another culture is involved.

To give you an example, on the TV show Supernatural there was a character named Kevin Tran, obviously an Asian American. Being Asian is part of his character, not his character. 

In some ways he falls into the stereotype of overachieving Asian teen. He's applying to Princeton, sticks to the rules, plays a musical instrument, etc. But he's also a typical All-American boy. He wants to be President. He speaks perfect English, because he was born in America, and deals with all the things a typical American teen would. Being Asian doesn't dominate his life. It's a part of his life, just like any other person's ethnic background is a part of their lives. In fact, him being Asian plays almost zero part in the story and thus almost zero story time is devoted to it.

When you want to write a person with a different ethnic background than yours, first look at your own background. How does that affect or not affect who you are? The same applies to people of other races.

There are non-whites who are non-white in skin color only. And there are non-whites who's mannerisms, speech patterns, values and attitudes couldn't be further from a white persons. And then there are those in between.

Find out where your character's lie along that continuum and write and research accordingly.

That's my though any way.


----------



## Graylorne

@Nimue: Based on your question I rewrote the part where Maud explains their sex-swap to Jurgis. Is this more acceptable?




> Maud paused a moment to gather her thoughts. ‘Before the war we lived in Old Kell, on the continent. We were a land of clans, each one owner of estates that had been theirs for thousands of years. We were hunters, farmers and above all, warriors.’ Maud looked at Jurgis. ‘Our men were mighty in magic and battle, but quarrelsome. They were quick to anger and fought easily, over land, over mining rights, over things big and small. Little wars grew into big wars. Towns and cities were burned and too many people died.’ Maud shifted uncomfortably; the tale of ancient disgrace was still painful to tell.
> ‘Then, out of the blue, the Unwaari came. To our eternal shame, we, who prided ourselves on our fighting prowess, had to flee. That’s how we came to Malgarth. The high king gave us a wild and unused stretch of land, and we built Tar Kell.’ She didn’t speak of the contempt with which the Garthans received her people. The isolation, the humiliation of status lost and being unwanted refugees. Those tales were too painful.
> ‘With most of the clan kings dead, the wisewomen took charge. They knew things had to change, or we would cease to exist. The wisewomen pooled their knowledge and began what we now call the Turnaround. There is a power in every man and woman – you, me, in everyone. This power decides whether we are female or male, decides our strength, our aggression and our fertility. Men have more of this power than women, and Kell men had even more than others. Through spells and herbs, the wisewomen thought to reduce the power in the men and add a little into the women. But something went wrong and the women got too much, while the men were left with too little. By the time it became noticeable, the newborn boys turned into weakened, will-less males, small and soft. The baby girls grew into …’ Maud hesitated. ‘Me. Tall warrioresses who tend to be bossy and need to fight or to **** to get rid of our excess of power. As young girls, we need a longer time to find our natural balance. Into our twenties, mostly. That is why I had…’ she coughed, ‘Hala. To make sure I wouldn’t get into trouble.’
> Jurgis frowned. ‘Can’t your wisewomen do something? Bring back the balance?’
> ‘The ones who knew about these things all died. The spells had sapped their energy and they withered away. They hadn’t foreseen that, either.’  ‘Maud shrugged. ‘So now we are stuck with males who are good for only the simplest of chores, and to relieve our needs.’
> ‘I am no Kell,’ Jurgis said, and his face was hard. ‘I’m not soft and meek, I can’t cook, and I refuse to be dominated. You and I, we can only be equals, like those elders of yours intended.’
> Maud rocked back on her heels and stared at him. Equals with a male? True, he hasn’t disappointed me yet. He is small, but not a weakling. Perhaps Hala had it right, and the men of other nations are different. I ... What is he doing? He’s taking off his shirt. Gods, he does look tasty. No! He’s... ‘Stop that!’ she said hoarsely. ‘Keep your pants on.’
> ‘I’m not your passive male,’ Jurgis said in a steely voice, and he threw his clothing aside. ‘Come, I’ll show you the difference.’



Later in the book, after Wemawee managed to teleport herself away, her lover Wargall joins Maud and the others. He wants to clear the name of his clan, and prove himself as a warrior male. The queen, though doubtful, gives him permission. At first, Wargall is very unsure and emotional. Then he goes through a short stretch of puberty and slowly grows into a man. Jurgis aids and stimulates him, saying that while Wargall seems weak compared to the Kell women, he is a stout fellow compared to males of the other peoples. Jurgis wants to prove that Kell males by exercise can regain their strength. I googled this all, to see if it at least sounds biologically plausible and it seems it does... Anyhow, Wargall soon outfights Jurgis.

Finally, when he and Wemawee meet again, they team up again, but this time as equals like Maud and Jurgis.


----------



## Caged Maiden

@ Penpilot:

Thanks, that's exactly how I think, too.  I have to admit, after being told I can't sympathize with what it's like to live as a POC, I was a bit like "well, WTF?" like, does that mean I can't write realistic PEOPLE who are CHARACTERS in a book? 

@ Darkwriter:

If you ask me, my concepts aren't offensive, because if I thought they were, I'd not write them.  I'm trying to make sense of a comment I received about my sensitivity level and I just can't believe how hesitant it's made me to write the story I've had on the back burner now for a year.  I appreciate your being as confused as I am   My original concern about writing a POC MC was whether his language ought to be something different than how I speak.  I'm American but I married a British guy, so we speak a sort of hybrid language and in my writing, that comes out because for some reason, I find it more expressive and more familiar all at the same time.  Maybe it isn't even as noticeable as I think it is.  Anyways, I wondered whether a certain vernacular would be insulting/ expected/ sorely missed? if I write the way I always do, would it suffice for my POC MC, or would it be somehow insulting, as if I were trying to make him less ethnic.  I thought it was an honest question (and one I'd still like an answer to) but rather than being clearer after asking, I felt like I was a hopelessly ignorant person, verging on racist for my thinking I should just treat everyone the same.



I appreciate your suggestions, scribes.  To me, in my mind and the world in which I live, treating everyone the same is good, but when I was told it was bad, I have to admit, I was really confused.  But I've given it a lot of consideration in the meantime and I guess I can understand how omitting parts of race (whether it be intentionally avoiding anything that could look like a stereotype, or omitting language, physical characteristics, or personality traits that could be viewed as "negative") was actually insulting.  That's the reason I felt "damned if you do/ damned if you don't", because by their very omission, I may be drawing attention to what I "perceive" as the unsightly or unpalatable elements of being a POC.

See?  See how it hurt me to be called insensitive?  I think I'm very sensitive and I care a lot about all people (who aren't stupid or abusive) and I don't think about skin tone when I meet potential friends.

I am ashamed to admit, since that happened, drawing attention to my racial insensitivity, I've been overly-nice to African-Americans I've met because I experience anxiety now, yet all my previous POC friends I treat with familiarity and racial indifference.  This has affected me and now that I moved to Columbus, OH, I hope I can get over it because in Albuquerque, everyone was Hispanic or Native American and my anxiety seems only piqued by my perceived insensitivity toward African-Americans.  I feel sick thinking I'm now more racist than I was before, by being overly-thoughtful and nice.  It's like when I see elderly people in the store and I offer them a hand...am I being ageist? or am I just being a good citizen?  A few weeks ago, I saw an elderly woman in a motorized wheelchair and passed her multiple times, grocery shopping the same aisles, and once, she was extricating herself from her ride, to reach something on the top shelf.  I rushed over to reach it for her and she told me she could do it herself.  Not in a rude way.  But I felt like maybe my kindness (or as I think of it, being a good citizen) was mistaken?  I'm fairly convinced I'm not insulting, but maybe perceptions are different for others.  I just want to be a sensitive and good person.  I also had an uncomfortable incident with a transgender friend, who I treated as a woman because in my mind, if you dress like a woman, you want to be treated as one, right?  Probably another thing I'm not sensitive enough about.  But anyways, it wasn't her transgender choice that made me uncomfortable, but certain very sexual comments made.  After pretending to admire the photos she showed me from a nude photo shoot, I sort of felt a need to distance myself, not because I'd seen his, you know...everything, but because the topics of our future conversations became less day-to-day, and more tinged with sexual undertones--something she very much wanted to discuss but I didn't.  I again, felt insensitive, but I just wasn't comfortable and felt cornered in conversations that to me weren't appropriate.

I'm a pagan with a generous number of lesbian, gay, transgender, bisexual, asexual, swinger, polyamorous, nudist, vegan, feminist, Catholic, Heathen, Wiccan, etc. (by that I mean different from me, not different in a negative way) friends, that come from a multitude of ancestral backgrounds.  I guess ignorant is the right word for what I am, but until being exposed in a meaningful way to a "culture" into which I wasn't born, I just can't understand deeply.  However, I relish the relationships I've had with people who brought me understanding and took the time to tell me about them and their lives.  It's certainly given me a lot of insight, though I'm sure there's always much more to learn.  I just think all people have flaws and strengths and I want to be able to write what I like and what I feel, and I want to do justice to any character I am inspired to write.

@ Graylorne

I apologize to you for placing my personal thoughts on your thread, but this segment of the forum has captured a lot of attention from the open people to whom I want to pose my questions.  Thank you for bringing your feelings up here and opening this door for conversation.  The issues of race and sexuality in your work, and bringing them and their portrayals to light, may help a lot of people.  I know I'm one of them.


----------



## Graylorne

You're quite welcome, CM. 

Besides, our outlooks are not dissimilar. Over here we are taught to treat everybody the same. Well, that is what I did in my book and see what comes of it 

But I'm glad we have a sensible discussion, and if it can help other people as well, all the better.


----------



## Caged Maiden

@ Graylorne

One thing that comes to mind about your women, is their fertility.  I'm not sure how you have this planted in your book, but if hormones have actually shifted and females are producing larger than normal amounts of testosterone (and presumably less estrogen) they may have fertility problems.  

Estrogen levels are controlled by your body fat.  If you're a muscular, athletic girl, (think gymnasts) you may never have the onset of menarche until you're like 20 (after they give up competitive gymnastics).  Low body fat and high muscle percentage creates infertility.  You don't ovulate and you don't menstruate, accordingly.

Also, the converse is true, that in women with an overly-high percentage of body fat, the body produces too much estrogen, leading to emotional instability and glandular imbalance.  Those women often have fertility problems, too because again they don't ovulate and menstruate, and often will be lucky to have four cycles a year.

If your culture is indeed hormonally different from what we consider the appropriate balance for optimal fertility, you may not have a lot of children and it may even be encouraged to be sexually active with a multitude of partners (where if you're only having sex with one man, his sperm count is continually diminished, but multiple partners offers the best chances for fertilization).

Just some thoughts.


----------



## Graylorne

@CM

Yes, I took that in consideration. They do it by magic, and have all sorts of suppressor spells (I really didn't want Kell women with mustaches), of which a few were badly calculated. I haven't written it down that detailed, but I look at it again when I have Mindfire's comments, whether I need to go that far.

Your last paragraph is correct, free sex is the norm. Maud mentions it, also that she knew her mother, who went m.i.a., but her father could be one of several males. The birthrate (esp of boys) is going down. This is one of the reasons why Maud and her friends want to see how their people can return to their old country and a family life, instead of their present somewhat artificial existence.

NB: Delated menarche - that is a very handy suggestion. That means you can have both a strong and practicing sex drive, yet no fertility till past twenty? If that's so, I don't need anti-conception amulets. I really hope I don't shock even more people with this...


----------



## Caged Maiden

It's completely plausible.  Most full-time athletic women, or those in developing countries where food is not plentiful, don't have their fertility set on until later.  In our European history, the age of marriage was higher than people think (in the 1530s in England it was 25) and while some children were married (because of nobility) much younger, they often didn't consummate their marriage until 16 and still then many weren't fertile.  Nutrition, body composition, and health play important roles in fertility.  As modern people living in a world flooded with synthetic estrogens and with abundant food sources, we have 13-year old mothers, but in the past, it was much less likely.  Not only did biology play a part, but a sense of protection for our daughters.  European parents after the plague had less children and spent their meager resources securing apprenticeships for their sons and buying good marriages for their daughters. A man wasn't considered "marriageable" until he'd finished his apprenticeship (age 24) and daughters worked in their family businesses alongside their parents (or cared for younger siblings/ cousins) until married.  It was less about "mouths to feed" than it was pre-plague and while we have a lot of mis-history to pull from today, there are a lot of relatively "modern" attitudes toward parenting and having and raising children to be found in actual history.

Since you're writing a semi-tribal and African-inspired culture, I remember watching a documentary about a certain African tribe that openly encouraged youths to engage in sexuality and girls weren't considered "marriageable" until they'd produced a first child.  At that point, whomever wanted to marry her would adopt the child as his own and be her husband and the father of her future children.  I guess in a place where fertility isn't guaranteed, it's as good a reasoning as any.


----------



## Caged Maiden

And you could probably do some more research about muscular women and infertility.  As far as I know, most women could technically exercise their way right out of fertility.  I'd imagine if your body composition is right, even past her teens, a girl might never have become a woman.  I only know it in the case of Olympic gymnasts, some of which couldn't conceive for years (not like 5, but more like 1-2) after giving up their sport and exercise routines.  This is different from the sort of exercise you should do if you have terrible cramping or large amounts of blood loss.  it's the actual suppression of ovulation because of less than necessary body fat to produce estrogen required for ovulation and successive menstruation.  Also in the other thread we've discussed all kinds of herbs you can use to suppress your cycle.  Women have been doing it since ancient times as well.  No magic necessary, really.  And contraception.  

For me as a reader, I think the simplest explanation is always easiest to grasp, so perhaps just the glandular route would work.  Girls don't begin to be fertile until about age twenty because they don't have enough estrogen until then, and if they're muscular warriors, even later.


----------



## Graylorne

'My'  Kell girls start their sexual life early as well. Maud at eighteen had had already two lovers and Wemawee at sixteen wasn't a novice either. 

I keep to the legal limits as they apply to the Netherlands, and over here the age of sexual adulthood is 16. Between 12 and 16, children may have consensual sex with their peers, but parents can file a complaint against the other. So for a Kell girl to start at 12/13 would be no problem.

So here, the overproduction of testosterone makes them either fierce in battle, or fierce in love, and delays the cycle till a balance is reached somewhere in their early twenties. Then, the urges get less, and they have learned to fight fiercely on willpower alone.

That is more or less as written, but perhaps I must add a bit of description somewhere. Or else  put the whole explanation on my website. Maud and Jurgis will get one child for the sequel, a girl. At the end of the book they stay in the old country and with a lot of other Kells (m/f) start a new clan, with a more traditional way of life.
The Kells who stayed behind after the war and were not part of the sex-swap, should if I guess right, help bring things back to normal in a few generations.


----------



## Caged Maiden

You bring up another valid point.  I have written sexual relationships with young teens 14/15 and while I don't morally object to the notion (lest I be called a hypocrite), is there any legal reason it might not be okay?  I mean, it's written words I'm showing to people, not images, but is there some sort of author responsibility to not show such a relationship?  It isn't graphic and indeed shortly after the acts take place her father throws the boy out of the house and he...disappears, creating a mystery and a broken heart in the process.  But that's my story, centered around two teen lovers who want nothing more than to be married and love each other.  And remember, I'm the one that just posted about the lateness of sixteenth-century marriages.  I treat this relationship as very special and there's a reason for it (partly stemming from an absent father and a neglectful step-mother).  But you mentioned writing within the age of consent and here it's a ludicrous eighteen, but that never affected my views on being a young person.  I write characters, not moral statements, you know?  And these two characters are young and in love, and I didn't write many details.  Where is that line drawn?  Is there a line?


----------



## Graylorne

Your story sounds OK to me, but I'm probably the last one to judge. I am a product of the '60s/'70s (at least intellectually, not practicing) and as we had neither right-wing politics nor televangelists to halt it, our mores are still more relaxed. 
I do remember reading that the age of consent in the US varies from state to state. But I would say, if it is important to the story, keep it in.


----------



## Tom

Graylorne said:


> I keep to the legal limits as they apply to the Netherlands, and over here the age of sexual adulthood is 16. Between 12 and 16, children may have consensual sex with their peers, but parents can file a complaint against the other. So for a Kell girl to start at 12/13 would be no problem.



A caveat: I was just thinking as I read this that this might turn off potential American readers. Here in the States, the age of consent is 18. We make a much bigger deal out of underage sex than other countries (as far as I can tell). You don't necessarily need to change it, but I felt it was worth noting.


----------



## Caged Maiden

I believe portraying teens as sexual objects is probably more a problem than writing them enjoying themselves in the skinny little arms of their teen peers.  I guess that answered my question, though, since it jogged my memory and since I've read it in published books, I have to assume it isn't illegal or even immoral to portray teen sex, even in a relatively distasteful light.  

I read romance and recall a novel about a 13-year-old MC who is married and pregnant...one of the things that irks me about the genre.  I mean, yes, historical references exist, but it's a misunderstood thing, historical marriage, and the way modern writers portray times past sometimes irritates me thoroughly.  But I totally understand, Tom, which was why I wondered whether fantasy readers would be put off by my 14-year-old and 15-year-old romance.  While I personally don't have a problem with teens having sex, there does appear a sort of public intolerance and while romance readers may not dissect it, fantasy readers may be a different breed.  

For me, I was more offended by the 13-year-old MC of the book I mentioned putting so much weight on being a pleasing wife to her 30-year-old husband and relishing her pregnancy before age 14, even competing with other girls in her social circle, like the only thing a girl is good for is sex and child-bearing.  That left a bad taste in my mouth, (which is saying a lot because I was sexually active at 14 and have four kids, the first of which was when I was 25), and I stopped reading that author because of it.

I certainly hope my portrayal of young love is more respectful to girls and women, and focuses more on the love aspect than the act of sex.  In fact, she gets in a lot of trouble for the whole incident, and her father's punishment is harsher than anything she could have anticipated. Her young love goes missing and after finding certain bits of information about his disappearance, she writes him off as dead.


----------



## X Equestris

Tom Nimenai said:


> A caveat: I was just thinking as I read this that this might turn off potential American readers. Here in the States, the age of consent is 18. We make a much bigger deal out of underage sex than other countries (as far as I can tell). You don't necessarily need to change it, but I felt it was worth noting.



Age of Consent varies by state in the US.  Where I live, it's 16.  But I agree, it might be kind of off-putting for a fair number of people.


----------



## Tom

It's 18 here in New York. We have some of the strictest sex offender laws in the nation. People around here _flip_ when it comes to underage/non-consensual sex. We take that sort of s*** seriously. 

When I'm reading, I don't mind if it's two teenagers engaging in mutually consensual sex, but a legal adult and a minor--no. Just no. That would seriously put me off a book.


----------



## Graylorne

Tom Nimenai said:


> A caveat: I was just thinking as I read this that this might turn off potential American readers. Here in the States, the age of consent is 18. We make a much bigger deal out of underage sex than other countries (as far as I can tell). You don't necessarily need to change it, but I felt it was worth noting.



I realize that, and on this subject got some good advice from my beta readers. I changed some things and explained some things, but in the end this is how I see it.

NB: I'm talking about peer sex, not teen-adult. 
 Sex happens . I am firmly convinced that openness about sex and good anti-conception would be of benefit to young people and help preventing teen pregnancies.


----------



## buyjupiter

Caged Maiden said:


> Also, the converse is true, that in women with an overly-high percentage of body fat, *the body produces too much estrogen, leading to emotional instability* and glandular imbalance.




Whoa. Um. Please tell me that's not exactly what you meant to say. Emotional instability is not a direct response to over production of estrogen, or at least not solely to an over production of estrogen. (There's depression and bipolar and traumatic brain injuries and brain tumors and thyroid cancer, etc etc.)

And what about guys who are larger? They have estrogen. Are they also prone to emotional instability, or is that just for teh ladies?


----------



## Mindfire

Tom Nimenai said:


> It's 18 here in New York. We have some of the strictest sex offender laws in the nation. People around here _flip_ when it comes to underage/non-consensual sex. We take that sort of s*** seriously.
> 
> When I'm reading, I don't mind if it's two teenagers engaging in mutually consensual sex, but a legal adult and a minor--no. Just no. That would seriously put me off a book.



New York, eh? Interesting. You'd expect a red state would have the stricter laws in that respect. Well, good on New York. And yeah, gonna add my voice to the choir here. The underage sex thing is kinda squicky. Less so if between peers but I still wouldn't feel comfortable reading it. But I was raised in a relatively conservative household. Results may vary.


----------



## Jabrosky

Mindfire said:


> New York, eh? Interesting. You'd expect a red state would have the stricter laws in that respect. Well, good on New York. And yeah, gonna add my voice to the choir here. The underage sex thing is kinda squicky. Less so if between peers but I still wouldn't feel comfortable reading it. But I was raised in a relatively conservative household. Results may vary.


I don't like "kink-shaming" other people's preferences, because I've been the target of that myself, but I can understand why some don't like the idea of older people being attracted to teenagers. It can easily be construed as a power fantasy insofar as elders are regarded as institutionally more powerful than teens in our culture, and there's never an excuse for sexual abuse. 

Though on the other hand, if you're an older person who hasn't already married, I really can't blame you for being drawn towards youths still in their physical prime. And the attraction commonly does work the other way. When I was a teen, I sure would have wanted to date Gabrielle Union even if she was 17 years my senior.

In general I believe our culture would benefit from relaxing our hangups about sexuality. They may have made some sense before advances in birth control and treating STIs, but in the modern era there's no excuse. I'd even go so far as to say our ideal of monogamy is no longer applicable to anyone who doesn't want kids. If a guy isn't ever going to father a child, why would he need to stick around the same old woman when there are so many more out there?


----------



## Tom

Jabrosky, that's not a "kink", it's pedophilia. An adult having sex with someone under the legal age of consent. Legally, even if the child or teen did consent, that's still non-consensual sex, because they're under the age of consent. They are considered not yet old enough to make that choice. It's squicky and illegal. Period.


----------



## Graylorne

I agree with Tom in this.

Also, if anyone wants to discuss this further, please do it in another thread. 'Lioness'  suffers enough controversy without that.


----------



## Mindfire

Jabrosky said:


> If a guy isn't ever going to father a child, why would he need to stick around the same old woman when there are so many more out there?



Maybe because he has a strong personal connection with her and wants to honor that? Some people prefer the stability of a commited companionship to the thrills of philandering.


----------



## Jabrosky

Mindfire said:


> Maybe because he has a strong personal connection with her and wants to honor that? Some people prefer the stability of commited companionship to the thrills of philandering.


But they're only as stable as the individuals involved, and it's been my experience that people's personalities, beliefs, and interests can "age" over the years just like physical appearance, sometimes even at a faster rate. And when those changes take a turn for the worse, they're even more painful because they _aren't_ superficial. Someone you think is sweet, caring, and fun to be around can devolve into a toxic, raging lunatic you can't stand anymore. In other cases they lose whatever commonality you once shared, so there's no use in sticking around them anymore. So-called "inner beauty" is every bit as transient if not more so than physical sex appeal.


----------



## Mindfire

Jabrosky said:


> But they're only as stable as the individuals involved, and it's been my experience that people's personalities, beliefs, and interests can "age" over the years just like physical appearance, sometimes even at a faster rate. And when those changes take a turn for the worse, they're even more painful because they _aren't_ superficial. Someone you think is sweet, caring, and fun to be around can devolve into a toxic, raging lunatic you can't stand anymore. In other cases they lose whatever commonality you once shared, so there's no use in sticking around them anymore. So-called "inner beauty" is every bit as transient if not more so than physical sex appeal.


All I can say is that your experience of relationships seems, from my point of view, to have been unfortunate. I've been blessed to witness couples that stick together for decades, including my own parents. I hope to do the same. Not saying it's easy. But few things worth doing are.


----------



## Jabrosky

Mindfire said:


> All I can say is that your experience of relationships has been unfortunate. I've been blessed to witness couples that stick together for decades, including my own parents. I hope to do the same. Not saying it's easy. But few things worth doing are.


Your parents stuck around because they knew you and your siblings (didn't you say you had a sister?) would be screwed if they didn't. The same could probably be said for my mom and dad after they had me and my big sister. But while I've never been in a relationship with any physical attraction involved (though not for lack of trying), I _have_ experienced more than one friend going insane and turning into complete monsters who hated my guts. It's made me very cynical of emotional bonding, since it requires a static connection in spite of humanity's dynamic psychology.

Is there such a thing as love? I do believe it exists. It's the everlasting ideal I have lost faith in.


----------



## Mindfire

Jabrosky said:


> Your parents stuck around because they knew you and your siblings (didn't you say you had a sister?) would be screwed if they didn't. The same could probably be said for my mom and dad after they had me and my big sister. But while I've never been in a relationship with any physical attraction involved (though not for lack of trying), I _have_ experienced more than one friend going insane and turning into complete monsters who hated my guts. It's made me very cynical of emotional bonding, since it requires a static connection in spite of humanity's dynamic psychology.
> 
> Is there such a thing as love? I do believe it exists. It's the everlasting ideal I have lost faith in.


That is very cynical indeed, I'd say. I also know older couples who are still together despite all their children being adults who've left home. What do you make of them? And I think the idea that love is static is part of what causes it to fail in so many cases. Love isn't static, it's dynamic. It has to be. Romantic feelings are only the sweet and fluffy part. Beyond that it's about both people choosing, every day, to love the other person for who they are- regardless of change- and to be a person who is worthy of that same love and loyalty. That's what it means to put someone else before yourself, and it's what makes the whole thing hang together. 

Wow we are so off topic it's ridiculous. Lol.


----------



## Gryphos

Jabrosky said:


> Your parents stuck around because they knew you and your siblings (didn't you say you had a sister?) would be screwed if they didn't. The same could probably be said for my mom and dad after they had me and my big sister. But while I've never been in a relationship with any physical attraction involved (though not for lack of trying), I _have_ experienced more than one friend going insane and turning into complete monsters who hated my guts. It's made me very cynical of emotional bonding, since it requires a static connection in spite of humanity's dynamic psychology.
> 
> Is there such a thing as love? I do believe it exists. It's the everlasting ideal I have lost faith in.



First off, your assertion that kids are screwed if the parents don't stick together is completely false. Children all over are raised by single or separated parents (I myself grew up with divorced parents).

Secondly, if you're in a long-term relationship and the other person changes so much that you don't feel you can love them anymore, nothing's forcing you to stay together. Divorces are a thing, you know.

Thirdly, I disagree that emotional bonding is in any way a static connection. It's a dynamic, fluid connection that changes and adapts and grows.


----------



## Jabrosky

Gryphos said:


> First off, your assertion that kids are screwed if the parents don't stick together is completely false. Children all over are raised by single or separated parents (I myself grew up with divorced parents).


This is true, but I still believe it's a lot easier to take care of a kid if you have someone helping you. A lot of single parents out there have problems due to getting their plates too full by doing all the work _and_ childcare.



> Thirdly, I disagree that emotional bonding is in any way a static connection. It's a dynamic, fluid connection that changes and adapts and grows.


Supposedly an emotional connection develops because a couple of people perceive commonality between each other, like shared interests or opinions for example. Get rid of that commonality and what is left to bind those individuals together?

I will admit a lot of widespread ideas about love, emotion, and inter-personal relationships don't make sense to me, or that I can't relate to them personally. Maybe it's another one of my weird psychological quirks at work.


----------



## Nimue

Wow.  I was already sick and tired of this thread, and you've gone and made it _worse_.  This is a discussion about someone's book.  The OP already asked you to stop derailing, Jabrosky, and posts condoning pedophilia is way beyond the boundaries of what should appear on this forum.

Please, start a separate thread about how marriage is bullshit and 16-year-olds are hot, so we can all avoid it.


----------



## Devor

Jabrosky said:


> Your parents stuck around because they knew you and your siblings (didn't you say you had a sister?) would be screwed if they didn't.



I'm at a loss for how you would think it's your place to say something like that, Jabrosky.




> But while I've never been in a relationship with any physical attraction involved (though not for lack of trying), I _have_ experienced more than one friend going insane and turning into complete monsters who hated my guts. It's made me very cynical of emotional bonding, since it requires a static connection in spite of humanity's dynamic psychology.



My wife and I started talking seriously about marriage within a few months of meeting.  That was almost ten years ago.

I've changed and she has changed.  That's life.

But we haven't really changed.  I was not one person who changed into another person.  Neither of us were ever a static thing to begin with.  We were always people in motion.  I was always _changing -_ before, during, and after I met her.  And so was she.

And it was important to understand that.  Where is this person going?  What do I see in her?  What am I showing her about myself?  What does she see about me and where I'm going?  How are our paths changing because of each other?

That's part of the fun of being in a trusting and loving relationship.  You find yourself changing because of the person you've opened up to.  And I continue to be amazed by her.  You have to trust before you can be surprised.

I didn't fall for a person because she was awesome or made me feel awesome.  I fell for someone because I liked the way that being with her was changing me.  And because I liked sharing more with her.

Would I ditch my kids if I could?  In a heartbeat. (If you think I'm serious, you need help.)  But only if I could take her with me.


----------



## Jabrosky

Nimue said:


> Wow.  I was already sick and tired of this thread, and you've gone and made it _worse_.  This is a discussion about someone's book.  The OP already asked you to stop derailing, Jabrosky, and posts condoning pedophilia is way beyond the boundaries of what should appear on this forum.
> 
> Please, start a separate thread about how marriage is bullshit and 16-year-olds are hot, so we can all avoid it.


For what it's worth, I personally don't get off underage sex. But OK, sorry for the diversion.


----------



## Mindfire

Update: Unfortunately, I haven't been able to read Graylorne's book. I found out my grandmother passed and between that, work, and other matters I haven't been able to sit down and read it. However, I fully intend to finish reading it and give my opinions. I can't give a precise date, but I hope to be done sometime next week.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Sorry for your loss, Mindfire.


----------



## Graylorne

I understand. My condolences, Mindfire.


----------



## Penpilot

Sorry for the bad news Mindfire. Take care.


----------



## buyjupiter

I'm sorry to hear that. My condolences to you and your fam.


----------



## Philip Overby

Sorry to hear as well, Mindfire. My condolences.


----------



## Graylorne

I'm not about to post every review I get on the forums, but the previous one hurt so much that I want to give you this one, too. It is quite the opposite .


----------



## Mindfire

Thanks, guys.


----------



## Darkwriter

My sincere condolences, Mindfire.  Handle your business; nothing here to rush back for.


----------



## Darkwriter

Nimue said:


> Wow.  I was already sick and tired of this thread, and you've gone and made it _worse_.  This is a discussion about someone's book.  The OP already asked you to stop derailing, Jabrosky, and posts condoning pedophilia is way beyond the boundaries of what should appear on this forum.
> 
> Please, start a separate thread about how marriage is bullshit and 16-year-olds are hot, so we can all avoid it.



What she said.  Wow, indeed.


----------



## Darkwriter

Graylorne said:


> I'm not about to post every review I get on the forums, but the previous one hurt so much that I want to give you this one, too. It is quite the opposite .



Since Paul somehow failed to disclose it, I'll take a moment to inform you all this person owns the promotional tour company Paul signed on with- and the tour runs until April 15th.  

This blatant, clumsy manipulation ploy is really sad.  And telling.


----------



## Steerpike

Darkwriter said:


> Since Paul somehow failed to disclose it, I'll take a moment to inform you all this person owns the promotional tour company Paul signed on with- and the tour runs until April 15th.
> 
> This blatant, clumsy manipulation ploy is really sad.  And telling.



As a writer, you should be able to make your points without insulting other members.

The review policy on the site requires authors to agree that they may not get a positive review, since the reviewer is meant to provide an honest assessment of the book. People can take that policy, as well as the underlying promotional services, into consideration when evaluating the review.


----------



## Darkwriter

Steerpike said:


> As a writer, you should be able to make your points without insulting other members.
> 
> The review policy on the site requires authors to agree that they may not get a positive review, since the reviewer is meant to provide an honest assessment of the book. People can take that policy, as well as the underlying promotional services, into consideration when evaluating the review.



Provided you're aware the 'reviewer' is also being paid for promotional services, aka full disclosure.  At which point it becomes little more than a commercial.


----------



## Steerpike

Darkwriter said:


> Provided you're aware the 'reviewer' is also being paid for promotional services, aka full disclosure.  At which point it becomes little more than a commercial.



I saw it by clicking on the links in the reviewer bio. I assume you did as well, and suspect other readers are capable of the same feat. Unless you are privy to the inner workings of the promotion company, you can't really say whether or not it amounts to a commercial. Their stated policy is that reviews are meant to provide an honest assessment. You'd have to have inside knowledge to know whether that turns out to be the case or not.


----------



## Darkwriter

Steerpike said:


> I saw it by clicking on the links in the reviewer bio. I assume you did as well, and suspect other readers are capable of the same feat. Unless you are privy to the inner workings of the promotion company, you can't really say whether or not it amounts to a commercial. Their stated policy is that reviews are meant to provide an honest assessment. You'd have to have inside knowledge to know whether that turns out to be the case or not.



When you sign up for a book tour, many of them- such as Enchanted Book Tours- want you to contact them in advance if you're not leaving a postive review (since the purpose is to promote the book) so they can ask you to either make a simple promo post using the materials provided in the media kit or to postpone your review until the tour is completed.

From Enchanted Book Tours Blogger's FAQ:

--I signed up for a review, but I didn’t like the book.--

We want our reviewers to post honest reviews of the book. You shouldn’t feel obligated to write a positive review. A lot of bloggers do prefer to get in touch with us first before writing a bad review. If that happens, we contact the authors and ask them whether they want the review posted. We then forward the author’s response to the bloggers.

If the author doesn’t want the ‘bad’ review posted, we ask the blogger to host a book excerpt instead.


----------



## Steerpike

Darkwriter said:


> When you sign up for a book tour, many of them- such as Enchanted Book Tours- want you to contact them in advance if you're not leaving a postive review (since the purpose is to promote the book) so they can ask you to either make a simple promo post using the materials provided in the media kit or to postpone your review until the tour is completed.



So, since that's not what happened here it suggests the reviewer did have a positive impression of the book, or else is being dishonest to avoid that process. Again, you don't have the information necessary to distinguish between the two. I'll generally give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they mean what they say. Pointing out that a promotion is occurring isn't problematic, but doing so using insulting language is unnecessary, contrary to the rules of the forums, and doesn't create the impression that you're making an impartial observation. Better to just make a note of it without the insulting commentary.


----------



## Darkwriter

Steerpike said:


> So, since that's not what happened here it suggests the reviewer did have a positive impression of the book, or else is being dishonest to avoid that process. Again, you don't have the information necessary to distinguish between the two. I'll generally give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they mean what they say. Pointing out that a promotion is occurring isn't problematic, but doing so using insulting language is unnecessary, contrary to the rules of the forums, and doesn't create the impression that you're making an impartial observation. Better to just make a note of it without the insulting commentary.



Paul signed her company to promote his book, then presented her promotion of his book as an unbiased opinion while failing to disclose he's paying her.
The tour owner's own policy discourages but doesn't prohibit less postive reviews, so what would you reasonably consider their own behavior to be regarding any book they're contracted for?

You may consider my framing of Paul's actions insulting, but in light of everything that's occured I disagree, especially as it's factual.  So how is what I've stated not impartial and unbiased yet you'll entertain that the review of someone he's paying is?


----------



## Devor

Darkwriter, I can see where you're coming from in questioning the review he posted.  But Graylorne is being reasonable in trying to defend himself.  At Mythic Scribes, we have policies against insulting or needlessly hostile remarks.  All we're asking is that you look for a more respectful way of expressing yourself.


----------



## Steerpike

Darkwriter said:


> This blatant, clumsy manipulation ploy is really sad.  And telling.



And if you're still in the dark about what was insulting, I'll refer you to the quote above. I have no doubt you can see how that constitutes an insult, made after your initial statement pointing out a potential conflict of interest. There's no need to continue beating this dead horse. Make your points in a civil manner. That's a simple request and an easy one for any writer to follow, given that we use words as part of our trade.


----------



## Darkwriter

Devor said:


> Darkwriter, I can see where you're coming from in questioning the review he posted.  But Graylorne is being reasonable in trying to defend himself.  At Mythic Scribes, we have policies against insulting or needlessly hostile remarks.  All we're asking is that you look for a more respectful way of expressing yourself.



As I said, I disagree that I've been needlessly hostile but the objections are noted.

I just have to wonder how his deliberate misrepresentation of this in order to garner sympathy from forum members is considered reasonable, let alone respectful.


----------



## Philster401

I have not read all the posts here and I no authority to do so but I have to say how about you just end the argument here because if both sides continue to fight I see no good coming from it other than someone being kicked off the forum .

And I think you guys have both diverged from the main topic.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Philster401 said:


> end the argument


Good idea. Consider it ended.


----------

