# Diversity: Multi ethnic  and Biracial characters



## TheCatholicCrow

I wanted to start a thread about this because it seems to be pretty overlooked. There's a ton of talk about writing minority characters and things like the Diversity Challenge suggest that we need more minority voices in lit. I totally agree. We do. But I'm wondering why nobody seems to make a fuss over the fact that we (as a society) are still incredibly reluctant to include multi-ethnic and bi-racial characters. 

Actually, I just put up a new blog post on this and it's just something I've been thinking about lately. 

What does more good? Maintaining a "separate but equal" representation or showing that race and ethnicity really don't matter. That we can all come from different cultures but at the end of the day we're all human and we can freely marry outside of our own ethnic group. 

IDK - maybe it's just something that bothers me because I am multi-ethnic. Literally the closest thing representing my family on tv is I Love Lucy (a Caucasian woman married to a Hispanic man) which is not exactly current.

I feel like I'm starting to see a bit more of it now and then in movies, television and even on commercials. But I want to see more. Way more. I want to read a book with a character that's experienced all of the wonderful and hurtful things that I have because we don't fit neatly into a box. This is the diversity that I want to see and just can't find enough of.   

Any thoughts?


----------



## Jabrosky

> IDK - maybe it's just something that bothers me because I am multi-ethnic. Literally the closest thing representing my family on tv is I Love Lucy (a Caucasian woman married to a Hispanic man) which is not exactly current.
> 
> I feel like I'm starting to see a bit more of it now and then in movies, television and even on commercials. But I want to see more. Way more. I want to read a book with a character that's experienced all of the wonderful and hurtful things that I have because we don't fit neatly into a box. This is the diversity that I want to see and just can't find enough of.


I understand how you feel. Multi-ethnic and biracial people have existed at least as long as people from different parts of the world have intermingled together. I'm sure they were particularly plentiful near transcontinental crossroads like the Middle East or Mediterranean, most of all when the Hellenistic and Roman Empires had linked together ethnic groups (e.g. the "Ivory Bangle Lady" from Roman-era York). I will admit that I'm not such a fan of certain pop-media practices of using biracial or multiethnic actresses as the ideal representatives of one "minority" racial identity, but that's not the fault of the women themselves but casting agents who are working with a premise that denigrates one part of their identity.

P.S. I never knew Lucy's husband was Hispanic.


----------



## Mythopoet

Jabrosky said:


> P.S. I never knew Lucy's husband was Hispanic.



I have to assume that's because you haven't watched the show. I mean, it's really obvious.


----------



## Feo Takahari

Honestly, I've mostly seen biracial characters used as a way for someone to "count" as an ethnic group despite having no physical features associated with that group. (For instance, the MC of Eric van Lustbader's _The Ninja_ has a "Japanese heart" but a physical description like any white action hero.) Unless you count fantasy races, of course, in which case a): the father was from a magical race with super-special powers, and wish fulfillment ensues, or b): the father was part of a raiding party that assaulted the mother's village, and tired angst ensues.


----------



## Trick

I wonder if this comes from Bi-racial people tending to identify as one race or the other? An extension of the separatism that plagues our country...

I'm sure plenty don't pick one or the other but the first person who came to my mind was a friend of mine who is half-Mexican and half-European mish-mash. If you ask him his race, he says Mexican, with no qualifiers. On St. Patty's day he had a shirt made that said on the front "Kiss Me I'm..." and on the back it said "Mexican!" It was awesome. The funny part to me is that he does have Irish blood, but he doesn't identify as Irish at all. He does look Hispanic but his build is more so European (6'4" and thin/broad shoulders). That's not definitive of course since it varies within races a lot but IDK... It's a curious thing to me.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Feo Takahari said:


> Honestly, I've mostly seen biracial characters used as a way for someone to "count" as an ethnic group despite having no physical features associated with that group.


Are you certain of this, or do you suspect it?

Bi-racial people really do need representation as much as anyone else. I was talking to Raul Gonzalez and Anna Sibley O'Brien today (both of whom are artists known for works consisting of underrepresented/diverse ethnicities) about this. These artists both expressed a need for readers to have characters who are like them, and also the need for readers to read about diverse characters.

Those of us who are white get plenty of representation, and also the opportunity to read about MCs who don't look like us. Not all MCs are white. But how many are Cambodian? (For American children's picture books, the answer is 1.)

My daughters are half-Chinese. I have cousins in interracial marriages as well, so half-Hatian, half-Japanese, half-Egyptian if my second cousin has kids, and another cousin has half-Puerto Rican kids. My daughters also have half-African-half-Irish friends.

So if I were to have a story with a biracial MC, she would likely be someone my own daughters can identify with. She won't look totally Asian or totally white, but that's part of being bi-racial. The Snow White doll and the Mulan doll look sort of like my daughters. There is no half-Asain MC so famous they made a toy of her. 


(If there's a toy of the half-French/half-Japanese lady who gets her arms chopped in Kill Bill, I'm not buying that for my kids.)


----------



## buyjupiter

Legendary Sidekick said:


> Are you certain of this, or do you suspect it?



I'm with Feo on this one, I haven't seen stats one way or the other, but what little I have seen of bi-racial characters...it seems like what happens with bisexual characters is what happens with bi-racial characters: PICK A SIDE, WONTCHA? Which may speak to the difficulties of accurately portraying complex identity representations we have in our society.


----------



## Penpilot

I think it could be the case of the wheel turning but turning slowly. IMHO with things like this, progress is made as the older generation fades and the newer one grows into prominence and power.

In Agent's of Shield the actress Chloe Bennet is multi-racial and apparently so is her character. But one thing I kind of find sad is the need for her to use an white surname instead of her real surname which is Wang.


----------



## Jabrosky

Trick said:


> I wonder if this comes from Bi-racial people tending to identify as one race or the other? An extension of the separatism that plagues our country...


The so-called one-drop rule does play into that, for the reasons Feo mentioned, but in my experience its application has tended to be deliberately inconsistent. Sure, multiracial individuals singling out one part of their ancestry as their main identity is convenient for prejudiced casting agents, or anti-egalitarian ideologues citing those individuals' successes to rhetorically plaster over larger patterns of inequality. But when attention shifts away from American social politics to earlier non-European history---especially African history---the one-drop rule gets inverted. Even native African people with darker skin than Barack Obama can get written off as not really "black" or "Negroid" as long as they're associated with any form of indigenous architecture bigger than the cartoonish grass hovel. In which case, the one-droppers will look for any sign of European, Arab, or "Mediterranean Caucasoid" influence, whether genetic or cultural, in those Africans. This double standard is known as the "Hamitic Hypothesis", and I still see it being championed by armchair anthropologists and "human biodiversity" racialists all over the Internet.

But that racists tend to be hypocritically self-serving shouldn't surprise anyone.

As an aside for the OP, "Hispanic" isn't technically a "race" so much as a linguistically defined category. The word does stereotypically conjure images of Mexican mestizos if that's what the OP had in mind, but considering mestizos by definition are European/Native American mixes, wouldn't that make a Euro-American/mestizo mix, well, at least 75% European in ancestry? I imagine that would represent itself as "white-passing" in more cases than not, even if their cultural identity is more mixed.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

buyjupiter said:


> I'm with Feo on this one, I haven't seen stats one way or the other, but what little I have seen of bi-racial characters...it seems like what happens with bisexual characters is what happens with bi-racial characters: PICK A SIDE, WONTCHA? Which may speak to the difficulties of accurately portraying complex identity representations we have in our society.


That's a damn shame.

Well, I'm the one with biracial family members. Now I feel it's my mission to create a biracial character and do it right. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that doing it right means putting a picture of my kids near the about-the-author bit so I can prove I'm serious about biracial representation.

I haven't seen it done badly (or at all), so I'm curious as to why it felt the biracial characters weren't genuine representations. I mean, real biracial people are simply people whose parents look more different from each other than couples with the same skin tone. There are likely linguistic and cultural differences on each side of the family as well. I would expect a biracial character would be perceived as "sort of diverse" to a reader who identifies with one side of the MC's ethnicity. That may be come off as "fake ethnic diversity" even if the writer wrote the character's ethnicity accurately.

That's why I'm curious about what you and Feo saw that wasn't working for you.



Of course, my feeling about diversity in general is that the character's race/gender/orientation/etc. are all aesthetics that make the character a little more real. What adventure the character has isn't defined by the character's race/gender/orientation/etc.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Jabrosky said:


> As an aside for the OP, "Hispanic" isn't technically a "race" so much as a linguistically defined category. The word does stereotypically conjure images of Mexican mestizos if that's what the OP had in mind, but considering mestizos by definition are European/Native American mixes, wouldn't that make a Euro-American/mestizo mix, well, at least 75% European in ancestry? I imagine that would represent itself as "white-passing" in more cases than not, even if their cultural identity is more mixed.


@Jabrosky, Hispanic/Latino is still an ethnicity that people prefer recognized. Raul Gonzalez III, who I met today, cowrote _Lowriders in Space_ with enthusiasm because the writer (a white librarian) wanted something for her Hispanic students.

I think what you're getting at is that there isn't a way to "look Hispanic," and there's definitely some truth to that. A Puerto Rican colleague of mine explained that Puerto Ricans are a mix of ethnicities from various continents: North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa. As a result, there is a diverse appearance among Hispanics/Latinos. Some of my students are darker than Obama, some are blonde and blue, and one Puerto Rican has red hair and freckles but her brother (same parents) is brown-skinned. I told one of my Puerto Rican students that she looks like an older version of my daughter Sabina. Her and her friends have seen pictures of my daughter, and they agree there's a striking resemblance.


----------



## Feo Takahari

@Sidekick: well, with van Lustbader, there was something almost fetishistic about it. Like he wanted to have a character who was completely "Japanese" in his background and cultural expectations, without much influence from America, but also wanted to be able to describe how white he looked and how handsome that made him. Other stuff is less blatant about it, but there still seems to be a thing with characters who're culturally steeped in a minority background, but have physical features more similar to the expected majority audience, especially in visual media. 

To give a less extreme case, the main character of _The Suffering_ is apparently supposed to be mixed-race. Everyone who mentions his race calls him black. The only indication that he has other ancestry is that he's pale-skinned and looks somewhat different from the other black characters. (To be fair, the people who comment on his race tend to be racist, so it makes sense that "black" is what they focus in on.)


----------



## Tom

I've been trying to increase my representation of multi-ethnic and biracial characters. Most notable is my vampire, Will, who's half-Irish, half-Japanese. His upbringing was a blend of the two cultures, and he identifies comfortably with both. I think it's important to show multi-ethnic/biracial people embracing all of their background and heritage.

I'm not biracial myself, but I consider myself multi-ethnic, as my background includes many strikingly different cultures, so the portrayal of multi-ethnic and biracial characters is important to me.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Yeah, I'm half-Irish, half-Italian. It's not different than half-Irish, half-Japanese. The difference is only a perception since people are more likely to see that difference.

EDIT - I feel compelled to clarify: there are more similarities among two European cultures than a European culture and an Asian culture. What's the same is growing up embracing both cultures.


----------



## Jabrosky

This reminds me that while the couples I write and draw are typically interracial, I don't usually portray them with kids. I would say that's mainly because both the man and woman are typically in their twenties and don't jump their broom until after the end. But I've also had cases where the guy was a mercenary from the distant north and the lady was the rich and powerful monarch of a dark-skinned empire. If they produced even one kid together, her subjects might not appreciate their ruling dynasty being visibly defiled by the seed of a "piss-haired barbarian" (I like to portray my worlds' Northern European stand-ins as rugged hunter-gatherers whom the other races stereotype as big dumb savages).

I have drawn certain historical figures like Cleopatra VII or Hannibal Barca who _might_ have been of mixed-race several times, but not so much original characters for my fiction.


----------



## cupiscent

I wonder if, in part, this is because fantasy as a genre is more interested in exploring magical race than human race - a character's mixed race is far more likely to be half human, half other than two different cultures of human. Half-elven is one of the more common D&D races (especially for beginners, or so I was told when, as a beginner, I chose it!) and just about every YA fantasy protagonist has some manner of mysterious vanished parent. But yes, like the original poster, I cannot remember reading a lot of characters who struggle with the sorts of things my mixed-race friends struggle with - being told she's "not X enough" for either side, being told she's "not really X", and the identity struggle of "passing". And I wonder why that should be, because for a genre so fond of themes of belonging, there's definitely a goldmine of material there!

(I say I don't remember a lot, but I'm sure I _have_ read some. I can vaguely recall characters disliking the things they've inherited from one parent that set them visually apart from their fellows... though it's possible these are urban fantasy and/or YA stories.)


----------



## Jabrosky

cupiscent said:


> I wonder if, in part, this is because fantasy as a genre is more interested in exploring magical race than human race - a character's mixed race is far more likely to be half human, half other than two different cultures of human.


Alas, it has been my perception that some people in our world hold certain fictional non-human species in higher regard than whole populations of their fellow humans.  Though it does make you wonder, if you had a world where humans coexisted with other hominin species with significantly different intelligences or psychologies, might that not create a greater sense of unity within the human species? Even if the humans came in different colors and had developed different cultures, they'd probably pick up that they all had much more in common cognitively and behaviorally with one another than the likes of elves or orcs. We may think of Swedes and Yoruba as very different groups of people, but only because no more Neanderthals are around to put those differences into a larger perspective.


----------



## TheCatholicCrow

buyjupiter said:


> what little I have seen of bi-racial characters...it seems like what happens with bisexual characters is what happens with bi-racial characters: PICK A SIDE, WONTCHA? Which may speak to the difficulties of accurately portraying complex identity representations we have in our society.



YES! Well, you can probably see from my picture that I have mostly Spanish / Northern Mexican features but I'm actually equal parts Spanish, Mexican, German, & Swedish. That's 3-parts European and 1 part North American. I'm usually told to "pick" the Mexican side. I have 2 sisters that look similar to me (who get the same) and 3 with paler skin, blonde hair, and green or blue eyes. You can probably guess what side they're told to pick. 

That's definitely one of the things that bugs me most about people. What is there to pick? I don't have a problem with it - it only seems to be problem for people that need to label everyone.  

Don't get me wrong, it's not the end of the world but it can be pretty annoying.


----------



## Jabrosky

TheCatholicCrow said:


> YES! Well, you can probably see from my picture that I have mostly Spanish / Northern Mexican features but I'm actually equal parts Spanish, Mexican, German, & Swedish. That's 3-parts European and 1 part North American. I'm usually told to "pick" the Mexican side. I have 2 sisters that look similar to me (who get the same) and 3 with paler skin, blonde hair, and green or blue eyes. You can probably guess what side they're told to pick.
> 
> That's definitely one of the things that bugs me most about people. What is there to pick? I don't have a problem with it - it only seems to be problem for people that need to label everyone.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, it's not the end of the world but it can be pretty annoying.


If people are pressuring you to single out one aspect of your ancestry as your identity, see if you can get them to state why they feel the need to do so. It sounds like they want you to represent the larger Mexican-American community for some reason. If they're Mexican themselves, maybe they expect you to be some kind of racial or ethnic exemplar? 



Spoiler: Tangent on Racial Identity Politics



I will confess that, in the past, I have taken individuals to task for their self-proclaimed racial identity---but always in the opposite direction. One of them was a black/Chinese mix and another a black/Native American, but they both proclaimed to be just black and took offense when I challenged them. But in both of those cases, they were spewing some of the most repulsively racist bile against other black people, which gave me the sense they were playing up their own African-American ancestry just to make their propaganda appear credible (though to be sure, an obnoxiously vocal proportion of even "pure" black people seem to think playing up to white society's prejudices will save their own hides). In other cases, I've seen lily-white people pretend to be black just so they could appropriate the "race card" when they got called out on bad behavior that had nothing to do with race.

In one incident on another writing forum, when I was sharing concept art for my characters, I had a chick accuse their designs of being racist and propagating "imperialist myths". The first time I tried to defend my artwork from her mis-characterizations, she claimed that I should listen to her because she "lived in Africa". After our next round of correspondence she claimed to be an "African woman and a feminist". Obviously neither of those are mutually exclusive, but what raised my yellow flag was that she only called herself "African" (but _never_ any specific nationality or ethnic group) the moment I reminded her that non-African ethnic groups like Dutch, Arabs, and Indians had established their presence on the continent. And then there was the fact that by far the vast majority of the feedback I've always gotten from African and Afro-Diasporan people on my artwork---whether in real life, Facebook, Wordpress, DeviantArt, or even tumblr of all places---has been positive, which made me question at the very least why this one lady thought she was accurately speaking for African people the world over. I ended up getting the vibe that she, and many of my other harsher critics, was a white woman playing the social justice crusader to veil her latent anti-miscegnation prejudices.

I know questioning people about their identity isn't considered polite, but I have little to no tolerance for racists and other scum lying about it to win debate points.


----------



## buyjupiter

Legendary Sidekick said:


> That's why I'm curious about what you and Feo saw that wasn't working for you.
> 
> Of course, my feeling about diversity in general is that the character's race/gender/orientation/etc. are all aesthetics that make the character a little more real. What adventure the character has isn't defined by the character's race/gender/orientation/etc.



In what I've read of fantasy from the late 60s, early 70s and even into the 80s, whenever someone was written as a half-[something this] and half-[something that] there was always a side that was "*better*" than the other. (And their other half had to be shut away, shamed out of existence or whatever. Tanis in Dragonlance novels is a good example of this one.)

This was especially prevalent in the half-elf or half-orc aspects. (There never seem to be any half-dwarves or half-gnomes, do there?) And some writers will claim that their elves/dwarves/orcs are just elves/dwarves/orcs but...the way I read them, they're not. Generally speaking they reflect real-world aspects of racial/ethnic identity. (Dwarves being fantasy Jews, orcs/evil races being stand ins for blacks, Arabs, etc.)

Some writers have approached this better than others. I seem to recall some Mercedes Lackey characters that were half-one nationality, half another, and had some serious identity issues that went beyond what they looked like (but I can't remember which ones now).

Now, in modern fantasy--especially urban fantasy--I see more straight up bi-racial characters (not half-elf etc). And in these, there is almost always a distancing from one aspect of their identity. Especially common among half-black, half-white characters. The agony and self-hatred about "black" hair, especially! I haven't seen as many half-white, half-latino characters. But when I do see them, it's still the agony and self-hatred of not appearing "white enough". And I have rarely seen half-white, half-asian characters, so I can't really offer comment on those portrayals.

(Ooh, Hagrid and Harry Potter and Hermione are all good examples of modern day fantasy "half-somethings". And the Warrior cats series thingie, although I read very few of those.)

I think what I find problematic is the one token the author offers as to the character being multi-ethnic/bi-racial is also the thing the character can't stand...and that they all seem to be trying to "pass" as white. Where are the proud portrayals of embracing both aspects of your heritage? Where are the non-angry portrayals?

This also seems, from memory, to be something that affects _women_ characters much more so than men. I can remember more women bi-racial characters than I can men. I wonder why?

And as for somewhat decentish portrayals of bi-racial/multi-ethnic characters, Snow Crash's Hiro Protagonist was rather good, although Stephenson was subverting several things in this character.

In looking up examples for this post, I found out that Honor Harrington is half-white, half-Chinese! But boy does she read WHITE.

And in summary, I think that's my main problem with the way I see bi-racial/multi-ethnic people portrayed in spec fic. They're almost always trying to be white, so they read white, and if/when you do notice that the character is bi-racial...you're ONLY noticing because of something they're trying to erase from their identity, which is almost exclusively the non-white part of their identity. Which makes you wonder: what's the point? *facepalm*


----------



## Hainted

I wish I could find the post from a video game developer describing why most protagonists are straight White men cause it's much more elegant than what I'm going to summarize here. Basically he starts with a Black Lesbian protagonist who is morally ambiguous, has a drinking problem, and can't hold down a steady romantic relationship. Then the company gets nervous about how Blacks, women, and the LBGT community will react to her being an alcoholic criminal who enjoys one night stands and so he has to choose between making her perfect(and thus uninteresting as a protagonist) or just making her a straight White guy and keeping all the flaws.

There's a very loud(but small) group who believe there is a "right" way to depict a character who is not White, Male, Straight, etc... and so they force creators to just not use diverse characters rather than put up with people screaming (insert insulting term here) filling up their social media pages.

And to me it's not just Humans. Why are Elves, Dwarves and other fantasy races predominantly White? (and no Drow don't count since they're Caucasian featured with grey skin.) Where's the diversity in non-humanity?


----------



## X Equestris

Hainted said:


> I wish I could find the post from a video game developer describing why most protagonists are straight White men cause it's much more elegant than what I'm going to summarize here. Basically he starts with a Black Lesbian protagonist who is morally ambiguous, has a drinking problem, and can't hold down a steady romantic relationship. Then the company gets nervous about how Blacks, women, and the LBGT community will react to her being an alcoholic criminal who enjoys one night stands and so he has to choose between making her perfect(and thus uninteresting as a protagonist) or just making her a straight White guy and keeping all the flaws.
> 
> There's a very loud(but small) group who believe there is a "right" way to depict a character who is not White, Male, Straight, etc... and so they force creators to just not use diverse characters rather than put up with people screaming (insert insulting term here) filling up their social media pages.
> 
> And to me it's not just Humans. Why are Elves, Dwarves and other fantasy races predominantly White? (and no Drow don't count since they're Caucasian featured with grey skin.) Where's the diversity in non-humanity?



Yeah, I've seen it too, where a small, vocal group gets super upset whenever a minority protagonist is shown to have flaws, or when a minority character is an antagonist.  Which is sad, because that ends up pushing creators, not just in the gaming industry, towards just sticking with straight white men because it's less risky, and won't see you get labeled racist, sexist, etc.

As far as the fantasy races, it's likely because many fantasy settings try to be pseudo-European, so writers make them default towards white.


----------



## Russ

X Equestris said:


> As far as the fantasy races, it's likely because many fantasy settings try to be pseudo-European, so writers make them default towards white.



I have to agree with this point, but it is really kind of funny.  If you read enough material from when people really seemed to believe in dwarves etc, many of them depict them as being black or of different colour.  I think the blossoming of fantasy took place in the UK and US during a period when those countries were functionally imperialist and these ideas got very white washed and that has stuck with us to a degree.

WE often tend of over simply things in our worldviews. We have the choice to do that in our writing, but I think our writing is poorer and less relevant when we do.


----------



## X Equestris

Russ said:


> I have to agree with this point, but it is really kind of funny.  If you read enough material from when people really seemed to believe in dwarves etc, many of them depict them as being black or of different colour.  I think the blossoming of fantasy took place in the UK and US during a period when those countries were functionally imperialist and these ideas got very white washed and that has stuck with us to a degree.
> 
> WE often tend of over simply things in our worldviews. We have the choice to do that in our writing, but I think our writing is poorer and less relevant when we do.



I think we also have to factor in Tolkien's influence on the genre.  I mean, there was and is a lot of copy-cat writing.


----------



## skip.knox

I cannot bring myself to make my writing serve a socio-political agenda. For one thing, it's enough of a struggle just to make a readable story, but beyond that the only agenda I want to advance is my own. I don't mind having a story reflect my own world-view. But that's it. If I want to try to change the world, there are more effective platforms.

Race is such a complex topic, especially in the USA. Brits here know that people from India/Pakistan were called blacks for a very long time (still are?). Some of my own ancestors, Italians, were subjected to racial slurs in the US. Irish were considered sub-human. Historically, most tribal societies were incredibly racist, regarding pretty much anyone outside the tribe as being less than human, regardless of skin color. Attitudes change. They can take centuries, but they change. 

To me, the conversations about race and gender I see here (and in many other places) reflect the fact that attitudes are in fact changing right now. The pace is glacial and doesn't help much for a person currently victimized, and maybe that's the key difference. Some people feel the race issue *personally*. And if they are a writer, they feel a sense of urgency not felt by others. 

Write what you feel, whatever you feel.


----------



## Tom

TheCatholicCrow said:


> YES! Well, you can probably see from my picture that I have mostly Spanish / Northern Mexican features but I'm actually equal parts Spanish, Mexican, German, & Swedish. That's 3-parts European and 1 part North American. I'm usually told to "pick" the Mexican side. I have 2 sisters that look similar to me (who get the same) and 3 with paler skin, blonde hair, and green or blue eyes. You can probably guess what side they're told to pick.
> 
> That's definitely one of the things that bugs me most about people. What is there to pick? I don't have a problem with it - it only seems to be problem for people that need to label everyone.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, it's not the end of the world but it can be pretty annoying.



Indeed, it's very frustrating. Some relatives on the German side of my family disapprove of my interest in my Irish heritage, and have told me that my Irish blood doesn't count for anything, and I should only identify as German. My mother is Dark Irish, and my father stereotypically Germanic, and I take after him. They seem to take it as proof that I'm "more German" than my sister, who looks like my mother. Um, the laws of genetic inheritance beg to differ...

But seriously--why can't a person embrace all their ethnic heritage? Why do you have to identify with the one group you happen to resemble the most? Why can't we accept multi-ethnic and biracial people as having a whole, rich heritage of their own instead of telling them to pick a side?


----------



## Hainted

skip.knox said:


> I cannot bring myself to make my writing serve a socio-political agenda. For one thing, it's enough of a struggle just to make a readable story, but beyond that the only agenda I want to advance is my own. I don't mind having a story reflect my own world-view. But that's it. If I want to try to change the world, there are more effective platforms.
> 
> Race is such a complex topic, especially in the USA. Brits here know that people from India/Pakistan were called blacks for a very long time (still are?). Some of my own ancestors, Italians, were subjected to racial slurs in the US. Irish were considered sub-human. Historically, most tribal societies were incredibly racist, regarding pretty much anyone outside the tribe as being less than human, regardless of skin color. Attitudes change. They can take centuries, but they change.
> 
> To me, the conversations about race and gender I see here (and in many other places) reflect the fact that attitudes are in fact changing right now. The pace is glacial and doesn't help much for a person currently victimized, and maybe that's the key difference. Some people feel the race issue *personally*. And if they are a writer, they feel a sense of urgency not felt by others.
> 
> Write what you feel, whatever you feel.



 To me it's not serving a socio-political agenda. Since the birth of my daughter 4 years ago I've started taking more care in constructing female characters and making them more prominent. Through social networks and con appearances I've broadened my pool of friends and acquaintances and been exposed to cultures and outlooks that I hadn't encountered in my small southern hometown. To me adding the diversity, especially since some of my stories take place in a modern fantasy setting, is reflective of my own broadened experiences and the expansive world around me. Even fantasy writers draw from the real world.


----------



## buyjupiter

Hainted said:


> I wish I could find the post from a video game developer describing why most protagonists are straight White men cause it's much more elegant than what I'm going to summarize here. Basically he starts with a Black Lesbian protagonist who is morally ambiguous, has a drinking problem, and can't hold down a steady romantic relationship. Then the company gets nervous about how Blacks, women, and the LBGT community will react to her being an alcoholic criminal who enjoys one night stands and so he has to choose between making her perfect(and thus uninteresting as a protagonist) or just making her a straight White guy and keeping all the flaws.



I think the biggest reason this is a "problem" is because we (as consumers of media) see very few representations of anyone other than SWM/F. So each representation of non-SWM/F counts MORE.

If, to use your example, there were 500 representations of black, queer, alcoholic, women (take whichever of those you like and mix 'em up) out of say, 800 characters altogether...each individual representation would matter less, because you have a ton of versions to choose from. But because we're only seeing two or three representations of black people, and two or three representations of queer people, and ok, maybe 30% of the characters are women, we don't get to see very nuanced representations because everyone's pointing out how not to do THE ONE AND ONLY representation.

I think a very simple "fix" to this issue, is to make more of the cast of characters diverse by setting your story within an environment where everyone is African/Asian/Native American/Jewish/Muslim/Buddhist/etc or by making your society so diverse that there are bound to be multiple instances of different ethnicities within one story. If there weren't "token" characters as a nod to diversity, and actual _diversity_, I think the conversation would be very different.


----------



## Trick

buyjupiter said:


> If there weren't "token" characters as a nod to diversity, and actual _diversity_, I think the conversation would be very different.



Agreed. If it was a matter of diversity for it's own sake and not to combat the the negative things, like racism and sexism, then it wouldn't be an issue. If someone is racist, it's unlikely you can argue them out of it. I say, ignore the idiots and write for good readers. That means not having to show why racism etc. is bad because, well, if that's not obvious to someone then they're probably already lost on that issue. Just have more diverse characters if you want to because it makes things more interesting.


----------



## buyjupiter

buyjupiter said:


> I think a very simple "fix" to this issue, is to make more of the cast of characters diverse by setting your story within an environment where everyone is African/Asian/Native American/Jewish/Muslim/Buddhist/etc or by making your society so diverse that there are bound to be multiple instances of different ethnicities within one story. If there weren't "token" characters as a nod to diversity, and actual _diversity_, I think the conversation would be very different.



And in the interest of passing this along, as an example of including more diverse voices where everyone (or almost everyone) is African: this spec fic literary magazine just came out recently and the first two issues are free! (NOT in any way shape or form affiliated with this magazine, but this will get you some different perspective on SFF from outside the US/UK.)

Omenana: Issue 1, number 1 | omenana

I found out about this from Nalo Hopkinson via Twitter. I've been reading the first issue and I like what I've read so far. The images conjured up from the descriptions are vivid and unique to African cultures. There are some wobbly word issues, but I think that may (mostly) stem from non-native English speaker issues (?), as well as the way English is just used _differently _ in places like Nigeria or Jamaica or the Philippines.

But the "doing diversity wrong" debate is mostly moot when the setting is full of people who would be diverse here in the US/UK/Western Europe/Australia. If you wanna see some good examples of what I mean, this mag is full of 'em.


----------



## TheCatholicCrow

skip.knox said:


> I cannot bring myself to make my writing serve a socio-political agenda. For one thing, it's enough of a struggle just to make a readable story, but beyond that the only agenda I want to advance is my own. I don't mind having a story reflect my own world-view. But that's it. If I want to try to change the world, there are more effective platforms.


I'm not looking for anything sensational.If it helps at all, I'm actually _very_ Conservative. I'm not generally looking for some grand social statement. I don't think including bi-racial characters needs to be a social statement. I wouldn't consider including a female character a "social statement" unless the author blatantly uses her to push an agenda. There are Feminists but that doesn't make women themselves a statement. Just the same there are people looking to argue over racism but that doesn't mean throwing in a multiethnic character is making a statement. Hell, they don't even have to be MCs. The fact of the matter is that a huge portion of people in the US and now, the world, are of mixed origins. Even the people that claim to be "just white" (a term I personally hate btw- it should be "Caucasian") anyway, even "white" Americans are generally mixed. 

I'm the last person looking for a hand out. I don't want sympathy for being Hispanic or "white" or being mixed or being a woman. Actually, I don't really want sympathy at all. I find it condescending. I'm just tired of everyone talking about race issues as if it is entirely black vs white (pun intended) when that really applies to fewer and fewer people. 

My point was not that I am a victim. My point was simply that if we are looking to include more diverse characters we need to think beyond the parameters of throwing in a token black or gay character and feel like we've hit our "diversity" quota.  

Perhaps my being Californian influences me as well. I've never traveled very much but from what I hear most places aren't like us. We're supposed to be remarkably integrated and diverse. I wouldn't know. To me it's just normal. I know at least a dozen people that are mixed- Mexican and Filipino, French and Vietnamese, Japanese and Norwegian, Irish and Venezuelan, Irish and Mexican (which is more common than you'd think) etc. 

Chances are, the next five books I'm going to read will be about a straight Caucasian male and I'm perfectly okay with that. Hell, one of my WIP revolves entirely around straight "whites". It would inappropriate for, say, historical fiction but I'm just surprised that Spec Fiction hasn't explored this more. Ultimately, I just want "diversity" to be ... well ... more diverse.


----------



## Jabrosky

TheCatholicCrow said:


> Even the people that claim to be "just white" (a term I personally hate btw- it should be "Caucasian") anyway, even "white" Americans are generally mixed.


If I may raise a trivial disagreement, I _don't_ like "Caucasian" at all. Most of us come from Northern Europe, not the Caucasus Mountains. It would be like calling all "black" people in then world "Congolese" even if they're actually from Ethiopia or Tanzania. If you insist on avoid the "white" adjective, "Nordic" would work fine for most of us.


----------



## Hainted

buyjupiter said:


> I think the biggest reason this is a "problem" is because we (as consumers of media) see very few representations of anyone other than SWM/F. So each representation of non-SWM/F counts MORE.
> 
> If, to use your example, there were 500 representations of black, queer, alcoholic, women (take whichever of those you like and mix 'em up) out of say, 800 characters altogether...each individual representation would matter less, because you have a ton of versions to choose from. But because we're only seeing two or three representations of black people, and two or three representations of queer people, and ok, maybe 30% of the characters are women, we don't get to see very nuanced representations because everyone's pointing out how not to do THE ONE AND ONLY representation.
> 
> I think a very simple "fix" to this issue, is to make more of the cast of characters diverse by setting your story within an environment where everyone is African/Asian/Native American/Jewish/Muslim/Buddhist/etc or by making your society so diverse that there are bound to be multiple instances of different ethnicities within one story. If there weren't "token" characters as a nod to diversity, and actual _diversity_, I think the conversation would be very different.



 But to get to that level you need these representations. You can't expect Black Alcoholic Lesbians to be Cosby-ised and Mary Sued until they reach some magical saturation point that artists are allowed to make them interesting and flawed characters. To me you're destroying any chance of diversity by insisting there is a "right" way to portray a person. The example I gave could be a very nuanced powerful person, but you insist on me reducing her to a one note stereotype that fits your personal vision. 

And that's the crux of the matter, take the Trans-gender villain they used in Batgirl recently. It wasn't handled as well as it should have been according to some of my Trans friends, but it didn't deserve the unbelievable amounts of hate the internet leveled at it either. They wanted to just send a polite message to Dc offering suggestions on what needed to be done differently but were lost in the howl of the deeply offended. The result? DC will probably NEVER do another Trans character because it offends so many people. Some of the biggest proponents of Diversity have also run the some of the very authors who write diverse fiction, because they aren't straight white male, off the internet because they weren't writing those "safe" characters they approved of in the "correct" way.

If given a choice between writing a neutered stereotype that has to conform to a predetermined set of variables and follow a designated path or an actual person with all their flaws and humanity intact? I'm going for the latter, and since straight white male is the only choice that allows for that diversity that's probably what I'm going to have to stick with.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Jabrosky said:


> If I may raise a trivial disagreement, I _don't_ like "Caucasian" at all. Most of us come from Northern Europe, not the Caucasus Mountains. It would be like calling all "black" people in then world "Congolese" even if they're actually from Ethiopia or Tanzania. If you insist on avoid the "white" adjective, "Nordic" would work fine for most of us.


Caucasian is a silly word. I actually prefer just "white." It's inaccurate in the sense that my wife has lighter skin than I do, depending on the time of year. (I'm half Italian, so I tan more easily.)

I don't know that "Nordic" covers most "white" people. I picture blond hair and blue eyes when I read "Nordic." I think of white people as descended from pretty much anywhere in Europe and also northern Asia—Russia and such. "Caucasian" is simply the accepted lingo.


----------



## Hainted

Legally it can be an issue. Virginia, where I live, still has a law on the books that says if you're as little as 1/32nd another race you can't be considered "White". Technically I'm full blooded Cherokee under VA law even though it was my Great-Great Grandmother who was the Native American.


----------



## Tom

So Virginia still has that "one-drop" rule? Huh, I would have thought it would have been done away with by now. 

In New York, we have a multiple-choice format for race on all legal documents--you "check all that apply". I don't think we have a criteria for who gets considered white or not, though I could be wrong. Sometimes living here makes me crazy, what with all the corruption and ineffective bureaucracy in our state government, but it has its perks.


----------



## Steerpike

Hainted said:


> Legally it can be an issue. Virginia, where I live, still has a law on the books that says if you're as little as 1/32nd another race you can't be considered "White". Technically I'm full blooded Cherokee under VA law even though it was my Great-Great Grandmother who was the Native American.



Same here. My grandmother's grandmother was full Cherokee.


----------



## Gryphos

I've recently made a rather large decision with regards to my current long-standing WIP, and that it that I've chosen to make the main protagonist, who previously was white, mixed race. Alek Stove's father Aven Cadwyn hails from the Wynding Valleys (which is pretty much Wales), while his mother Zahrah Stove comes from Goljahan (which draws influence from several Arabic nations). I've already found that this gives the character of Alek a few more dimensions than I thought, and makes him (to me, at least) a more interesting character.

It didn't help that I came to this decision after finishing the first book in the series, but I was set on this change, and luckily it wasn't too difficult to make the necessary changes to the novel. It's written in first person, so there aren't many times when Alek's appearance is actually described, and thankfully his parents are only mentioned in passing on a few occasions, so that wasn't too hard.

Overall, this change doesn't actually affect the story much at all, but I feel as though the change was worth making if it means PoCs get even just a little bit more representation in fantasy fiction (if/when it ever gets published, that is).


----------



## Chessie

I'm Hispanic, so when filling out paperwork I get to check the _Latino_ box under ethnicity and _Other_ under race. *rolls eyes*

But back OT, my all human story world has two main races in it, being modeled after 1700s Alaska when the Russians invaded the Natives. Well, there are people of other races but it's not so clear where they come from, since the land mass is bordered by an ocean and there are mysterious lands somewhere beyond that. So basically, I've opened it up to writing about whoever I think should be written about without any real explanation. Diversity of races isn't a big deal to me. I only want to tell a story.


----------



## Feo Takahari

@Hainted: The Batgirl writers were _definitely_ not innocent victims in this. Writing a "flawed" character doesn't have to mean writing a blatant stereotype. 'Batgirl' #37 Criticized For Transphobia; Creators Apologize


----------



## buyjupiter

Hainted said:


> But to get to that level you need these representations. You can't expect Black Alcoholic Lesbians to be Cosby-ised and Mary Sued until they reach some magical saturation point that artists are allowed to make them interesting and flawed characters. To me you're destroying any chance of diversity by insisting there is a "right" way to portray a person. The example I gave could be a very nuanced powerful person, but you insist on me reducing her to a one note stereotype that fits your personal vision.
> 
> And that's the crux of the matter, take the Trans-gender villain they used in Batgirl recently. It wasn't handled as well as it should have been according to some of my Trans friends, but it didn't deserve the unbelievable amounts of hate the internet leveled at it either. They wanted to just send a polite message to Dc offering suggestions on what needed to be done differently but were lost in the howl of the deeply offended. The result? DC will probably NEVER do another Trans character because it offends so many people. Some of the biggest proponents of Diversity have also run the some of the very authors who write diverse fiction, because they aren't straight white male, off the internet because they weren't writing those "safe" characters they approved of in the "correct" way.
> 
> If given a choice between writing a neutered stereotype that has to conform to a predetermined set of variables and follow a designated path or an actual person with all their flaws and humanity intact? I'm going for the latter, and since straight white male is the only choice that allows for that diversity that's probably what I'm going to have to stick with.



Let me turn this on its head (and I'll use an outrageous example here) and see if y'all can see where I am coming from.

Let's imagine that the only way to portray a token white man is as this type: paranoid, cruel, kills opponents for having differing views, atheist, etc. 

This is the ONLY way that white male characters can be portrayed, when they are in a story at all. Would y'all want to see that representation all the time? Or would any of y'all prefer to see more nuance? Because not every white guy is like that. In fact, very very few are anywhere near that stereotype. 

Or, to be less outrageous: the only portrayal of white men is as workaholics, emotionally cold, pater familias. No indication of whether or not they have any hobbies, like any sports teams, go out to the movies, anything that would make them an actual person.

If you were also part of a minority population, and as such part of the minority population being systematically oppressed by the people who are in power...you would be quite upset that this is the only representation you get in literature. Because it's not only NOT accurate, it's harmful. Because what we see in literature helps us form an understanding of the world around us--no matter how fantastical that literary world is.

I'm not saying that I want the black alcoholic lesbians to be "Cosby-ized". I just want complex characters. I don't want "nods" to diversity that are solely filled with stereotypes. I don't want "token" POC characters. I want complex, living and could walk off the page characters--because that's who I can relate to. _I can't relate to a checklist of stereotypes_.

Many of the representations of women of color that I've seen are problematic, because I've known only ONE woman that fits into the "angry black woman" stereotype. I've known ONE Asian-American woman who fit into the "studious Asian" stereotype. I've known dozens of people of color, and hundreds of acquaintances (through my school years & work), that DO NOT fit into those stereotypical boxes. I'm asking to see characters that reflect the diversity of my own life, not what society tells us we should think. (And come to think of it, I've known _ absolutely zero _ black women that fit into the overly-sexualized black woman stereotype.)

So my "personal" vision isn't a "this is how you do it right" as much as asking for authors/audiences to think about the portrayal and go "ok, is this a complex character? Is this a "nod" to diversity and not really diverse representation? Is this just a melange of bad stereotypes?" And if the answer to the last two questions is "yes"...then, well, someone's not getting the memo.

And for reference, it's really, really not hard to avoid problematic areas in representing POC/queer/disabled/etc. Especially with the internet. Just google [whatever] + stereotypes...and you'll find a whole laundry list of things that might be best avoided if an author doesn't want to hit anything negative and/or doesn't feel up to subverting the stereotype.

Also, this kinda ties back into the whole Strong Female Character archetype that we're seeing now. No complexity, just bad-a**, fighting femme fatale characters. No nuance. This is NOT what people meant by more women characters, by the way.


----------



## buyjupiter

And to further clarify, I'm not just spouting off what I want to see without doing anything about it. The world building for the novel series I'm working on?

It's an exploration of a whole region where everyone is NOT white. There are themes of internal discrimination a la the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanada, the after-effects of Colonialism, sexism, etc, that underlie my main story--which is solving some political international intrigue (aka it's a fantasy murder mystery with international intrigue on top). I'm toying with the idea of having some white people, very very far off, that get Othered, as a way of subverting that trope. (Not sure about this one yet, still tinkering with the idea.)

There are bi-racial people in my world, where I'm focused on geographically at least, and part of their story is how to come to terms with both halves of their identity. And the answer is NOT putting one side above the other.

There are multiple differing religious systems, including a monotheistic matriarchy--that doesn't devolve into man-hating/killing (ugh!) nor is it a direct subversion of the monotheistic patriarchies we see today (ugh again). It's complex. It's different. There are multiple differing political systems as well. And economic ones. And differing societal customs around the use of magic.

Why am I doing all of that in one series of novels? Because: why the heck not? If I'm not seeing diverse representations in the fiction I'm reading now (it's gotten a bit better now that I'm specifically reading POC/women authors), I need to start creating it for others. (Plus I'm absolutely fascinated with thinking up alternate ways to do things that might be applicable to our own world...)


----------



## Hainted

Feo Takahari said:


> @Hainted: The Batgirl writers were _definitely_ not innocent victims in this. Writing a "flawed" character doesn't have to mean writing a blatant stereotype. 'Batgirl' #37 Criticized For Transphobia; Creators Apologize



I'm not saying they're innocent, I'm saying the response should have been a critique and discussion of what was wrong versus virulent hatred and threats. One gets big companies to make better characters and one makes them avoid ever using those characters again.


----------



## Hainted

@buyjupiter You know why those are the usual stereotypes? Because they're the safest. Trying to move outside those checklists(especially if you're not the "right" author to do so) generates complaints, and threats.

You want to get radical and put stuff on it's head? Imagine if I started telling people they couldn't write Straight White Southern Men because they themselves weren't Straight White Southern Men and could never know what I know or accurately portray someone like me.

And it's not just Straight White Men who fall into this trap. Some of the most successful Non-white Non-straight and/or Non-male artists of today have built their careers on checklist characters.

So yes their is a huge difference between stereotypical characters and nuanced characters but because the reactions to the former have gotten so toxic it can prevent  a creator from using the latter.


----------



## Steerpike

There is some of that reaction, true. I've seen authors crucified in social media when even a relatively a small segment of the readership think they've gotten a portrayal of diversity wrong (and I mean even in the case of an honest attempt, not blatant disregard for what the author was doing). I read an article recently to the effect that "trying" was no longer to be considered good enough.

I've thought about those responses, because I'm a straight, white male and the characters in my main works-in-progress are a Hispanic female (in one) and a lesbian (in the other). All I can really say is people who have that response to my work can go jump in the nearest lake. I like the characters and I think I've done them justice.


----------



## Feo Takahari

@Hainted: I keep deleting and rewriting this post, because it sounds confrontational, and I don't want to make some kind of argument out of this. But I don't know how to respond to your talking about "threats." Who was making these threats? Where were they posted? What sites covered this? 

Seriously, everything I saw was, if not always rational or reasonable, at least restricted to snide comments. You and other posters have talked about this and other cases like there's some massive army of angry SJWs who'll pounce on you for writing minority characters wrong (and if Jabrosky is to be believed, will try to convince you to commit suicide.) God knows I've seen that crowd before (anyone remember that twelve-year-old they doxxed and threatened to stab because he posted a rape joke on Twitter?), but I've never seen anyone go that nuts over science fiction and fantasy, only social media and forum posts.


----------



## Jabrosky

@ Hainted

The very fact we even have all these threads is because, _au contraire_, some people do take offense at our genre's preponderance of white heroes. I know what you mean when you say non-white characters might automatically attract more scrutiny than their white counterparts, but the way I see it, you only have so much control over how your readers are going to react to anything. Everyone is going to view the same material through differently colored lenses no matter how much we wish those lenses were all clean. It ought to be an oft-quoted meme: *if it exists, it will offend someone*. 

All you can really do is listen to your critics, think things through, and decide whether their objections make sense to you. If yes, revise or try again. If not, screw 'em.

As for the topic of stereotypes, while I agree with buyjupiter that multidimensional characters of any race are ideal for any situation, let me play devil's advocate and suggest that even the worst stereotypes can be useful _if_ you're willing to fiddle with them a bit. One time I was mulling over the old stereotype of ooga-booga African "witch-doctors" with big grotesque masks and 
sinister "voodoo" magic, and I thought to myself, what if that kind of character wasn't a bad guy? What if, behind that mask, was a sweet, beautiful woman who won the hero's heart? And thus this was born from my pen and Photoshop.

Obviously that stereotype was never an accurate representation of any real African religions, so even a twist like that would work better in high fantasy than an ostensibly real-world setting. But even then, recognizing stereotypes can provide you the tools you need to subvert or deconstruct them.



Feo Takahari said:


> (and if Jabrosky is to be believed, will try to convince you to commit suicide.)


To clarify, I don't believe that particular individual was _deliberately_ trying to incite suicide. Sure, they knew I had thoughts like those since I'd confided to them about it beforehand, but they might not have known just what my switches would have been. Instead I believe they just meant to induce extreme guilt for stating my disagreement with them, and it so happened that their implicit threat to end our friendship almost flipped one of those switches.

Mind you, I'm angry as hell that they used my cry for help to tar my character once our fallout day came at last, especially given what I'd disclosed to them previously (and that, one day after the earlier exchange, they told me they'd forgiven me for the whole affair), but I didn't mean to say they were ever consciously trying to goad me into suicide.


----------



## buyjupiter

Hainted said:


> @buyjupiter You know why those are the usual stereotypes? Because they're the safest. Trying to move outside those checklists(especially if you're not the "right" author to do so) generates complaints, and threats.
> 
> You want to get radical and put stuff on it's head? Imagine if I started telling people they couldn't write Straight White Southern Men because they themselves weren't Straight White Southern Men and could never know what I know or accurately portray someone like me.
> 
> And it's not just Straight White Men who fall into this trap. Some of the most successful Non-white Non-straight and/or Non-male artists of today have built their careers on checklist characters.
> 
> So yes their is a huge difference between stereotypical characters and nuanced characters but because the reactions to the former have gotten so toxic it can prevent  a creator from using the latter.




Safest? Or easiest? I'd go with the latter.

And honestly, just because a few people were upset over a representation does not mean that we just say:

"You know what, we gave it our best shot, but nobody's happy, so we give up. Screw representation, it's just not worth it."

Because that success/failure mode is black and white thinking...which is never a good thing.

It means we say:

"Ok, maybe that wasn't the best of ideas. What can we try differently, next time, to give a better representation of this group? Can we ask some members of that group to comment on our idea and see if there's anything we're being obtuse about?"

Which is more nuanced thinking and allows for something outside of a success/failure paradigm. 

Only one of these methods results in any change. Can y'all guess which one?

I'm really, really confused by anyone who thinks that _no matter what they write they're *not*_ going to get threats and/or complaints. That by avoiding certain things like diverse characters or story ideas, they're automatically immune from that kind of behavior? That's just part of the conversation that creators have with audiences nowadays. I guess maybe I'm just more used to the idea because I'm a woman that's had opinions and I've had to put up with this s*** all my life?


----------



## Steerpike

If you address these issues, I certainly think you're likely to get some complaints no matter how you approach it. That's just something the author has to accept. It is not a reason to avoid such issues. The complaints generally come from a minority of readers.


----------



## Jabrosky

Steerpike said:


> If you address these issues, I certainly think you're likely to get some complaints no matter how you approach it. That's just something the author has to accept. It is not a reason to avoid such issues. The complaints generally come from a minority of readers.


Agreed.

Though just to muddy the picture even more, even that minority of readers has a tendency to cast themselves as representative of this or that group (e.g. "as a woman/person of color, I say that...") to give their specific opinion more weight. That's the problem I have with so many of those blogs telling you how to "write with color"; you have at most a small clique of kids telling you what is and isn't offensive, as if an entire race or nationality's consensus can be summed up by any single one of their crew members. Excuse me, but I seriously doubt a rural Ugandan blacksmith, or even an African-American garbage collector from Compton, is going to have the same perspective on issues like this as a twentysomething Harvard "Ethnic Studies" major born to relatively affluent Jamaican immigrants.

But tell that to these bloggers, and they'll dismiss any black person who doesn't share their beliefs as a dupe for "internalized racism", or even mocking them as "your [non-existent] black friends". For culture critics who voice disapproval to racialized cultural stereotypes, they sure are fond of groupthink along racial lines.

The best way around this that I can think of is to think through any possible objections and decide whether they're worth abiding---the same as you would any other aspect of writing, really.


----------



## Steerpike

You can't control how people represent themselves. You just have to accept that sort of thing as inevitable, to a degree, and ignore it. Your job is to think about the issues to the extent your story requires it and to move forward with your vision for the story and characters as best you can


----------



## TheCatholicCrow

Jabrosky said:


> If I may raise a trivial disagreement, I _don't_ like "Caucasian" at all. Most of us come from Northern Europe, not the Caucasus Mountains. It would be like calling all "black" people in then world "Congolese" even if they're actually from Ethiopia or Tanzania. If you insist on avoid the "white" adjective, "Nordic" would work fine for most of us.



There are also many "whites" from Central, Southern, and Eastern Europe ... 
"Caucasian" has less to do with the region and more to do with the shape of one's skull. 
	

	
	
		
		



		
			





As far as I know it is an outdated method (of archaeological description). I really focused on cultural anthro rather than biological but *I think* the theory is that there are 3 "races". Caucasian (Caucasoid) are the remains found in and around Europe. The shape of the skull is noticeably different along the mouth/jawline and at the back of the head. 

The issue I have with the terms is that (even in academic writings) we use regional markers for most groups of people (Asian, Hispanic, Latin, etc.) but that we use colors to define white and black. The alternate term that's supposed to be more PC is "African American" (or just African) but this (once again) poses issues with assuming that "black" people are of African decent. I know several people from Latin America (Dominican Republic and Brazil) who were often called "African American" despite the fact that were Latin American immigrants. I just think if we're going to go out of our way to respect one group of people we need to do it for everyone. IMO a regional marker leaves room for error but is less offensive than a color schematic.


----------



## TheCatholicCrow

Jabrosky said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Though just to muddy the picture even more, even that minority of readers has a tendency to cast themselves as representative of this or that group (e.g. "as a woman/person of color, I say that...") to give their specific opinion more weight. That's the problem I have with so many of those blogs telling you how to "write with color"; you have at most a small clique of kids telling you what is and isn't offensive, as if an entire race or nationality's consensus can be summed up by any single one of their crew members.



:I_agree:

Well ... as a multiethnic woman  ... I really don't care how you write "colored" characters. I thought "Batmanuel" (in The Tick) was absolutely hilarious. I forget the character's name but my brother was showing me some of his Marvel comics and there's a fat Hispanic character that is always in the background eating. He might even run a taco or churro cart. I forget. What I do know is that's freaking hilarious to me but some people were offended that he's never paying attention to the action- only his stomach. 

I'd say there is no "right" or "wrong" way to write a character. They are characters. If we worry ourselves over whether every little detail is potentially offensive we've missed the whole point. I don't think people want to see diversity among heroes. We want diversity among all of the characters, whether their huge villains or just red shirts.


----------



## ascanius

*my problem with Diversity.*

With all these discussions about diversity that pop up I figure I'll share my problem with any argument that an author should include diversity. 

My problem is that diversity is all fine and dandy so long as it is a politically correct portrayal shown in a positive light, something often time mistaken for a good writing.  It's not about a true diverse cast it's about affirming the political correct views of the readership on the diversity.  Case in point. 'Batgirl' #37 Criticized For Transphobia; Creators Apologize   Common your telling me a trans cannot be a villain? doesn’t seem very diverse to exclude them.  or that upon finding out that the villain is a trans that a shocked reaction is hate filled. Time and again I have seen such reactions that tell me diversity doesn't really matter only the light in which it is portrayed.  Thus, the only acceptable diversity is unquestioning positive diversity otherwise it's a negative stereotype.  I do see a book where a minority group is looked at with scepticism as being trashed horribly by the modern readership despite it's merits. 
Let me pose a question.  If I were to write a book where the ability of a woman to fight in a war amongst men is examined and questioned I'll bet money the version where the women is not able to keep up with her male counterparts would be criticized and labelled misogynistic regardless of the reasoning, while the version where she can carry 150 lb man out of combat is a 'strong female character.'  When did readers become so weak that we must coddle their beliefs, what happened to challenging beliefs and the status quo.  The only thing I see with these diversity threads and every other blog post and review I read that mentioned sex and diversity in pop culture is a the new status quo that we cannot question.  People don't want diversity, people want what their beliefs to be right, they want to hear only what they want to hear and that is my problem with diversity.  

So long as diversity means reaffirming the political status quo it will stay out of my writing, I think well written characters are much better thank you very much.

Edit:  I meant to make a new thread but screwed up the browser tab, sorry.


----------



## Ireth

To me, diversity in writing should be about balance -- portraying any given race or ethnicity as neither wholly good or wholly evil, but acknowledging that both POCs and non-POCs can be both. If you really really want your villain to be a POC for whatever reason, maybe give them servants or equals who are white, or of a different ethnicity. Same goes for your heroes.


----------



## Saigonnus

I am inspired to write about a half-dwarf/half-orc homosexual... This is fantasy after all and they may not have to face the same challenges we face as humans with parents that happen to have different skin colors from each other. Scientifically, we are all 99.5% the same so why we call each other a different race when we are clearly not!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Feo Takahari

@Ascanius: If you approach it as "Women shouldn't be soldiers," then of course female soldiers and their friends and family are going to take offense. I've actually written a female character who failed to become a soldier because she couldn't meet the physical standards, and I didn't make a message out of it--I just had it as part of the backstory that brought her to where she is today.

(I can't speak to trans characters, because I don't know of a lot of things with trans villains. The closest thing that comes to mind was the stink over the crossdressing antagonist of The Boxtrolls--sure, some people objected, but a lot of people defended the character.)


----------



## X Equestris

TheCatholicCrow said:


> There are also many "whites" from Central, Southern, and Eastern Europe ...
> "Caucasian" has less to do with the region and more to do with the shape of one's skull.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know it is an outdated method (of archaeological description). I really focused on cultural anthro rather than biological but *I think* the theory is that there are 3 "races". Caucasian (Caucasoid) are the remains found in and around Europe. The shape of the skull is noticeably different along the mouth/jawline and at the back of the head.
> 
> The issue I have with the terms is that (even in academic writings) we use regional markers for most groups of people (Asian, Hispanic, Latin, etc.) but that we use colors to define white and black. The alternate term that's supposed to be more PC is "African American" (or just African) but this (once again) poses issues with assuming that "black" people are of African decent. I know several people from Latin America (Dominican Republic and Brazil) who were often called "African American" despite the fact that were Latin American immigrants. I just think if we're going to go out of our way to respect one group of people we need to do it for everyone. IMO a regional marker leaves room for error but is less offensive than a color schematic.



The issue I have with "Caucasian" is that it's incredibly broad.   Under the current definition of the term used in modern science, Indians, Turks, Arabs, Jews, North Africans, and more are all considered caucasoid.







That's a rather broad and unspecific term if you just want to talk about people of European descent.


----------



## Jabrosky

X Equestris said:


> The issue I have with "Caucasian" is that it's incredibly broad.   Under the current definition of the term used in modern science, Indians, Turks, Arabs, Jews, North Africans, and more are all considered caucasoid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a rather broad and unspecific term if you just want to talk about people of European descent.


Actually "Caucasian" comes from the Caucasus Mountains north of Turkey and Iraq.

I'm tempted to go off on a tirade about how problematic conventional ideas of "Caucasoid" and its associated racial classification system are, but I'm a bit low on energy this afternoon and it might lead to a big thread derail. Instead I'll simply say that "European" works just fine if you want to reference conventional ideas of white people. No need to use an obsolete term which had Ethiopians, Somalis, and Tamils of all people chucked into it just because they had narrower noses than Yoruba.


----------



## X Equestris

Jabrosky said:


> Actually "Caucasian" comes from the Caucasus Mountains north of Turkey and Iraq.
> 
> I'm tempted to go off on a tirade about how problematic conventional ideas of "Caucasoid" and its associated racial classification system are, but I'm a bit low on energy this afternoon and it might lead to a big thread derail. Instead I'll simply say that "European" works just fine if you want to reference conventional ideas of white people. No need to use an obsolete term which had Ethiopians, Somalis, and Tamils of all people chucked into it just because they had narrower noses than Yoruba.



I know where the term comes from, I was just highlighting how broad the modern definition is.


----------



## cupiscent

On the one hand: no story will ever be beloved by every reader. And if you set out to not bother anyone, you probably won't write anything that's magnificent either.

On the other hand: If you're genuinely interested in including the diversity of human experience in your work, you can't ignore those who take issue with your representations, especially if they have the experiences that you were trying to include. I believe it behooves us as writers to listen to people, try to understand their experiences (including with our stories) and try to do better next time. That's how you write better, richer, fuller characters and stories.

It's a sad fact of the publishing and bookselling industry at present that white folk, and especially men, are most strongly represented on the shelves. I believe we should be using that privilege to show a broader scope of humanity. And if it's difficult, well, at least we're being published. Imagine how hard it is to tell a story when no one will publish or buy it.


----------



## Hainted

buyjupiter said:


> Safest? Or easiest? I'd go with the latter.
> 
> And honestly, just because a few people were upset over a representation does not mean that we just say:
> 
> "You know what, we gave it our best shot, but nobody's happy, so we give up. Screw representation, it's just not worth it."
> 
> Because that success/failure mode is black and white thinking...which is never a good thing.
> 
> But that black and white thinking is what dominates a lot of the big companies. An independent writer or smaller company may follow you line of thinking and address the critics and adapt the characters but someone like Penguin or DC or EA? Nope. They'll see it as something their consumers don't want and automatically pass on any project or character that is similar because of the negative publicity it could possibly generate.


----------



## Jabrosky

Hainted said:


> But that black and white thinking is what dominates a lot of the big companies. An independent writer or smaller company may follow you line of thinking and address the critics and adapt the characters but someone like Penguin or DC or EA? Nope. They'll see it as something their consumers don't want and automatically pass on any project or character that is similar because of the negative publicity it could possibly generate.


The good news is that nearly all of us here are in the "independent writer" category. What over-sized media conglomerates (many of which, unlike a traditional publishing company, don't even accept external "unsolicited submissions") do is not within our control. Or has this discussion zoomed out in scope from our own business to that of the larger pop culture?


----------



## Hainted

I think it has to include the larger publishers because for the foreseeable future they have dominance in pop culture. Now the surge in independents and smaller publishers, especially those that cater to what the conglomerates would consider "niche" markets may shift that balance in the future, but most people will be exposed to diversity in art through the mega-corps before they will us.

That's why I feel it's important to make your voice heard if one of these Big Companies offends you, but feel that dialogue and critique can be a far more effective tool than virulent hatred and diatribes.

But on a final note I'm just going to quote what a fellow artist on a Diversity in Speculative Fiction panel said when asked "How do I stop from being wrong in my portrayals of diverse characters?"

"You don't. You'll never stop getting it wrong because you can never understand the whole experience of someone different than you. There will always be aspects of another race, culture, orientation, etc... that you will never be privy to. But don't worry, we all get it wrong. The difference is, are you wrong from not being aware of those nuances or are you wrong because you think you already know everything."


----------



## Philip Overby

> "You don't. You'll never stop getting it wrong because you can never understand the whole experience of someone different than you. There will always be aspects of another race, culture, orientation, etc... that you will never be privy to. But don't worry, we all get it wrong. The difference is, are you wrong from not being aware of those nuances or are you wrong because you think you already know everything."



I do think this is an excellent point. There is no way we can really understand the experiences of people different than us fully. As long as I've lived in Japan now, I think I understand the way Japanese are more and more. But if I wrote a Japanese character, I know I'd never get it completely right because it's just an experience different than my own. When it comes to biracial characters, that's a whole other issue because you're dealing with people from blended cultures. I guarantee in most cases their experiences are going to be atypical of what you may think them to be.

It's the same idea as writing a medieval knight though. Or a peasant. Or a woman in 1920s France. There's no way I can understand how these people really lived. My only way to do so is to read more about them and try to understand as much as possible. Most of the time when I see people complain about the way characters are portrayed, it's from a small, vocal group. Not to say they're wrong, but I believe there are a crapload more people that just want to see more diverse portrayals and are more forgiving if it's not 100 percent accurate (I'm one of them). Of course the small, vocal group are also extremely useful. They're giving you invaluable feedback on something they're passionate about. So even if you think it's "too much hassle," just thank these people for taking the time to say anything about your story and let it simmer. You may realize what they've said is on point or you may discard it. As a writer, you have the ultimate choice in everything. Never let anyone dictate how you're supposed to write, but do keep your eyes and ears open. Be a sponge. 

I think the worry for many people that have issues with portrayal has more to do with stereotyping or caricatures. That's something we should all avoid whenever possible. 

I think trying to approach this topic is always confusing for many and that's why these threads keep popping up. Some see including diversity as shoehorning or trying to hit as many demographics as they can. Others see it as the natural evolution of the genre. I see it as a way to experience new stories from new lenses. If they're imperfect, I leave that for other people to decide. I just want to read and write them.


----------



## Gryphos

ascanius said:
			
		

> With all these discussions about diversity that pop up I figure I'll share my problem with any argument that an author should include diversity.



Your problem with the argument that authors should write stories with more than just straight white dudes? K



> My problem is that diversity is all fine and dandy so long as it is a politically correct portrayal shown in a positive light, something often time mistaken for a good writing. It's not about a true diverse cast it's about affirming the political correct views of the readership on the diversity.



Who exactly said that minority characters needed to be presented positively at all times in every story? They sound like an idiot. Good thing I've never ever come across them.



> Case in point. 'Batgirl' #37 Criticized For Transphobia; Creators Apologize Common your telling me a trans cannot be a villain? doesn’t seem very diverse to exclude them. or that upon finding out that the villain is a trans that a shocked reaction is hate filled.



I'll assume you read the article, else no doubt you wouldn't have linked it, but the problem had was not the fact that the trans character was a villain, but rather the fact that this character played into harmful stereotypes, and that the revealing scene completely disregarded Batgirl's previous character development. Again, if a person tried to say that a trans character could never be the villain, that would be stupid, but luckily I haven't seen that happen yet.



> I do see a book where a minority group is looked at with scepticism as being trashed horribly by the modern readership despite it's merits.



What exactly do you mean by 'looking at a minority group with scepticism'? Because, while you may have phrased it badly, it sounds quite a lot like prejudice. If what you mean to say is, as you've implied, simply having minority characters not all be saints, then I'd very much like to see an example of a book that has been 'trashed' for this. I've seen books that have been firmly and intellectually criticised for their portrayal of a certain group, but, thing is, those criticisms have always had their basis in genuinely questionable stuff.



> Let me pose a question. If I were to write a book where the ability of a woman to fight in a war amongst men is examined and questioned I'll bet money the version where the women is not able to keep up with her male counterparts would be criticized and labelled misogynistic regardless of the reasoning, while the version where she can carry 150 lb man out of combat is a 'strong female character.'



As Feo said, it would depend on the angle the book takes. Saying that women can't be soldiers is clearly wrong. Saying that women shouldn't be soldiers will offend a shit load of people (rightly so). Having a book examine the experience of a woman in the army and her possible struggles would be a very interesting read, so long as it got its facts straight and didn't make any sexist assumptions or statements. Not too difficult for someone who isn't a sexist.



> When did readers become so weak that we must coddle their beliefs, what happened to challenging beliefs and the status quo.



As sad as it s, diversity is in itself challenging the status quo. For years that status quo has been white dudes, white dudes and more white dudes, with the oogie boogie black tribesman and the damsel in distress thrown in every so often. Writers, by writing diverse casts are not 'coddling' the beliefs of the new generation of readers, they're portraying the world as it really is. Because, in case you hadn't noticed, not everyone is a straight white dude.



> The only thing I see with these diversity threads and every other blog post and review I read that mentioned sex and diversity in pop culture is a the new status quo that we cannot question. People don't want diversity, people want what their beliefs to be right, they want to hear only what they want to hear and that is my problem with diversity.



Uhuh, and are you questioning the belief fact that people don't fit into harmful stereotypes? And what exactly do people 'want to hear'? Diverse casts of complex characters that don't fit into harmful and outdated stereotypes? F*ck, you're right, I do want to hear that. I really bloody do. Shame we don't get enough of it, eh?



> So long as diversity means reaffirming the political status quo it will stay out of my writing, I think well written characters are much better thank you very much.



When you say that diversity will 'stay out of your writing', are you literally saying that you won't write about characters that aren't white? Because, please, just think about how sad that sounds. And well written characters are awesome, and diverse casts are, too! Wow, ain't it fan-tucking-fastic those two aren't mutually exclusive.


----------



## Philip Overby

Ultimately, I find (not all, but some) of these arguments against diversity come down to "I don't feel like it." Not saying that's the case with everyone, but I remember a post several months ago when a writer from another forum basically said, "It's too much of a headache to make everyone happy." It's another layer of character development and world-building that certain people don't want to do. And that's fine. It could be because they don't want the extra challenge or they don't want their mistakes in depicting certain characters to overshadow their stories. Or it's because they just don't want to. Simple as that.

For the sake of discussion, I think these kind of threads are important though. It's a way to see what the future is going to look like in our genre. Maybe a microcosm, but it's still something. I do think good fiction will rise to the top no matter what kind of characters are in the books. But it would be nice for the brightest and best we have in fantasy to tell the stories of people who haven't been told (as much) yet. 

Even if it feels like we're just saying words at each other and no one is changing their stance, I think keeping the discussion alive is important.

And a reminder for everyone to stay civil in these threads (not to say anyone's crossed the line as of yet here.) There's a reason so many of them get locked. When people start attacking each other, we have zero tolerance for that. So have a discussion, but don't start attacking someone because they don't agree with you. It's fruitless. One of the things I never like to see is a locked diversity thread. Because to me it means we're more interested in shouting at each other than listening.


----------



## DeathtoTrite

Sometimes, I feel like discussions like these can take away from the main purpose of writing fiction- a good story. Trying too hard to create diversity can be distracting at best and offensive at worst when real world stereotypes are leaned on too much-- I hate seeing any culture/nation/empire that just is "Rome, but with magic!"

Also different skin colors and diversity are not the same thing. Europe is a very diverse place- religion, culture, etc. all are part of diversity too! India is perhaps the best example of how skin color and diversity are not the same thing.

Funny this thread should come up though, considering my story has a nation that's blended nomadic, Turkic-inspired culture with the old, white imperials (Byzantine, Britain inspired) in the area. Of the main characters, one is a nomad, one is from the imperial north-east, and the third is biracial (kind of... his father has both imperial and nomadic blood, his mother imperial, but his own skin tone is much darker- so much so some people think he's a bastard)

But I wasn't thinking "Hm, I need to make sure I meet quotas of different ethnicities-- maybe adding some people with brown skin will make it seem better (it doesn't, by the way)." It was natural, and so, I hope, reads better. If you want to make a fantasy book an allegory about racism, fine, but make sure a reader knows that going in.


----------



## Jabrosky

DeathtoTrite said:


> Also different skin colors and diversity are not the same thing. Europe is a very diverse place- religion, culture, etc. all are part of diversity too! India is perhaps the best example of how skin color and diversity are not the same thing.


Thing is, I would argue "diversity" isn't really the underlying concern behind this whole thing. Otherwise it wouldn't seem much different from the usual discussion of genre cliches and overused tropes. What makes this stand out is that it has developed from one particular sociopolitical context, namely that of post-1960's Western liberalism and its struggle to create a more egalitarian environment for certain historically marginalized groups. I would elaborate more on this, but I've got to go to school soon.

Let me wrap up with one question: what do you think the landscape of spec. fiction, and the larger pop culture, will look like once racism, sexism, and the other old forms of marginalization cease to become culturally relevant on a large scale?


----------



## Devor

Jabrosky said:


> What makes this stand out is that it has developed from one particular sociopolitical context, namely that of post-1960's Western liberalism and its struggle to create a more egalitarian environment for certain historically marginalized groups. I would elaborate more on this, but I've got to go to school soon.



Let's try to adhere to the rules and take a half step back from the politics.


----------



## ascanius

Gryphos said:


> Your problem with the argument that authors should write stories with more than just straight white dudes? K
> 
> 
> 
> Who exactly said that minority characters needed to be presented positively at all times in every story? They sound like an idiot. Good thing I've never ever come across them.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll assume you read the article, else no doubt you wouldn't have linked it, but the problem had was not the fact that the trans character was a villain, but rather the fact that this character played into harmful stereotypes, and that the revealing scene completely disregarded Batgirl's previous character development. Again, if a person tried to say that a trans character could never be the villain, that would be stupid, but luckily I haven't seen that happen yet.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly do you mean by 'looking at a minority group with scepticism'? Because, while you may have phrased it badly, it sounds quite a lot like prejudice. If what you mean to say is, as you've implied, simply having minority characters not all be saints, then I'd very much like to see an example of a book that has been 'trashed' for this. I've seen books that have been firmly and intellectually criticised for their portrayal of a certain group, but, thing is, those criticisms have always had their basis in genuinely questionable stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> As Feo said, it would depend on the angle the book takes. Saying that women can't be soldiers is clearly wrong. Saying that women shouldn't be soldiers will offend a shit load of people (rightly so). Having a book examine the experience of a woman in the army and her possible struggles would be a very interesting read, so long as it got its facts straight and didn't make any sexist assumptions or statements. Not too difficult for someone who isn't a sexist.
> 
> 
> 
> As sad as it s, diversity is in itself challenging the status quo. For years that status quo has been white dudes, white dudes and more white dudes, with the oogie boogie black tribesman and the damsel in distress thrown in every so often. Writers, by writing diverse casts are not 'coddling' the beliefs of the new generation of readers, they're portraying the world as it really is. Because, in case you hadn't noticed, not everyone is a straight white dude.
> 
> 
> 
> Uhuh, and are you questioning the belief fact that people don't fit into harmful stereotypes? And what exactly do people 'want to hear'? Diverse casts of complex characters that don't fit into harmful and outdated stereotypes? F*ck, you're right, I do want to hear that. I really bloody do. Shame we don't get enough of it, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> When you say that diversity will 'stay out of your writing', are you literally saying that you won't write about characters that aren't white? Because, please, just think about how sad that sounds. And well written characters are awesome, and diverse casts are, too! Wow, ain't it fan-tucking-fastic those two aren't mutually exclusive.



Ok the sarcasim was entertaining, I chuckled a few times while reading your reply.  
First of I want to apologize for the badly written post, I could have explained things much better.

Anyway the thing is you see diversity as diverse skin colors and diverse sexuality while I don't agree with it that’s ok.  When i'm in the united states be it a black man or woman or white to me they are American they share many of the same American world views with minor variations on the details.  For me that’s what diversity is, a diversity in beliefs and world views.  So adding a black character or white the thing that makes them diverse is their world views.  Going back to the article I find those criticisms to be the norm and honestly they make no logical sense.  Anyway it's late and I have work in the morning.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Jabrosky said:


> Let me wrap up with one question: what do you think the landscape of spec. fiction, and the larger pop culture, will look like once racism, sexism, and the other old forms of marginalization cease to become culturally relevant on a large scale?


That may not happen in our lifetimes, but it will happen. I had a science teacher who told us that someday whites would not always be the majority, but that the majority would be brown-skinned due to the mixing of ethnicities. I found that prediction laughable at the time, and here I am in an interracial marriage with biracial kids, as are several relatives and friends. Guess the joke's on me.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

So I've been reading this with great interest and there are a couple of common threads that I would like to touch on.

I think it was DeathtoTrite who mentioned something about quotas and I also think others are alluding to the fact that they don't want to include diversity so that they can meet a fairly arbitrary number and be considered a "diverse writer." But I don't think, necessarily, that is how we should think about diversity. If anything our writing needs a "critical mass" of diversity. While the 9 people I stole that notion from didn't and perhaps couldn't define that term I'm going to. To me a critical mass of diversity requires some reflection of reality and good quality characters. 

First some reflection of reality is important. I don't mean the world you create needs to match 100% with the real world. Only that certain logical realities are reflected in your world. If your world is set on an island in a world before world travel became practicable for large masses of people then the group would necessarily be homogenous. For simplicity's sake let's just assume that is technology that is worse than the kind of ships they had pre-1492. (I know this isn't entirely accurate but space restrictions and what not). However, if you have a world that is not on earth but set in the future where mass migrations and/or colonization occurred then you would have to have different races. Humans evolved from place to place differently. That's a biological fact. You can't avoid it. What I mean by all this is if you have a world where the lack of transportation technology makes sense to make the people there insular from other races then it makes sense to have fairly homogenous cultures. However, if that is not the case then you probably should include at least some diversity.

Continuing with the point of reflecting real world conclusions you need women in your story. They make up half the population for heaven's sake. They cannot be ignored nor marginalized. They also need not be fighters. They need to be people. So let's turn now to the second prong of the critical mass requirement.

My second prong is that the characters need to be real. They cannot be stereotypes but at the same time they need not eschew all stereotypes. First, let me point out that not all stereotypes are created equally. Some are far more offensive than others. Also, I think when it comes to many different kinds of stereotypes it is not a single isolated trait that is stereotypical that is problematic, rather it is a totality of the character. Meaning that a character can have a single stereotypical trait without actually being offensive. But if you start piling stereotype upon stereotype you'll run into problems.

By way of example let's suppose I have a character that lives in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. He is black. There is a famous restaurant in the area called Babe's where they dump a lot of fried chicken on the table. A lot of residents take out of state guests there just for the experience. Suppose he has a friend from out of state and he takes the friends to Babe's. (The friend is whatever race you want him/her to be). Is this in and of itself offensive? No, probably not. Restaurant is famous and the food is pretty good. But if you gave the black character an inordinate love of fried chicken and combined that with a similar passion for watermelon eating you are running into problems. But the Babe's scene alone isn't really a problem is it? I would argue by itself no.

Or suppose you have a different world. In that world there is an Chinese society equivalent you have one student and she is studious. Again not a problem by itself because well students can be studious. Now suppose this is the only race in your novel and every student or even a vast majority of students are all extremely studious then you run into a problem. Now if you have some studious students, some average studying students, and some slacker students then you should be fine. Unless the slacker students are still fairly studious by reasonable standards. (Meaning that they still do work, but are only considered slackers in the context of everyone else in that society.) 

To clarify to have a fully fleshed out world and to meet this critical mass of diversity you need to reflect certain realities of life that fit within your story. And the traits you give to a single character must be true to the character. To be real they can have some stereotypes so long as the stereotypes are not so prevalent as to make the character a caricature or so offensive as to be unrealistic and stray into racist territory. 

This is a tough line to follow. The standard is vague, but it's vague for a reason. No one single character exists in a vacuum. They are products of their world (your world). It's a balancing test where you have to look at your character and world and balance the needs of the story, the needs of the character, the logical implications from that character's background, while writing in such a way so as to be well racist.

Wow that was long. I'll write about some other threads in this conversation a little later so you don't have to read too much of my insane ramblings and inane babble.

As an aside let me say that I recognize I may have gotten close to a line and if I went over it I did not do so deliberately. It was done in ignorance and was by no means intentional. I know that does not absolve me of my potential wrong doing and I ask for forgiveness and direction if I did offend


----------



## DeathtoTrite

@ Brian Scott Allen that pretty much sums it up for me. I include diversity, but it more comes from my large interest in middle-eastern and Mongol history.


----------



## Steerpike

cupiscent said:


> On the other hand: If you're genuinely interested in including the diversity of human experience in your work, you can't ignore those who take issue with your representations, especially if they have the experiences that you were trying to include. I believe it behooves us as writers to listen to people, try to understand their experiences (including with our stories) and try to do better next time. That's how you write better, richer, fuller characters and stories.



I think that's absolutely true, and I have friends who are lesbian, for example, who have been invaluable for a lesbian character I am writing. I think listening to people about any aspect of your writing is important.

However, I think some of the commentary above was directed to those who seem to subsist on outrage, who offer vitriol and insults in place of constructive criticism. Those people are toxic, and there is no reason one should allow such toxicity into one's life, and no benefit to be derived from it. People who react in _that_ manner have to be disregarded, in my view. And that kind of reaction is no basis for a change in one's work, whereas a thoughtful and reasoned critique might very well provide such a basis.


----------



## Gryphos

ascanius said:


> Anyway the thing is you see diversity as diverse skin colors and diverse sexuality while I don't agree with it that’s ok.  When i'm in the united states be it a black man or woman or white to me they are American they share many of the same American world views with minor variations on the details.  For me that’s what diversity is, a diversity in beliefs and world views.  So adding a black character or white the thing that makes them diverse is their world views.



Ummm, sure? ... I mean, I don't disagree with you. But I do think you rather miss the point about what people mean when they ask for diversity. People of different races _are_ all the same, they're all humans. The differences between them are (literally) skin deep. But why is it that the market has been (and still is) dominated by stories about white people, stories about men? That's unfair. That's not, you guessed it, _diverse_. And a lack of diversity in the media and culture can have subtle but horrible effect. So basically, have all kinds of diversity. Have complex and dynamic casts of characters of a range of ethnicities, genders, sexualities, even ideologies and philosophical outlooks.

I find it strange that no one makes a fuss when people suggest they write characters with varied personalities, senses of morality and outlooks on life itself, but when it comes to something as benign as the colour of one's skin or who they're attracted to, suddenly it's a big deal.



> Going back to the article I find those criticisms to be the norm and honestly they make no logical sense. Anyway it's late and I have work in the morning.



Well, just know that a whole lot of people agree with those criticisms, even the creators of the comic being criticised.


----------



## ascanius

Gryphos said:


> Ummm, sure? ... I mean, I don't disagree with you. But I do think you rather miss the point about what people mean when they ask for diversity. People of different races _are_ all the same, they're all humans. The differences between them are (literally) skin deep. But why is it that the market has been (and still is) dominated by stories about white people, stories about men? That's unfair. That's not, you guessed it, _diverse_. And a lack of diversity in the media and culture can have subtle but horrible effect. So basically, have all kinds of diversity. Have complex and dynamic casts of characters of a range of ethnicities, genders, sexualities, even ideologies and philosophical outlooks.



I know what people mean by diversity, I just disagree with the entire premise which I'll get to below.  As to your question about the market I think that mostly has to do with the tried and true mentality where money is involved.  The movie industry is struggling to maintain control over the ever open and changing market of the internet and refuses to adapt, the same can be said for publishing and many other markets.  With investments reaching hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions companies are much less likely to take a risk if there is questionable return, especially with the volatility and sway of reviewers like in the article.



Gryphos said:


> I find it strange that no one makes a fuss when people suggest they write characters with varied personalities, senses of morality and outlooks on life itself, but when it comes to something as benign as the colour of one's skin or who they're attracted to, suddenly it's a big deal.


 
This is why I disagree, it comes down to this.  When people suggest varied personalities, a sense of morality and the whole shebang of writing a character well, it's about creating the best possible character that the author _wants_ to write.  It still leaves who the character is up to the author, it leaves the character open without pushing the character into a peg if you will.  The suggestion of diversity has a much more socio political connotations about appeasing the political masses, and it is political, racial quota's for universities, affirmative action etc.  It's the suggestion to the author that they should include the modern political implications of their writing and it should take centre stage.  It's saying this group is special and should take priority simply due to the color of their skin.  Tell me what makes adding a black person, or Hispanic, or lesbian Philippine woman so special that the author should include them besides them being minority groups.  See that's just it there is nothing that makes them different save for our modern political groupings.  It's not making our writing more unique it's just strengthening the differences, strengthening the fact that they are minorities, strengthening the fact that it is important to acknowledge those differences and treat people differently because of them.  And it goes both ways as is often seen on this forum when people question if they should change a character from white to black or male to female.  It's saying one group is better and one is worse.



Gryphos said:


> Well, just know that a whole lot of people agree with those criticisms, even the creators of the comic being criticised.



People can agree but having populist agreement doesn't give their arguments validity.  A lot of people used to agree that smoking was good for you, hell even doctors, as an example.  The thing about that article is the reviewers/bloggers what ever they are are doing nothing more than stating accusations to give their verisimilitudes weight.  "it is 100% transmisogynistic to yell in shocked horror that they are a man."  really?   that's not an argument, he is just averring her accusation, no logic, nothing.  It's what they all do in that article nothing more than say it is because I say so.  I feel very sorry for the writers of batgirl that such drivel is able to sway and define their writing.  Oh and I think the creators were simply being pragmatic in agreeing, seeing that their bottom line is dependent on keeping people happy regardless of the validity of their critics reasons.

First the reaction makes total sense, I mean what else is she supposed to say?  "your a trans, my friend is a trans, we don't have to be enemies anymore.  Yay" she yelled in shocked surprise.  Ok that's a bit much but really who wouldn't say something similar to what she did?  I know a guy who found out the girl he was dating was a trans, he wanted to kill him.  It's a total betrayal of trust, and in the batgirl it a betrayal of her self trust, it creates doubt in herself.  Second how does it diminish the character arch already built with her friend who is a trans, their friends, and in this case it's a villain.  I doubt she is going to treat her friend as a villian, if the creators went that route yeah I can understand the criticism.  And the crazy hair and evil creepy vibe, this is a batman or should I say batgirl comic, the villains are usually over the top it makes sense given the context.  See it's starting to seem like they have more of an issue with the villain being a trans than how it was done.

And in finality.  I asked my little sister if she would read more fantasy if there were more black female main characters and her response was "yeah, I think I would."  She reads mostly african amercian historical nonfiction with a little fiction.  So including more characters besides the norm may be a good idea in terms of sales.  But do it because you want to, not because it's the new norm.  To me it seems disrespectful to add a black character, any character, simply because the color of their skin as the only reason.  Especially when it serves no purpose but to appease a political motive.


----------



## Nimue

> I know a guy who found out the girl he was dating was a trans, he wanted to kill him. It's a total betrayal of trust



Please do not post shit like this.  Calling someone "a trans".  Calling a transwoman "him". Implying that it's natural to want to _murder_ someone for revealing something about themselves that they can't help.  When transwomen across the country are really being murdered for this.

Just don't.


----------



## Russ

ascanius said:


> This is why I disagree, it comes down to this.  When people suggest varied personalities, a sense of morality and the whole shebang of writing a character well, it's about creating the best possible character that the author _wants_ to write.  It still leaves who the character is up to the author, it leaves the character open without pushing the character into a peg if you will.  The suggestion of diversity has a much more socio political connotations about appeasing the political masses, and it is political, racial quota's for universities, affirmative action etc.  It's the suggestion to the author that they should include the modern political implications of their writing and it should take centre stage.  It's saying this group is special and should take priority simply due to the color of their skin.  Tell me what makes adding a black person, or Hispanic, or lesbian Philippine woman so special that the author should include them besides them being minority groups.  See that's just it there is nothing that makes them different save for our modern political groupings.  It's not making our writing more unique it's just strengthening the differences, strengthening the fact that they are minorities, strengthening the fact that it is important to acknowledge those differences and treat people differently because of them.  And it goes both ways as is often seen on this forum when people question if they should change a character from white to black or male to female.  *It's saying one group is better and one is worse.*



I think you have missed the whole point of diversity and the value of including a broad range of characters in literature where it is appropriate.

These groupings are not just political constructs, they are real groups of people.  In science or biology they would be called populations.  

What is political is how they have traditionally been treated or dealt with, or ignored in culture, politics and literature.

To keep excluding a group for whatever reason, to ignore their existence says something about the author or their culture or their worldview.  It means they are intentionally or unintentionally acting as if certain populations don't exist, or don't do anything worth talking about.  "Americans" are a socio-political construct.  Gays, women, blacks, trans folk, are real populations.  

The reason one might advocate that diverse groups should appear in works of art, or novels, is to help break negative stereotypes, and to confirm (indirectly) that such groups and such people are just as worthy of being part of the social condition, or the exploration of the human condition (which is what writing is about isn't it) as larger "in" groups.

To keep those folks from appearing on the page is to further and encourage their marginalization.

Writer, and artists, like all citizens, have some social responsibility, and have choices to make.

A writer is perfectly free to ignore the fact that minorities and disempowered groups both exist and have value.  I would suggest on any analysis they are wrong on that, but one is entitled to be dismissive and blinkered as one wishes.

It is nice though that now we are seeing consequences for producing writing that simply reinforces those problems.  

But to say that suggesting a marginalized group or person is worth talking about means that someone is suggesting that they are better than some other group is missing the whole point.  It balderdash at best.


----------



## Gryphos

@ascanius

See, the problem is you're looking at this from a white-centric view, with all other ethnicities being variations from the 'norm'. Truth is, white is not the default. There is no default. Same with gender. There is no such thing as 'shoe-horning' black characters into a story just for the sake of diversity, any more than there is such a thing as 'shoe-horning' white characters into a story. In case you hadn't noticed, the world is full of diverse people. Black people can be black and don't need a justification. Trans people can be trans and not need a justification for it. When you abandon the belief that it's possible for certain types of characters to be 'shoe-horned', you open up a whole new world of possibilities.


On a different note, I've seen this idea come up from a lot of people arguing against diversity that it stifles creativity by forcing writers into fulfilling arbitrary quotas. This is bullshit for one main reason. NO ONE IS BEING FORCED TO DO ANYTHING. Believe it or not, there is still a thing called creative freedom. You, as a writer, can do whatever the f*ck you want. You can write an all white, all straight cast if you want. It's your decision.

Buuuuuuuuuuut, thing is, I'm probably not gonna read your book if you do. I'm gonna criticise you for your decision, because freedom of expression is not freedom from criticism. These diversity threads aren't for telling people they must do this, or they must do that, it's for telling people why it would be a good idea to do this, why it would be beneficial for a writer to do that. Whether you take that criticism into account or completely ignore it is, again, completely up to you.

But now for my final point, which gets right to the root of the matter. Why is diversity good in the first place? Now, I've spent arduous hours toiling away on this matter, and after great effort, I believe I have come to the ultimate conclusion...



Spoiler: the ultimate reason why a writer should strive for diversity in their writing



Because it's nice, ain't it?


----------



## X Equestris

Gryphos said:


> @ascanius
> 
> See, the problem is you're looking at this from a white-centric view, with all other ethnicities being variations from the 'norm'. Truth is, white is not the default. There is no default. Same with gender. There is no such thing as 'shoe-horning' black characters into a story just for the sake of diversity, any more than there is such a thing as 'shoe-horning' white characters into a story. In case you hadn't noticed, the world is full of diverse people. Black people can be black and don't need a justification. Trans people can be trans and not need a justification for it. When you abandon the belief that it's possible for certain types of characters to be 'shoe-horned', you open up a whole new world of possibilities.
> 
> 
> On a different note, I've seen this idea come up from a lot of people arguing against diversity that it stifles creativity by forcing writers into fulfilling arbitrary quotas. This is bullshit for one main reason. NO ONE IS BEING FORCED TO DO ANYTHING. Believe it or not, there is still a thing called creative freedom. You, as a writer, can do whatever the f*ck you want. You can write an all white, all straight cast if you want. It's your decision.
> 
> Buuuuuuuuuuut, thing is, I'm probably not gonna read your book if you do. I'm gonna criticise you for your decision, because freedom of expression is not freedom from criticism. These diversity threads aren't for telling people they must do this, or they must do that, it's for telling people why it would be a good idea to do this, why it would be beneficial for a writer to do that. Whether you take that criticism into account or completely ignore it is, again, completely up to you.
> 
> But now for my final point, which gets right to the root of the matter. Why is diversity good in the first place? Now, I've spent arduous hours toiling away on this matter, and after great effort, I believe I have come to the ultimate conclusion...
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: the ultimate reason why a writer should strive for diversity in their writing
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's nice, ain't it?



I mostly agree with you, but I differ on one point:  characters of a certain group can be shoehorned into a story. This would mostly be an issue in something based in the historical real-world, but it certainly can happen.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Alright here is the second thread I would like to address. This post should be significantly shorter. This deals with a person's fear of utilizing characters and being "offensive" if the minority characters are not perfect.

I as a straight, middle class, white male understand the concern. If you take one misstep a certain segment of the population will rip you to shreds and could ruin either your personal career or your writing career. However, I think this population is in the vast majority. Problem is they are also loud and will get some press. The only thing I can think of when it comes to offending people is to suck it up. No seriously just accept that and move on. Those people are generally idiots and will get offended at something you write no matter what. If you make a character too perfect they'll probably get mad at you. Generally they don't have a lot of power and if the discussion does go public you can exploit their stupidity. 

Suppose I have a female assassin character who gives 30% of her bounties to orphanages in various cities (I do btw). She does this for two reasons: 1) she was an orphan; 2) she wants to help those kids move up from orphans and street urchins to productive non-criminal elements of society. Now let's suppose further that she meets a guy that she happens to like very much. She accomplishes all of her goals (starting a revolution to end the current tyranny and setting up a republic within the empire) and she is tired of being an assassin. She settles down and decides to have a child of her own. Whether she has a job or not I will get criticized for that ending. If she rests on all of the money she made being the best assassin in the land I will get criticized for making her a tough fighter that suddenly gives it all up for a family. Because of my background people will say I am trying to keep women down. If she becomes the spymaster of the new republic I will be criticized for making an impossible standard for women to have a job and child. Also, if I giver he no child I will be criticized by people saying that I think all women should be childless professionals. 

The response is simple. If you rationally point out to the person that women can choose to be or do whatever they want then this particular female character can _choose_ whether to have a baby and a job or no job and each decision is equally legitimate. If they disagree then the person proves that he/she is a hypocrite and just wants people to conform to their world view, not that they want actual freedom for a person to choose their life path. So long as you set up that character's choices and arc properly this notion of choice is going to be strong and will lend credibility to the character's ending.

As with all things in writing, including "diverse" characters is a matter of execution. You can't write a character as a caricature. They need to be deep. That depth needs to be set up properly. Their choices need to make sense according to the character and its relation to the story. You can make a gay villain, just so long as his homosexuality is not the reason why he's a villain. You can make a woman hero a weak fighter so long as she is strong in other ways. You can make a lesbian protagonist so long as she is not the stereotype of a lesbian. And really this is not all that hard to do. No one group is monolithic. Everyone in that group is different from everyone else. You could write an urban fantasy of a black transgender person and make that person a fiscal conservative but a social liberal and people would believe it _if_ you did it right. Because people will always squawk if you write anything. Someone will always find offense. The real issue is if you actually made a deep character and did not make that person a caricature of a group.


----------



## Ireth

Brian Scott Allen said:


> You can make a gay villain, just so long as *his homosexuality is the reason why he's a villain*. You can make a woman hero a weak fighter so long as she is strong in other ways. You can make a lesbian protagonist so long as she is not the stereotype of a lesbian.



Did you or did you not miss out a "not" in the bolded bit? Having a character be a villain solely because he's gay doesn't seem good to me, which is how your sentence reads as it's currently worded.


----------



## X Equestris

Ireth said:


> Did you or did you not miss out a "not" in the bolded bit? Having a character be a villain solely because he's gay doesn't seem good to me, which is how your sentence reads as it's currently worded.



I'm pretty sure there was an omitted "not" there.  It doesn't really fit with the context otherwise.


----------



## Steerpike

***Everyone, please read this***

Diversity issues, issues of race, gender, sexuality, and so on, are important to the human condition, and as such they have a valid, important place across the entire body of human arts. That includes fantasy literature. We want to see these discussions continue on Mythic Scribes, but it is important that the members of this site be able to have those discussions in a way that respectful of the issues, of other members, and reflect well on the site and all of us.

To that end, please do not escalate tension or animosity in threads like this. If you disagree with an opinion, find a way to do it without profanity, insults, condescension, or attacks on other members. Do it without characterizing the other member, or putting words in their mouth. There have been points across all of these types of threads, over the years I've been here, where the discussion goes from one where people are at odds, but no one is calling names, using profanity, or otherwise attacking members, to a post or two that escalates the thread to a point where people are doing just that.

*Do not be the person to escalate the thread.* It doesn't lead to the kind of discourse we want and does not comport with the rules of the forum. I realize these issues touch on certain emotions in some people a lot more than others, and that's perfectly understandable, but at the end of the day we want to keep a certain level of professionalism and congeniality on these forums. If a thread is bothering you enough that you don't feel able to do that, please step away from the thread. If it is something that needs to be brought to a moderator's attention, please PM one of us.

Thank you all, in advance, for working to keep these discussions on an even keel so that we can still have them in these forums.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Whoops, totally missed that not there. That's what I get for not proofing first. Sorry if I caused confusion there.


----------



## Ireth

Brian Scott Allen said:


> Whoops, totally missed that not there. That's what I get for not proofing first. Sorry if I caused confusion there.



I thought that was probably the case, but I figured I'd ask just to make sure.


----------



## TheCatholicCrow

Steerpike said:


> ***Everyone, please read this***
> 
> Diversity issues, issues of race, gender, sexuality, and so on, are important to the human condition, and as such they have a valid, important place across the entire body of human arts. That includes fantasy literature. We want to see these discussions continue on Mythic Scribes, but it is important that the members of this site be able to have those discussions in a way that respectful of the issues, of other members, and reflect well on the site and all of us.
> .



Yes. Thank you. 

I think this thread has kind of veered off and taken on a life of its own. 

My intention was not to tell anyone that they need to change the way they write so that they can conform to my own desires and  expectations as a reader. Rather, I simply wanted to point out that multi-ethnic people (whether it is in the form of half-white, half-black or half-dwarf half-elf or any other combination) is a character identity that is often overlooked. 

For those that believe diversity is intended solely as a check in the box, I am curious if this is a conclusion derived from seeing discussions about diversity and writer's admissions concerning their intentions or from actually reading diverse literature? 

As I've already said, I have no problem with straight "white" characters. I don't think we should entirely eliminate the straight white man from literature and to do so would present its own issues but we certainly can take the liberty of shaking things up a bit now and then. If you choose not to touch on issues of gender or sexuality, I'd understand that. Many either feel uncomfortable or otherwise lack the eloquence to fully express their views on the matter. Again, I don't think we should ignore it but I do understand where you are coming from and I can respect that.

What I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around is the idea that including multiethnic people is somehow a social or political statement. It's not. It can be. But it doesn't have to be. We aren't mythical creatures (though of course in your world we can be). We do exist and we pretty much always have. For me it has nothing to do with challenging "the man" or the status quo. It doesn't have to do with skin color or "disadvantages" or social justice. It has to do with reality and wanting to not always be portrayed as someone who hates a part of herself. Or as someone who rises above her tainted ancestry. 

I realize that multiethnic people will not fit into every world. I'm not asking everybody to include us in every story they write. I just want people to consider the possibility, that when more than one group of people are present in a single place, that two people from opposing groups might fall in love or produce offspring together. 

I'm not asking anyone to write anything that they don't want to. I only wanted to throw it out there as something to consider for those that care about offering a more diverse representation of humanity (or magical creatures ... or robots ... or whatever you're into).

 Thank you to everyone that has participated in this discussion. I've enjoyed reading everyone's responses.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Gryphos said:


> I've recently made a rather large decision with regards to my current long-standing WIP, and that it that I've chosen to make the main protagonist, who previously was white, mixed race. Alek Stove's father Aven Cadwyn hails from the Wynding Valleys (which is pretty much Wales), while his mother Zahrah Stove comes from Goljahan (which draws influence from several Arabic nations). I've already found that this gives the character of Alek a few more dimensions than I thought, and makes him (to me, at least) a more interesting character.
> 
> It didn't help that I came to this decision after finishing the first book in the series, but I was set on this change, and luckily it wasn't too difficult to make the necessary changes to the novel. It's written in first person, so there aren't many times when Alek's appearance is actually described, and thankfully his parents are only mentioned in passing on a few occasions, so that wasn't too hard.
> 
> Overall, this change doesn't actually affect the story much at all, but I feel as though the change was worth making if it means PoCs get even just a little bit more representation in fantasy fiction (if/when it ever gets published, that is).


Today, I made a similar decision: to commit to having a biracial (Eurasian) character in my series.

It took a while to decide who, and I finally realized an existing character in Addison Lane's stories is a perfect fit. It's the "straight friend" Addy pines for and also my Dragon's Egg character, Baldhart Eisenberg. Her hairstyle is already a Chinese style (ox horns), and her father is Germanic–like a bulked-up Schwarzenegger. Her mother is, according to the Dragon's Egg twist, of the people native to the land her father's people settled on.

Given the East-meets-West world my stories take place in, it would make sense that my already-bicultural character has an "eastern" mom and "western" dad. It wouldn't even change the appearance of the character. All I'm really doing is adding another layer to the mother, who's not as fleshed out as my major characters are. I had already pictured her as petite/lean and dark-haired.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

TheCatholicCrow said:


> Rather, I simply wanted to point out that multi-ethnic people (whether it is in the form of half-white, half-black or half-dwarf half-elf or any other combination) is a character identity that is *often overlooked.*


I agree, which is in-part why I'm surprised it took me this long to have one of my characters officially biracial. I keep saying biracial people, like my daughters, need representation. So where the hell was I on that one?

As for "fantasy races," I do have a half-halfling valkyrie. (That's her race in Dragon's Egg. When I first drew her, she was just inexplicably short.)


----------



## Devor

I don't believe I've used a biracial character.  That's partly because I haven't thought enough about it, and partly because I like to dive head first into the cultures I create, and take a view of them from within, and I'm not sure whether being biracial would shift that perspective somewhat.  I'll have to think about it.

I did have a setting using half-elves and half-dwarves.  The full elves and dwarves were intended to be close to the original mythology, and the half-race version came across closer to (but not quite) the typical D&D elves and dwarves.  Real elves would dance in the woods and leave you insane ten years in the future, sometimes leaving women pregnant with a half-elven baby that would have funny ears and be good with swordplay and magic and struggle a little with their racial identity.


----------



## Tom

I was just thinking about it, and I realized that nearly 25% of my characters or biracial or multiracial. Maybe it's because I enjoy portraying the different attitudes people can have to their heritage--balancing between both/all of their cultural heritage, rejecting one side of it, ignoring both sides...The possibilities are endless and fascinating.

@Devor: I like using half-elves too. There's just something about them that's appealing. Elves are such an alien race, so strange and almost frightening. It's hard to portray them properly because they're so...non-human. I think half-elves are the way we bridge that gap--they're both familiar and unfamiliar, human and non-human.


----------



## TheCatholicCrow

Tom Nimenai said:


> I like using half-elves too. There's just something about them that's appealing. Elves are such an alien race, so strange and almost frightening. It's hard to portray them properly because they're so...non-human. I think half-elves are the way we bridge that gap--they're both familiar and unfamiliar, human and non-human.



 Not exactly an elf but I feel like the same could be said of Spock. Being full Vulcan would be too similar to just having a robot but making him mixed gives him a bit more depth and the ability to occasionally say or do something remarkably human.


----------



## Ireth

I've occasionally had a lot of fun with mixed-race characters. One is part-human, part-Fae; he was initially fully human, but living in Faerie for a thousand years changed him irrevocably. When one day he develops a crush on an elf-maiden (elves =/= Fae, at least in this canon), he struggles a lot to reconcile the two halves of his psyche -- the human half that insists on letting a romance blossom with time, and the Fae half that insists on calling her "his" and taking her as his lover with or without her consent, as Fae all too often do.

And further complicating things is the fact that her affections are divided between him and an elf guy. The two guys handle the situation like gentlemen, neither one seeking to discredit or one-up the other, which perhaps makes things even more difficult for the poor girl. A threesome is out of the question, since not everyone would be willing. In the end she chooses to remain single, and they're all okay with that.

Wow, that rambled off-topic a bit. ^^; /derail


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Here's something I've been thinking about: why can't we use fantasy race tensions to be analogues for race issues within the world.

Take for example the recent cop shootings in the US that seem to be racially motivated. Now let's put that in an analogue where humans are living in an Elven country and get killed. You could make a story out of that, although I suppose that does not make the story diverse technically, but it does address some problems that the U.S. is facing currently. This also allows a writer who would be reluctant to write skin-tone diverse characters to still deal with these very serious problems. Further, if a writer chooses to use this method they are still free to include real world racial diversity, or sexual diversity, or whatever kind of diversity you wanted.

This is kind of just a half formed thought but I want to get y'all's take on it.


----------



## Steerpike

Brian Scott Allen said:


> Here's something I've been thinking about: why can't we use fantasy race tensions to be analogues for race issues within the world.



You certainly can do so. I think a fair amount of this was done in SF of the 60s and 70s. More recently, Octavia Butler uses the Ina in her book _Fledgling_ to do some of this.


----------



## Russ

Steerpike said:


> You certainly can do so. I think a fair amount of this was done in SF of the 60s and 70s. More recently, Octavia Butler uses the Ina in her book _Fledgling_ to do some of this.



I do indeed think this has been done in various forms of spec fic from time to time.

It remains a fine idea.  Personally I think good literature makes comment and helps us think about the human condition without being too preachy.  Fantasy is particularly well placed and structured to achieve this.


----------



## Feo Takahari

On the flipside, fantasy can also be used to generalize what might otherwise be seen as a specific statement. Take Winds of the Forelands, for instance--the villain just wants power and control, but he gets followers by exploiting racial tensions, and a lot of his supporters are genuinely angry about the raw deal they've gotten. Set that sort of race war in the real world, and it'd be hard to separate it from real-life controversies. With fantasy races, the author can talk about the patterns that occur wherever there's oppression. (I'm not sure how successful he is, but that's another kettle of fish.)


----------



## buyjupiter

Brian Scott Allen said:


> Here's something I've been thinking about: why can't we use fantasy race tensions to be analogues for race issues within the world.
> 
> Take for example the recent cop shootings in the US that seem to be racially motivated.



The secondary reading of my troll story does just this (sometimes a troll is just a troll, but most of the time there's a second layer underneath that).

And this may be why I'm having difficulty with the story. :-/ I want to get it right, without getting it wrong, if ya know what I mean. I haven't shelved it yet, but I'm having difficulties with my feelings about what's going on in real life right now. Why I expect that I'll have any clarity and insight by writing fiction is beyond me...

But I think this is one of those things _I have to do_, in order to stretch myself as a writer. Otherwise, I'd stick to writing the Miss Marple in Faerie stories until I grew sick and tired of them (what I'm familiar with), or I'd write more alien invasion stories (what I like doing). (side note: when I was telling my mum that she might like to read a new short I finished about King Arthur, the first words out of her mouth were "does it have aliens in it?" because apparently I've been building a rep [within my family at least] of writing about aliens a lot. I swear there have only been three alien stories, out of 25-30ish total.).

But yeah, I think that you can use aliens in SF as a way of exploring current socio-political issues (so long as it isn't *BAM* your reader over the head, mind) or half-elves as a way of exploring racial identity in fantasy. I think there may be some issues (ok a lot of issues) that one has to be cognizant of when choosing that path, but so long as research gets done and opinions are asked for and there aren't any great standing on soapbox moments within the text I think you can accomplish some of those goals.

And more on topic: NK Jemisin's "The Inheritance Trilogy" features a biracial (I think, if not, then definitely multi-ethnic) MC narrator. Who has a bit of a wink and nod relationship with the audience. I've never felt like I'm part of the narrator's conspiracy, or that I have knowledge ahead of time, quite like this before and I'm really digging it. I can't believe it's taken me this long to get round to it. (I'm also looking at my novel dealing with some similar world building and thinking it's nowhere near this good and I'm going to have to kick it up a few notches. I'm not envious--I'm in *awe*.)


----------



## Mindfire

Brian Scott Allen said:


> Here's something I've been thinking about: why can't we use fantasy race tensions to be analogues for race issues within the world.



The situation of the elves in Dragon Age could be seen as a mirror of the real life struggles of some minority groups, especially Native Americans and African Americans. The elves have had their land invaded and seized by foreigners, been made to agree to treaties with the humans which were then broken because treaties with heathens don't count, had their culture and history largely erased, been sold into slavery, and now either live in inner city slums or in close-knit communities with a deep suspicion of outsiders while desperately trying to recover and preserve their lost heritage, with those in the latter category looking down on their kin who assimilate into human culture. 

...It's pretty on-the-nose, actually.


----------



## X Equestris

Mindfire said:


> The situation of the elves in Dragon Age could be seen as a mirror of the real life struggles of some minority groups, especially Native Americans and African Americans. The elves have had their land invaded and seized by foreigners, been made to agree to treaties with the humans which were then broken because treaties with heathens don't count, had their culture and history largely erased, been sold into slavery, and now either live in inner city slums or in close-knit communities with a deep suspicion of outsiders while desperately trying to recover and preserve their lost heritage, with those in the latter category looking down on their kin who assimilate into human culture.
> 
> ...It's pretty on-the-nose, actually.



Indeed, though it's worth noting that the elves have often been their own worst enemies, bearing only slightly less responsibility for the downfall of both of their nations than the humans who invaded.


----------



## Mindfire

X Equestris said:


> Indeed, though it's worth noting that the elves have often been their own worst enemies, bearing only slightly less responsibility for the downfall of both of their nations than the humans who invaded.



Really? When was that established because I totally missed the being their own worst enemies bit. I don't remember it being brought up in DA Origins or DA2. Unless you mean the werewolf curse. Is it only explored in supplemental lore? Or does it have to do with spoilers for Inquisition (which I still haven't finished)?


----------



## X Equestris

Mindfire said:


> Really? When was that established because I totally missed the being their own worst enemies bit. I don't remember it being brought up in DA Origins or DA2. Unless you mean the werewolf curse. Is it only explored in supplemental lore? Or does it have to do with spoilers for Inquisition (which I still haven't finished)?



Two points in Inquisition.  I don't want to reveal too much.  The first one isn't too spoilery (it's info found at the end of a side quest), but the second one definitely is.


----------



## Mindfire

X Equestris said:


> Two points in Inquisition.  I don't want to reveal too much.  The first one isn't too spoilery (it's info found at the end of a side quest), but the second one definitely is.


Okay. I'll finish the game and then ask you if I don't pick up on it.


----------



## Ireth

Digging up this thread again because I'm giving a short story WIP an overhaul, involving the inclusion of a whole human cast of biracial and multi-ethnic characters. The MC is a biracial girl (white father, black mother) from modern-day Canada who falls into a fantasy world inhabited by humans and dragons. The land the MC winds up in is the birthplace of humanity, so there are many different skin colors all blended together. (I went with a version of the "humans are made from earth" myth, so they'd naturally have a lot of variety there.)

One problem I'm having on a basic nuts-and-bolts level is describing the MC from a first-person perspective, especially with regards to her skin color. I've already described her hair fairly well, but I doubt that's enough to really establish that she's biracial. For reference's sake, here's the description of her hair:

I [...] ran my hand through my hair. Those curls were frizzy at the best of times, thanks to Mom’s side of the family, but today’s humidity was taking that way out of control.

Thoughts on coupling this with other description?


----------



## Gryphos

Ireth said:


> Digging up this thread again because I'm giving a short story WIP an overhaul, involving the inclusion of a whole human cast of biracial and multi-ethnic characters. The MC is a biracial girl (white father, black mother) from modern-day Canada who falls into a fantasy world inhabited by humans and dragons. The land the MC winds up in is the birthplace of humanity, so there are many different skin colors all blended together. (I went with a version of the "humans are made from earth" myth, so they'd naturally have a lot of variety there.)
> 
> One problem I'm having on a basic nuts-and-bolts level is describing the MC from a first-person perspective, especially with regards to her skin color. I've already described her hair fairly well, but I doubt that's enough to really establish that she's biracial. For reference's sake, here's the description of her hair:
> 
> I [...] ran my hand through my hair. Those curls were frizzy at the best of times, thanks to Mom’s side of the family, but today’s humidity was taking that way out of control.
> 
> Thoughts on coupling this with other description?



One thing you could do is describe her parents' appearance, and then later on have the MC comment how she resembles each parent in specific ways. She could mention how her skin tone is a shade between her parents' or something like that.


----------



## Tom

Hey, Ireth! I might be able to help.

I have a POC first-person narrator (Tomrin), and I sometimes run into the same problem. How does someone accurately describe themselves without seeming self-absorbed? (Or without straying into Mary Sue territory...)

The easiest and most natural way to describe the MC I've found is to have them compare their features to other characters. For instance, if my MC were to meet another person of his ethnic group, he might say, "her skin was lighter than mine--a middling olive shade instead of rich ochre." So far, this method has worked well for me.


----------



## Ireth

Gryphos said:


> One thing you could do is describe her parents' appearance, and then later on have the MC comment how she resembles each parent in specific ways. She could mention how her skin tone is a shade between her parents' or something like that.



Oooh, I could definitely do that. It'd have to wait until she's in the fantasy world, I think, when she's talking to one of the dragon characters. Dunno if that'd be too late for people to get a mental image of her, though. She's yanked into the fantasy world within the first 500 words, with not a lot of time for thinking specifically about her family's looks.


----------



## Gryphos

Ireth said:


> Oooh, I could definitely do that. It'd have to wait until she's in the fantasy world, I think, when she's talking to one of the dragon characters. Dunno if that'd be too late for people to get a mental image of her, though. She's yanked into the fantasy world within the first 500 words, with not a lot of time for thinking specifically about her family's looks.



I think that's soon enough. In my current WIP the 1st person main dude only explicitly reveals his biracialness at around chapter 10. So long as you don't put the first mention of her appearance halfway through the book or something, you'll be alright.


----------



## Miskatonic

Well it's still a business so they are going to try and appeal to the biggest market demographic. Unfortunately this is how things have been going for a long long time. 

It's just up to people to create stories that include those types of characters. If someone has a best seller it will certainly get plenty of exposure. If people put more books with those characters in the marketplace there is a better chance that more people will read them. 

I just hope it is a grassroots effort and not merely the pressuring of business interests to accommodate people by having more token characters.

In the end the book should be about the story, not just trumpeting the fact that there are bi-racial characters. A good book is a good book and if people are put off by multi-racial characters then that's their problem.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

@Ireth, the thing about biracial people—you may not look at them and think them as biracial. Therefore, you can make a description of your character without mentioning the term "biracial" and you're not necessarily cheating the reader.

To prove my point, here's a test: let's name the girls Red, Green, Blue and Pink.






Who is white, who is Asian, and who is both?


----------



## X Equestris

To continue on that note, I had a neighbor whose daughter was half white and half black.  The girl was pale skinned and red haired.  You wouldn't have known her mother was black if you just saw her walking down the street.


----------



## Tom

There's an interracial couple who attend fencing classes with me who have a daughter. The mother is Black Latina, and the father is white. Their baby daughter has pale skin, fine brown hair, and gorgeous dark blue eyes. If you hadn't seen her mother, you'd assume the girl was white. In fact, her mother has been stopped in stores and questioned because people don't think that the girl is her daughter.


----------



## Ireth

Very true, Tom. But if I make my biracial MC look like any other white girl, readers might question the logic of having one parent be black at all (if they even realize the fact). It smacks of tokenism, even though I know there's real-life precedent to it.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

I have two students from Puerto Rico, brother and sister. The sister has red hair and freckles; the brother has black hair and brown skin. And yes, they're siblings, not half siblings.

Also, I meant to put the answer to my "test" in a spoiler tag. I'll do that here:


Spoiler: the answers



Red, Blue and Pink are my daughters: 1/4 Irish, 1/4 Italian, 1/2 Chinese.
Green is their Filopino friend. Technically, she's Asian with some Spanish ancestry.

So Red, Blue and Pink are "both."
For Green, I'd accept "Asian" or "both" as correct answers. (It's my test. I can do that.)


----------



## Nimue

Legendary Sidekick said:


> @Ireth, the thing about biracial people—you may not look at them and think them as biracial. Therefore, you can make a description of your character without mentioning the term "biracial" and you're not necessarily cheating the reader.
> 
> To prove my point, here's a test: let's name the girls Red, Green, Blue and Pink.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is white, who is Asian, and who is both?


Well now you gotta tell us who your kid is, because everyone in those pictures is adorable!

I'm gonna guess she's in the blue because you've got a picture of just her and the instructor/older girl, heh.  But yeah, it's important to note the ways that perceived ethnicity might have only a fleeting relationship with someone's actual parentage...


----------



## Nimue

Ninja'd!  Your kids are both ridiculously adorable.


----------



## Miskatonic

Reminds me of the south park episode where the police are trying to plant evidence to get Michael Jackson arrested but when they see him they think he's white.


----------

