What I'm Saying Is, The Search For Equality Is Pretty Messy

[Steerpike]

I thought Charles Stross' comment from the linked article was amusing:

“The biggest argument for #DiversityinSFF [is that] monocultures are BORING. (Even if the monoculture is your culture: still tediously unchallenging.)”

 

[BWFoster78]

I still don't get why a character needs a reason to be of a different color, gender or orientation, as if people didn't came in all sizes and flavours but were straight white males by default; or as if you do that your book will automatically discuss racism, sexism, etc.

Nihal,

Let's say you start off with a world full of short, purple people. You build their society and gain an understanding of how that society impacts them as characters.

As soon as you introduce tall green people, you need to understand their society and how that society impacts them as characters.

If you're a world builder, you absolutely love doing this kind of thing. I'm not a world builder. I have no desire to create any more societies than I absolutely need to.

Does that makes sense?

 

[BWFoster78]

There's no reason not to have one if you want to include one. Gay people have straight friends, that's just reality. So just because your story is about gay people doesn't mean you need a special reason to add straight people.

Again, it is my belief that adding random elements like you suggest does detract from the story. I think my writing is stronger if there is a reason for each element.

This gets back to your conception that straight and white is the default. That's what you have, in your mind, for a fantasy story, and you only have blacks, or gay people, or whatever if the story is "about" blacks or gay people.

If the race in your story is short and purple, my manner of speaking would be, when discussing this kind of topic, "It's about short, purple people." Only when discussing this kind of topic, however. The fact is that being short and purple doesn't matter to them as that's all they know. What default you choose isn't all that important to me.

Choosing white and straight is easier to me because I started with a vaguely European concept.

The point, instead, should be that your typical fantasy story that isn't about race or sexuality at all can easily include a diverse cast without detracting one bit from the story or the tightness of the writing. You don't need a reason to include a black character, for example, any more than you need a reason to include a white one.

Again, I disagree for the reasons stated above.

 

[Nihal]

Nihal,

Let's say you start off with a world full of short, purple people. You build their society and gain an understanding of how that society impacts them as characters.

As soon as you introduce tall green people, you need to understand their society and how that society impacts them as characters.

If you're a world builder, you absolutely love doing this kind of thing. I'm not a world builder. I have no desire to create any more societies than I absolutely need to.

Does that makes sense?

Okay, you don't want to have the trouble to worldbuild. However, gay and women are still a natural occurrence in any species.

 

[Philip Overby]

Let's say you start off with a world full of short, purple people. You build their society and gain an understanding of how that society impacts them as characters.

As soon as you introduce tall green people, you need to understand their society and how that society impacts them as characters.

If you're a world builder, you absolutely love doing this kind of thing. I'm not a world builder. I have no desire to create any more societies than I absolutely need to.

I'm not really a world-builder either. I've actually spent very little time on my world as I tend to build it as I go. I'm not sure this feels like a valid reason to me. You can be a minimalist world-builder and still include a wide range of characters from different backgrounds. Of note, I also argue for the point that fantasy stories from the POV of different classes of people other than farm boys or princes is just as important when it comes to diversity. Saladin Ahmed mentioned this, which I mentioned in another thread I think:

“Class diversity also needs to be part of #DiversityinSFF,” asserted Saladin Ahmed—and he didn’t mean the class of authors so much as their central characters. “I want fewer kings and starship captains, more coach drivers and space waitresses.”

 

[Steerpike]

Again, it is my belief that adding random elements like you suggest does detract from the story. I think my writing is stronger if there is a reason for each element.

It's not a random element, assuming you have more than one character in the story. And how would you know whether it detracts from the story without seeing any given execution of it. That's a very limited view of writing in general, and not one that is reflective of good writing, in my opinion, but just the opposite.

 

[Svrtnsse]

Okay, you don't want to have the trouble to worldbuild. However, gay and women are still a natural occurrence in any species.

Actually, I put in something about that in my setting:
Views on homosexuality - Odd Lands Wiki

 

[Devor]

Again, it is my belief that adding random elements like you suggest does detract from the story. I think my writing is stronger if there is a reason for each element.

1. I agree with you.
2. But that's life and you're a writer: Make it relevant.

 

[BWFoster78]

It's not a random element, assuming you have more than one character in the story. And how would you know whether it detracts from the story without seeing any given execution of it. That's a very limited view of writing in general, and not one that is reflective of good writing, in my opinion, but just the opposite.

Any element that you introduce that has no story reason is a random element. My belief is that you should have a reason for every word that exists in your story. (Granted, that's a lofty goal, and one that I typically fall well short of. It is, however, my goal.)

You and I apparently have different opinions of what is "good writing."

 

[Mindfire]

Not to take away from this riveting argument, but I thought I'd say this before going for more popcorn.

An observation: given a free choice and absent any external considerations (like making a conscious effort to include diverse characters) I think most people will "default" to a character that most resembles themselves. For example, my "default" is not straight white male, but straight *black* male. Every main character I've ever created has fit that description. I like writing characters that are a lot like me. It's relatively easy and comfortable. Thus begs the question: why do writers who aren't SWM still default to SWM? The answer is saturation. Because of cultural dynamics of which we are all aware, the SWM has become the most common voice, so people who might not naturally default to it get swept into the flow. The "main stream", if you will.

I don't think defaulting is a bad thing per ce. The problem is when one default drowns out everyone else's. Get more diverse writers who are true to themselves and not unduly influenced by the mainstream and more diverse stories and casts will follow. This has been my point from the beginning. The problem isn't necessarily, for example, that BWF doesn't want to put diversity in his story, but rather that out there somewhere is a storyteller with a different perspective whose voice is not being heard.

 

[Steerpike]

Any element that you introduce that has no story reason is a random element. My belief is that you should have a reason for every word that exists in your story. (Granted, that's a lofty goal, and one that I typically fall well short of. It is, however, my goal.)

Again, you can't know this without reading any given story. Your assumption that it has to be a random element that detracts from the story reflects only your prejudices, and not any reality.

 

[BWFoster78]

2. But that's life and you're a writer: Make it relevant.

I agree that it's certainly possible for me to make anything relevant. If it were, for some reason, important to include a pink clown in my story, I could make it work.

My question remains, "why is it important?"

 

[glutton]

Not to take away from this riveting argument, but I thought I'd say this before going for more popcorn.

An observation: given a free choice and absent any external considerations (like making a conscious effort to include diverse characters) I think most people will "default" to a character that most resembles themselves. For example, my "default" is not straight white male, but straight *black* male. Every main character I've ever created has fit that description. I like writing characters that are a lot like me. It's relatively easy and comfortable. Thus begs the question: why do writers who aren't SWM still default to SWM? The answer is saturation. Because of cultural dynamics of which we are all aware, the SWM has become the most common voice, so people who might not naturally default to it get swept into the flow. The "main stream", if you will.

I don't think defaulting is a bad thing per ce. The problem is when one default drowns out everyone else's. Get more diverse writers who are true to themselves and not unduly influenced by the mainstream and more diverse stories and casts will follow. This has been my point from the beginning. The problem isn't necessarily, for example, that BWF doesn't want to put diversity in his story, but rather that out there somewhere is a storyteller with a different perspective whose voice is not being heard.

I'm a physically weak straight Asian male who defaults to a straight white female with vastly immense physical might. XD

 

[Steerpike]

Thus begs the question: why do writers who aren't SWM still default to SWM? The answer is saturation.

Internalization.

But the problem isn't really people writing what they want to write. Ultimately, each writer has to decide for themselves. But going beyond that, and beyond the recognition that you're making a decision, to the idea that people who make another decision are just engaging in weaker writing, is insupportable. There's nothing at all rational about that viewpoint, it's just an embodiment of prejudice put into words.

 

[BWFoster78]

Again, you can't know this without reading any given story. Your assumption that it has to be a random element that detracts from the story reflects only your prejudices, and not any reality.

What works for me is writing based on principles. When I'm editing and I come across a paragraph that didn't work, I ask myself why it didn't work. I've come to the conclusion, that, for my writing, tight focus is much better than including elements that don't have a valid story reason for being there.

I accept that your process is different, but this is what works for me.

 

[BWFoster78]

But going beyond that, and beyond the recognition that you're making a decision, to the idea that people who make another decision are just engaging in weaker writing, is insupportable. There's nothing at all rational about that viewpoint, it's just an embodiment of prejudice put into words.

So, anyone who doesn't agree with you that you should include characters of all races and orientations is prejudice?

That's the way I'm reading this.

It sounds to me like you're not willing to accept that other people may have a writing process that differs from yours and that their process might be just as valid as yours.

Personally, I think you're out of line. You certainly seem to be dismissing out of hand how I go about writing and attributing motives to my reasoning based on nothing besides your own bias.

 

[Steerpike]

You certainly seem to be dismissing out of hand how I go about writing and attributing motives to my reasoning based on nothing besides your own bias.

That's been your approach to the entire thread, hasn't it?

As for "prejudice," I'm talking about your statement that including a diverse element is necessarily weakening or detracting from the story, without having seen the actual story. I don't think you can make that determination without actually reading any given implementation of it to see if it works. That position is, by definition, prejudicial. You're making a determination prior to having seen the thing.

• prej·u·dice
• [ préjjədiss ]

• opinion formed beforehand: a preformed opinion, usually an unfavorable one, based on insufficient knowledge.

The word wasn't used to imply that you have any feelings toward any given race, creed, color, sexual orientation, etc., merely that you're judging a work as weak or having random elements merely because of an idea, without having seen the actual work.

 

[Jabrosky]

An observation: given a free choice and absent any external considerations (like making a conscious effort to include diverse characters) I think most people will "default" to a character that most resembles themselves. For example, my "default" is not straight white male, but straight *black* male. Every main character I've ever created has fit that description. I like writing characters that are a lot like me. It's relatively easy and comfortable.

I'm not exactly like this. My default protagonists aren't usually carbon clones of the real me. Instead they tend to fall into two categories:

1. Big strong white guys, preferably with blond hair, blue eyes, and large muscles.

2. Beautiful dark-skinned African ladies.

In real life, I am a white guy with blond hair and blue eyes, but I'm horrifically fat rather than muscular. You could say my male defaults are idealized rather than accurate versions of myself.

 

[Philip Overby]

One thing I'm finding interesting that has come up are "defaults." So different people have mentioned they default to a certain kind of main character. The main question I'd like to ask to those who mentioned this: Is this something you do for every single story your write?

My thought process when I sit down to write is "how can I write a different main character than I wrote in my last story?" I don't usually set out to do one kind of "default" character every time. Being that I'm a straight white male, sometimes my main character happens to be a straight white male. In that instance, I look outside the bounds of race and sexuality sometimes to make my characters different. For example, job, class standing, age, etc.

 

[Devor]

My question remains, "why is it important?"

Most of the world has some level of diversity to it. There are many readers for whom a homogeneous society comes to distract from the writing because it will strike them as unbelievable.

Race and gender are big aspects in people's lives. They aren't the defining trait for a person, but they certainly influence the way a person is perceived, the way they perceive the world, the relationships that they have developed, and in turn, the way they think and behave. Leaving these things out makes the world too small to believe.

I recognize that there are stories where the overhead that comes with including some of this diversity may become burdensome. There are exceptions to everything, and you need to put your story first. But those situations should be obvious. Most of the time, I think you should recognize that the reader experience suffers from a lack of diversity.

I agree that it's certainly possible for me to make anything relevant. If it were, for some reason, important to include a pink clown in my story, I could make it work.

So what's the problem?