- Thread starter
- #121
Graylorne
Archmage
This, I think, should be a gut check moment for everyone.
What's the point of including diversity? Is it about including ever-more-exotic worldbuilding elements to make it interesting? Or is it about appealing to a diverse audience?
To me, if you're not considering the black girl next door, then you're not really shooting for diversity. And that's fine - I know that it's challenging and I wouldn't tell people what their goals should be - but I do get annoyed when people try to take credit for diversity but don't even try to write stories that a diverse audience can actually relate to.
But I will say this. Consider, for a moment, how much you personally relate to your MC. And then consider how much you relate to the black girl next door. If you relate to your MC more, you're not holding him to the same standard as everyone else in your story. Because really, he would behave so differently from all of us, too.
Yeah, it's a big challenge. The landscape and societies of Africa are very different and we have trouble getting inside their heads the same way. But there's no need to project aggressive, naked arrogance onto them. I mean, you had no trouble portraying Maud differently in the same scene. People are diverse within a single culture. I think you get that.
Truthfully, the problems in the scene aren't so much what you're showing, but what you're telling. We're told in dialogue that she was snotty and arrogant. Then it's confirmed as true by someone from their culture who didn't even meet her. Thus we as readers now know it's true for all of them. Even if we take for granted that those same words and demeanor - what was shown - are spot on accurate for what the character's would be, they could have been interpreted any number of ways.
And if Maud were really part of that culture, she wouldn't have reacted the way she did. She would've said, "She is not being snotty and arrogant. She is being a wisewoman, and she is due your respect." But she not only accepts the negative interpretation, she amplifies it.
So actions aside, you're still offering readers ample commentary on how their behavior should be accepted - and it's a very modern, very western, "this is arrogant, snotty behavior" kind of interpretation.
Yes, now I see what you mean.
You're right, I did make the wisewomen sound all the same. I didn't mean it so absolutely, but I did write it so. I can change that.
Wemawee acts as intended, but I can change Maud's reaction. If I have her (Maud) recognize Wemawee from Jurgis' description as one who is a known troublemaker, would that ease the effect? For W. is a special case and not at all like the other Kells.
And re. the girl next door, you're right as well. (Do remember I try to explain complex matter in a foreign language...) Of course she should be able to relate to my characters, else it wouldn't make much sense writing about diversity. But the culture of the Kells should be as different to her as to me. So I didn't consider using the girl's cultural background, not the girl herself. Do I express myself better now?
Last edited: