The Bechdel Test

[Mindfire]

Put off by it? No

However, it may bring rise to certain questions. Why is this person in this setting? Where are they from (assuming only one or a few)?

Further, I'd expect that presence, if there is only a small number of this minority in a land that seems foreign to them, to have some significance to the plot.

Makes sense. But what if there's not just a few of them and the story treats that as completely normal?

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Makes sense. But what if there's not just a few of them and the story treats that as completely normal?

Then there'd be less need for explanation, if any at all. If the presence of what we (in reality) consider a minority is not a minority in our fantasy setting then why treat it as such? Even if that presence is less in number, but accepted as common in that setting, then it doesn't need explanation either...that's the way this world is...there's nothing exceptional about that presence.

 

[Mindfire]

Then there'd be less need for explanation, if any at all. If the presence of what we (in reality) consider a minority is not a minority in our fantasy setting then why treat it as such? Even if that presence is less in number, but accepted as common in that setting, then it doesn't need explanation either...that's the way this world is...there's nothing exceptional about that presence.

Okay. I agree with that too. But you seem to think there is a situation where the presence of people of color in a story does require explanation. What situation would that be?

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Okay. I agree with that too. But you seem to think there is a situation where the presence of people of color in a story does require explanation. What situation would that be?

Just speaking from my own writing...the young girl's mentor that I described previously. She is the only one of her race & nationality around...at least for some time. Her differences in culture & ways of thinking are integral to changes that occur in the young POV girl.

 

[saellys]

I don't think anyone is making this claim outright, but do we agree that purposefully including minority characters is saying something political?

No.

If it was offensive then please report it, I'm not sure what was offensive, but I will edit the post if moderators ask me to. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.

The offensive part was where you questioned whether your readers would care about what two female characters have to say to each other.

If their conversations don't matter for the plot, then why show them? I am more concerned with the overarching plot of the story and conversations between characters that do not advance the plot or the relationships/development of characters do not matter and should not be shown.

Here's a fun idea: make their conversations advance the plot! That's something every character's conversation should do anyway.

Saying that I should make an effort to have conversations that do matter between "minority" characters is (1) ignoring that the story has a life of its own, (2) that artificially doing this should be unnecessary, and (3) that consciously choosing to do this IS a form of *-ism.

I'm trying hard to parse this. (1) The story has a life of its own, but do you make changes to it in your editing phase? (2) If so (and I'm going to guess that, hypothetically of course, you would), you already artificially insert things that weren't there when the story grew organically in the first place. (3) That would be egalitarianism.

My novel does not pass the Bechdel Test. Was I offended? No.

I wouldn't really expect you to be.

Was I surprised? Yes. Did I care after realizing that it doesn't? No. Because those conversations happen behind the scenes and aren't necessary to show for the story itself, which is predominantly a buddy-coming-of-age-action-adventure. Will future novels in the series pass the Bechdel test? Yes, but not because I artificially forced them to, but because the focus in the coming novels shifts from the development of the protagonist in Book 1 to the development of the world in Book 2.

And best of luck to you.

To be fair, they also removed her position in the legend from noblewoman and changed her to a serf or thrall (they call it a servant, but this is a feudal society we are talking about here...).

They changed Merlin to a servant, too, and he's as white (and powerful) as they come.

It smacks to me of being true to the vision of the setting and remaining honest to the work. I feel that bending to societal pressure to include these things would be no different than bending to the societal pressure to NOT include them. If you're doing something like that deliberately, then I find it distasteful.

Okay, so choosing not to introduce more diversity and take whatever steps necessary to explain (or not) why "minorities" are present is being true to the vision of the setting and honest to the work, but it's okay to introduce any number of other fantasy elements that were not present in the original setting? Gosh, you make this sound a lot harder than it really is.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

The offensive part was where you questioned whether your readers would care about what two female characters have to say to each other.

I took a different meaning away from ZA's statement. I thought he was talking about realistic characters covering a wide gambit of personality types and not solely featuring empowered women as the only female presence, if true realism was the goal.

Here it is again:

What I question is this idea that "realistic" female characters are somehow enlightened, or that the reader cares about a particular conversation that the female characters have.

Perhaps I was wrong in my interpretation though.

This begs a question.

If females were figured equally to men in a book, in terms of goals, motivations, and empowerment...would you then be more accepting of a female character that closely fits alongside the stereotypical fantasy females (the vaccuous, boy-crazy, "I love shoes" type) that you so passionately oppose? Meaning, if they coexisted within the same book would that be considered realism or would you still oppose their existence in the story?

 

[saellys]

The two women having a conversation don't have to be empowered. That's not a stipulation. They can be slave girls or princesses betrothed to men they don't love or tavern wenches or anything else. That still passes the Bechdel Test and can even--gasp--influence the plot.

Yes, if I saw more representations of varied types of human beings in fantasy novels, I would absolutely consider their coexistence in a book with stereotypical fantasy women (where did the shoes thing come from, anyway?) realistic.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Yes, if I saw more representations of varied types of human beings in fantasy novels, I would absolutely consider their coexistence in a book with stereotypical fantasy women (where did the shoes thing come from, anyway?) realistic.

Fair enough.

The shoe bit comes from several shoe fascinated women I know (although I'd hardly call them vacuous) & a common presentation I see of young women in films & TV (no real specifics).

 

[Mindfire]

I think I've completely forgotten who's making what point.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I think I've completely forgotten who's making what point.

I've never argued about minority presentation problems in media. Honestly, those understandings were hammered out in other threads months ago.

I argued against forced inclusion & for my ideal of story commanding decisions.

 

[Feo Takahari]

I'll approach this from another direction, because I have more angles than Lovecraft's bad dreams:

I just stopped reading Paul Auster's The Book of Illusions, about two hundred pages in. There were multiple reasons (for instance, I strongly suspect it's building towards an ending trope I dislike), but the one that's relevant to this thread is that all of the women in Hector's flashbacks feel somewhat artificial, like marionettes controlled by an unskilled hand. Hector himself is a fully realized person, but the women (save for one stupid, shallow, and manipulative prostitute, who occupies very little of the story) are defined almost entirely by the ways in which Hector affects them. It's hard to take them seriously, or at times even to tell them apart.

Now, a few caveats:

1): This is to some extent a subjective criticism. Human connections are at the core of the story, and most of the characters save Hector are defined more by who they care about than by who they are. I think the female characters are particularly ill-defined, but other people may read the story differently.

2): Some of the female characters are more complex than others. In particular, Alma, who tells Hector's story, clearly has depth to her outside of her connections to Hector and David (even if it's a bit hard to buy that she so easily falls in love with David.)

3): Although the chapters I read didn't pass the Bechdel test, I don't think passing it would have solved the problem. Having these constructs talk to each other about something other than Hector would have just revealed how hollow they are.

But with all of that in mind, I think the book would have been better had these women possessed more personality. They wouldn't even need to occupy more of the story, just to be better-defined in the time they appeared. The Bechdel test isn't the be-all and end-all of representation, but in this case, it points to a larger marginalization at work in the narrative.

(Though I might not have read all the way to the end anyways--I might just have kept reading longer . . .)

 

[Mindfire]

So in other words, just develop all your characters properly and all shall be well.

 

[Jabrosky]

Btw, this is the photo that was supposed to show up. If a mod can do a little edit to fix that, I'd be grateful.

Sorry, but she looks more biracial or otherwise heavily mixed than wholly African to me (as is the case with most "black" actresses held up as pretty on TV and in Hollywood). She could almost pass for Arabic or coastal North African Berber. If the casting agents had picked a darker-skinned black woman for the character, I imagine the fan base would flip out like hell.

 

[Steerpike]

Sorry, but she looks more biracial or otherwise heavily mixed than wholly African to me (as is the case with most "black" actresses held up as pretty on TV and in Hollywood). She could almost pass for Arabic or coastal North African Berber. If the casting agents had picked a darker-skinned black woman for the character, I imagine the fan base would flip out like hell.

I believe she is biracial. Not that it matters, in my view. Nor would it matter if they wanted to use an actress with very dark skin. From what I've read, some people questioned the choice of this actress, and those same people would question a darker-skinned actress. Most fans would probably just go with it if the actress was good.

 

[Feo Takahari]

So in other words, just develop all your characters properly and all shall be well.

That's the only part of this thread about which I can say "you should do this." Everything else is "you could do this" or "I might enjoy it if more people did this."

 

[Mindfire]

Sorry, but she looks more biracial or otherwise heavily mixed than wholly African to me (as is the case with most "black" actresses held up as pretty on TV and in Hollywood). She could almost pass for Arabic or coastal North African Berber. If the casting agents had picked a darker-skinned black woman for the character, I imagine the fan base would flip out like hell.

No one outside of Africa is "wholly African", not even someone as dark as me. And I'm with Steerpike. Haters gonna hate. Lol

Trying to judge someone by an arbitrary "blackness" scale is also a form of racism btw.

 

[Chime85]

Sorry, but she looks more biracial or otherwise heavily mixed than wholly African to me (as is the case with most "black" actresses held up as pretty on TV and in Hollywood). She could almost pass for Arabic or coastal North African Berber. If the casting agents had picked a darker-skinned black woman for the character, I imagine the fan base would flip out like hell.

While I have not seen the series (I really should!) I cannot comment on the backround of this character. However, I can reply to your statement. From what you are saying, anybody who does not fit into a set group is not that particular group. In this case, black women.

Now Jabrosky, I like you. Mainly brcause you have a vision for your masterpiece and damned to hell if you're going to change that. You have a lot of respect in my book because of that. However...
It is not up to you to decide who is what when it comes to ethnicity or colour. I will accept that you have your view on your own world. I have no say in that at all, as it should be. However. This woman, Angel Coulby, IS black, as she sees herself. By all means, she is not the African you (you meaning the wider audience) would associate with being black. However, does that not emphasize the point some are making in this thread? The fact that you are taking personal rule sets and implying that fashion to your works?!

x

 

[Zero Angel]

I don't agree. Just having minority characters does not make a political statement. It's a bit more nuanced than that. Now whether people will infer a political statement on their own is another matter

Honestly, I think that change improved the story, so I'm fine with it.

Spoiler: reasons

However, if we did want to start dipping into political implications, I'd say the Arthur/Gwen romance is a subtle criticism of parents who don't want their children to date across class/ethnic lines.

I think there's a difference between bending to societal pressure and doing something different because you want to. To put it another way, if you read a book where the author did include people of color in a Nordic-type setting with no explanation, would you be put off by it?

Hmm, I'm not saying that it is political to include them, I'm saying making a point to include them is political, especially if they otherwise wouldn't fit.

I agree that it improved the story, and the fact that Uther was alive in this version can add to the Arthur-Gwen romance/tragedy and add the theme of dating across class.

To answer your question, it would really depend on how it was handled. I don't have a problem at all in, for instance, a video game like Skyrim. In Skyrim you can get explanation of the migrations and cultures of the different races if you search for them though. I didn't find Gwen's race to be off-putting in Merlin, although I thought it was more amazing (and realistic) that she was not a beautiful girl. It drove home the setting wasn't England though. I think they used Logres for it and referred to it as such (which is basically a fantastical Britain, but removing the British qualities of the legend are what allows things like Gwen to be biracial). It was especially refreshing that everyone was color blind and the only concern was that she was poor and a servant.

Here's how it applies to me. I rarely describe the color of someone's skin when I am describing the person. I am perfectly OK with different people imagining different races for any of the characters. It's completely outside known history (even a fantasized version) so I'm able to do whatever I want with it in terms of race. There is racism in my stories, in fact, overcoming it to work together is a central theme (although I guess we should call it speciesism). Anyway, since the world is so different in terms of where different ethnicities of humes live, I never bother describing this.

I took a different meaning away from ZA's statement. I thought he was talking about realistic characters covering a wide gambit of personality types and not solely featuring empowered women as the only female presence, if true realism was the goal.

Here it is again:

Perhaps I was wrong in my interpretation though.

This begs a question.

If females were figured equally to men in a book, in terms of goals, motivations, and empowerment...would you then be more accepting of a female character that closely fits alongside the stereotypical fantasy females (the vaccuous, boy-crazy, "I love shoes" type) that you so passionately oppose? Meaning, if they coexisted within the same book would that be considered realism or would you still oppose their existence in the story?

Sounds like you've interpreted me the way I intended. Sorry for the need to be interpreted, I thought I had laid everything out, but I understand emotions can run high in these topics and things that seem clear to one may appear vague or muddied to another.

 

[Steerpike]

No one outside of Africa is "wholly African", not even someone as dark as me.

I'm getting a little far afield here, but in a place like the U.S. I think if you're going by skin tone alone, you find such a wide variation that I'm not sure what it means to say someone's skin is dark enough for them to be an accurate portrayal of a black person. I dated a girl from Sierra Leone once, and she had the very dark skin tone that Jabrosky is probably referring to, but there were plenty of people around who were from the U.S. whose skin was as dark.

To take another actress - look at Gina Torres, from Firefly. She's darker than the Merlin actress depicted above, but she's also bi-racial (African and Cuban I think), so does she qualify as a representative of a black woman on television? Seems to me that she does, and that I'm hardly in any position to argue that she, or the actress above, aren't black enough.

 

[saellys]

Sounds like you've interpreted me the way I intended. Sorry for the need to be interpreted, I thought I had laid everything out, but I understand emotions can run high in these topics and things that seem clear to one may appear vague or muddied to another.

Seriously? It didn't appear vague to me at all. It was completely straightforward. You questioned whether readers would care about what your female characters had to say to each other. There was no emotional reaction necessary to read it that way, because those were the words you used. If you meant something else, you should have used different words.

Also, Angel Coulby is not a beautiful girl? Dude, your standards must be astronomically high.