• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Diversity Lioness misfire?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Darkwriter

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

What's the point of including diversity? Is it about including ever-more-exotic worldbuilding elements to make it interesting? Or is it about appealing to a diverse audience?

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

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




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

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

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

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

In a nutshell.
 

Darkwriter

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

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

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

Would this be acceptable, or am I overlooking more?

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

Darkwriter

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

Graylorne

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

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

Steerpike

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

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

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

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

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

Tot ziens,

Steer
 

Graylorne

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

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

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

Tot ziens,

Steer


That is encouraging!

Dank je wel, Steer.
 

Devor

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

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

Darkwriter

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

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

Legendary Sidekick

The HAM'ster
Moderator
If harsh, stinging criticisms make him want to quit the field
I think the harsh, stinging criticisms make him want to just write about European societies.

And I'm not blaming you for that. I'm saying it's a natural reaction for the writer to do one of the following:
  1. Admit, "Yeah, I need to learn if I'm going to write these characters."
  2. Decide, "Screw diversity. It pisses people off."

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



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

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

Nimue

Auror
Next morning, on his way forward to piss, Jurgis stopped as a young girl came up the gangway. She was a Kell, nearly as tall as Maud, but with her hair made up as a bird’s nest, and dressed in a flowing robe of forest green feathers.
‘You, male!’ she said in a tone that roused hot rage in Jurgis’ breast. ‘I am seeking the Lioness Maud of the M’Brannoe. Tell her I come for her.’
Jurgis closed his mouth with an audible snap. He’d met plenty rough girls in Brisa. Harbor whores, tavern wenches, pickpockets; all coarse and often foul-mouthed women, but none had ever displayed the soul-wrenching arrogance of this feathered chit.
The girl frowned at his silence. ‘Are you dumb, male? Go quickly, and warn the lioness I am here. Jump to it.’
‘Well, it’s that you ask it so kindly,’ Jurgis said. ‘And who might you be?’
‘Don’t be impertinent!’ The girl’s eyes flashed. ‘I am the Wisewoman Wemawee. Now go and fetch the lioness.’
Without another word, Jurgis strode back to their cabin. He slammed the door shut behind him and Maud turned around, her sheathed sword in her hand. ‘Something wrong?’
Jurgis cursed. ‘There’s a Wisewoman Wemawee come on board, some terribly arrogant, snotty girl in green feathers. Wants to see you.’
‘Wemawee?’ Maud frowned. ‘I’ve heard about that one. She’s only a novice, but she has the reputation of being a troublemaker. Was she alone?’
Jurgis thought back and shook his head. ‘No. She had an attendant. A boy. He wasn’t much bigger than I and looked scared as hell.’
Maud sighed. ‘Of all the wisewomen, the queen sent her?’
‘Not all your wisewomen are wise?’
‘Forget it. They’re no better than warlocks.’

Back on deck, the girl was standing stiffly at the gangway, her attendant like a shadow at her shoulder. All at once, Jurgis got an impression of insecurity in her stance. The boy is scared of her, he thought. But what is she afraid of?
Maud lifted her hand in a ritual greeting. ‘I see you, little sister.’
The girl returned the salute. ‘May you shine brightly, Lioness. I am the Initiate Wemawee of the M’Arrangh.’
At this, Maud stared. ‘You’re a M’Arrangh? But they were all expelled.’
‘Not all,’ the girl said, and she pressed her lips together.
A silence followed.
‘It’s not something I speak of,’ Wemawee said after a moment. ‘The Elder Wisewoman sent me. I know the key to the traitors’ gatherhouse. She told me to guide you, though I have never been inside myself.’
So that’s it. Jurgis studied the thin, dark face. She’s one of those hated M’Arrangh. She’ll have been walking on eggs all her life.
‘That is most excellent, little sister,’ Maud said formally. ‘We are happy with your assistance.’
Jurgis thought to see a flash of annoyance cross Wemawee’s face at the “little sister”, but she didn’t say anything.
‘Come with me,’ Maud said. ‘You can stay in our cabin while we prepare ourselves.’
‘I prefer to wait on the quay,’ the initiate said. ‘My male isn’t comfortable here.’
The boy looked unhappy at this, but he didn’t say anything.
Maud nodded politely. ‘As you wish.’
Without another word, the young initiate left the ship, with the boy trailing behind her.
‘Her male?’ Jurgis said, as they walked back to their cabin. ‘Does that mean what it sounds like?’
‘She means her lover, yes.’
‘Body servant, more likely. And she isn’t as certain as she looked. The boy looked scared, but I’d say more of her than anything else. With her it’s something else.’
Maud was silent for a moment. ‘All the M’Arrangh fled to the continent after Kelwarg’s fall. So how come she is still here?’
‘She seems a double handful of trouble to me.’ Jurgis shrugged. ‘Scared and very young.’ Then he thought of something. ‘She isn’t a warrioress; does she have those same urgings?’
‘She probably does,’ Maud said. ‘Wemawee at sixteen, and full of untried magic, will wrestle even more with her urges than I did when I met you. Hence the lover. He won’t have an easy life with her; she’s likely demanding a lot from him. And even with an attendant, she’ll be extremely unsafe, emotionally.’
‘Fine,’ Jurgis said. ‘An uncontrolled magic-user; just what we needed.’
‘And we do need her,’ Maud said. ‘She’s got the key.’
‘I’ll go and fetch Basil.’ Jurgis turned away. ‘We might need his magic.’

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

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

However, this passage has brought up something else-- well, this:
Also, what's the deal with the sexuality thing?
The sex drive of the females is carefully controlled. They can have sex, because their anti-conception amulets are effective. Young girls are not allowed out of the country without a chaperone, like Veteran Hala was for Maud. Only the adolescent girls haven't learned how to live with it; after their early twenties they have it under control.

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

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

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

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

Philip Overby

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mindfire

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

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

Philip Overby

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

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

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

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

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

Caged Maiden

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

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

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

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

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

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

Graylorne

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Darkwriter

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

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

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

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

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

You want to do 'healthy portrayals of POC'? Then portray them as people. Put in the same amout of effort you gave to creating your viking culture or your roman-themed empire. Simple as that.
 
First question, if I write a world where slavery and colonization didn't exist, is that insensitive? I mean, I'm not bringing race into the book at all, because I have a sort of melting-pot steampunk world, and there never existed a situation similar to our own history. Is it insensitive to African-American readers if my characters are described with characteristics decidedly more African than Asian, but not specifically from a place resembling Africa?

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

Penpilot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's my though any way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top