marginalized characters that were added just to help get a book published

[Zombified Spider]

I was intending to stay out of this discussion, but given that I'm so severely dyslexic that I qualify as disabled I'm going to shove my oar in. And in doing so I'm going to argue against A. E. Lowan, at least in part.

My view is that before we as authors even get to the question of whether a character needs to be a white CIS male or something else we need to think about the setting, and in particular we need to think about how society works in that setting.

In many ways, contemporary fantasy is the easy option. You can and should include all kinds of diverse characters, because modern society has become more accepting of them. That way we continue to build acceptance and self-esteem amongst all our readers. But what about other fantasy settings?

To take my dyslexia as an example. In a medieval style setting where there are few or no schools and only a very few can read and write well enough to teach their children and even fewer can afford tutors for their children there will be many people who cannot read and write. How would you ever know anything about dyslexia? Someone like me would be lost in the mass of people who are illiterate, we wouldn't be different or even be seen as different because no-one would ever think to ask why we couldn't read or write. In fact, being able to read and write would make you different...

Another example is homosexuality. How is this seen in your setting? It may be legal (or at least not illegal) but does that mean society accepts people like that? Is there a difference in attitudes between the (supposedly) sophisticated cities and the countryside? What impact does this have on our characters? Where do they meet others like them? Do they become open to blackmail? Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against including a character like that, but I do expect you the author to think it all the way through. Apart from anything else there are so many potential little plot hooks...

Different skin colour is yet another one. If your character has grown up a medieval style small town somewhere and never travelled far, how will they react when they get to some major trading port and see a person with a different skin colour? This person that they've just seen, how do they react to yet another country yokel staring at them? This coloured person, how are they treated in the port town, and is the way they're seen different from how they would be seen elsewhere in that same country? Here the plot possibilities start to pile up. People trying to con one another, subtle attempts at one uppmanship from both sides. And so on...

If you character sails to some new continent and goes ashore only to be met by a bunch of people with a different skin colour, what happens? Does your character survive the initial encounter or are they killed on the spot because the locals think they're some sort of monster? If they survive, how does our character react to being stared at by everyone? And so on...

To me, including diverse characters needs a lot of thought. Part of this is about setting and the societal norms in that setting. Thet other part is about characterisation and how these characters are as people. Based on how I sort that out I can then go on to work what impact this has on the plot and on character development. In my experience there is huge potential for some really complex characters and wonderfully intricate plots when I include diverse characters. But I have to think it through first, otherwise it's just tokenism.

Which leads me to my final comments. If you're writing contemporary fantasy you've got no excuse, so you'd better have a damn good reason for making a given character a white CIS male. But if you're writing fantasy set in another world then you'd better think through that setting in full before including a diverse character, because otherwise you may be creating a token representative character - and that is not what diversity and acceptance are about.

While I completely agree with your point (I have Dyscalculia and ADHD) I think the point A.E. Lowen and others are trying to make is that Homosexuality and other aspects of characters often feel forced or slapped on there like they [the author] is just trying to make the book appeal to different demographics so they can make more money. I have friends who will read books just for the LGBTQIAP+ characters and then be disappointed when they are poorly written and just a money grab.

 

[Karlin]

I'll add another comment. What we are talking about is how to include our 21st century concepts of skin color and gender identity in fiction. Specifically Fantasy literature.

Who is to say that what a person in some other time on an other world is going to have the same issues with gender or race that we have today? Maybe skin color is totally irrelevant in the character's culture. Hell, skin color is viewed differently in different countries here and now ( I say this expecting to be jumped on, but it seems to be the case). Is homosexuality viewed the same all over the world today? I would venture to say that it isn't (try Amsterdam and Teheran as examples). So why project a particular modern view on a fantasy world?

Having asked the question, I will propose the answer: Because our 21st century readers expect to see themselves reflected in the story.

 

[Queshire]

Doesn't that go the other way also though?

 

[Mad Swede]

Hmmm.... Of course a world should be well designed, but as authors we should look for areas where the readers can do some of the work for us as well as consider what aspects are relevant enough to the plot to require filling out.

For example, if we have our protagonists meet a queen and her wife then their presence implies something about how the setting views homosexuality with how the characters react to it further implying things about how it is viewed. The precise details can be left up to the readers to imagine.

Yes, you could leave some of many of the details to the readers, let them do some of the work, as skip.knox suggests. For me, that leads to two things.

First, as a reader and even more as an author I start to ask myself questions about the setting. How does inheritance work in that sort of society? Is it the eldest child (girl or boy) or is it an equal split between all surviving siblings? What about trade? Presumably both men and women can be master craftsmen... T

Second, I don't think we can leave it all to the readers. As A. E. Lowan and indeed many others have argued before, that tends to leave readers making assumptions about some of the characters and what they're like. And they don't always assume those characters come from some minority. So I think we as authors have to be a little more explicit.

If that occurs in a story about heading up into the frozen north to defeat the dark lord and matters of royal inheritances, weddings or any of that scheming aren't featured then such sparse details can be sufficient for the needs of the story.

Maybe. But then the ex-UN peacekeeper in me starts to ask things like how this affects political relationships with allies in the great fight against evil. Because it might not be that straightforward...

While I completely agree with your point (I have Dyscalculia and ADHD) I think the point A.E. Lowen and others are trying to make is that Homosexuality and other aspects of characters often feel forced or slapped on there like they [the author] is just trying to make the book appeal to different demographics so they can make more money. I have friends who will read books just for the LGBTQIAP+ characters and then be disappointed when they are poorly written and just a money grab.

Maybe I've been unclear. I'm arguing against using token characters to appeal to different demographics, but to write characters well I think you need to consider far more than just the character. Their place in society, how they're seen by others amd what opportunities they have for love and a trade are all things which should have an impact on their characterisation.

I'll add another comment. What we are talking about is how to include our 21st century concepts of skin color and gender identity in fiction. Specifically Fantasy literature.

They are not new concepts, far from it. The reason we talk about lesbians is because the Greek poet Sappho lived and worked in an all female community on Lesbos, as noted in the Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1800 in which her biography has been dated to the late third or early second century BC.

Who is to say that what a person in some other time on an other world is going to have the same issues with gender or race that we have today? Maybe skin color is totally irrelevant in the character's culture. Hell, skin color is viewed differently in different countries here and now ( I say this expecting to be jumped on, but it seems to be the case). Is homosexuality viewed the same all over the world today? I would venture to say that it isn't (try Amsterdam and Teheran as examples). So why project a particular modern view on a fantasy world?

There's no particular reason another place in another time would share our modern views, and in fact Michel Foucault argued against this in his philosophical work Histoire de la sexualité. That work, along with his other writings about truth in relation to power structures, such as sexuality, made a real impact on social science theory.

Having asked the question, I will propose the answer: Because our 21st century readers expect to see themselves reflected in the story.

Yes, they do. But for me diverse characters are fun to write and give so many more ways to develop story and character arcs with real depth.

 

[Prince of Spires]

If you're writing contemporary fantasy you've got no excuse, so you'd better have a damn good reason for making a given character a white CIS male.

I agreed with the whole post except this part.

A writer should write characters he wants to write. And if he just wants to have a white CIS male as protagonist then that's absolutely fine. An author has no obligation to include specific characters in his story. He can write whoever he wants. And if he wants to write an all white, male focussed cast, then go ahead and have fun with it. There are plenty of stories where that makes complete sense.

Just as an example, Harry Potter has gotten plenty of critisism that it didnt inclu'de enough people of color. However, that is taking the story completely out of context and projecting your own ideas and wants on the story. It's a tale set on a 90's British boarding school. If you look at the actual demographic of those, than Rowling probably included too many non-white characters.

 

[pmmg]

Is this:
Because our 21st century readers expect to see themselves reflected in the story.

Your answer to this?
I'm guessing that the author added this angle in order to get attention from agents and publishers. Have you gotten such an impression from books you've read? Do you do the same? Should I?

If so, I'm gonna say this is almost certainly not true, as the implication is that all readers are the things that the subject matter is including, when far more likely people are reading things they are not. Not all readers of lesbian fiction are lesbians and so forth.

The reason people may write about this content may be of one, or several, of many reasons, including: a perception about the audience, their own interest in such characters, a strong desire to connect with that community, or do some perceived service to the world.

For me to read the mind of various authors and fish out their true reasoning is not something I can do. I don't know why a specific author writes what they write, I can only speculate. (Even if an author was to tell me their reason, there is still a chance its not accurate...so I could only give them the benefit of doubt, but I still can't really know.)

But just as there are many reasons one might write and include 'marginalized' characters, there are also many reason one might not wish to--Such characters may distract from the story, may not be a realistic inclusion given the times and places many write about, or in the case of promiscuous or homosexual characters, may feel too close to amplifying or glorifying aspects of the fallen world that many authors do not wish to align with.

If the thinking is, write these, or never find an audience, that just isn't true. There are large audiences for all types of fiction. The path one takes to success will not be the same that others may take, or that you or I may take. If you are feeling pressured to write such characters then I would stand up to the pressure and say no. If it's truly your interest, or what the story is calling for, then write 'em true and tell a good story, and much success to you.

Sounds like the story you read did it in a poor ham-fisted way. My opinion...if you are gonna include it, make it matter to the story. I don't think they did. Writing is hard. Not everyone gets it right.

 

[Karlin]

Is this:
Because our 21st century readers expect to see themselves reflected in the story.

Your answer to this?
I'm guessing that the author added this angle in order to get attention from agents and publishers. Have you gotten such an impression from books you've read? Do you do the same? Should I?

If so, I'm gonna say this is almost certainly not true, as the implication is that all readers are the things that the subject matter is including, when far more likely people are reading things they are not. Not all readers of lesbian fiction are lesbians and so forth.

I don't think this is the implication. I do know that if you go to agent sites, about 90% of the agents are looking for (or claim to be looking for) books by or about marginilized groups.

 

[Mad Swede]

Is this:
Because our 21st century readers expect to see themselves reflected in the story.

Your answer to this?
I'm guessing that the author added this angle in order to get attention from agents and publishers. Have you gotten such an impression from books you've read? Do you do the same? Should I?

If so, I'm gonna say this is almost certainly not true, as the implication is that all readers are the things that the subject matter is including, when far more likely people are reading things they are not. Not all readers of lesbian fiction are lesbians and so forth.

I asked my publishers managing director about this, as I happened to meet him today and we had a chat over coffee and cake.

His reply was quite illuminating. As he put it, publishers are in the business to make money and that means selling books. That in turn means publishing books which appeal to as wide a range of readers as is reasonably possible. Yes he says, readers from minority groups will buy and read (or listen to) books which don't contain characters like them. But he says, these days you sell more books if there are characters which readers from all groups can recognise and sympathise with, so from a sales perspective it is better if there are well rounded characters from minority groups in the story.

He was quite clear about one thing, the key to getting a publishing contract is a good story. That means good plot, good characterisation and good dialogue. Yes, he'd prefer it if your story contains characters from minority groups, especially in contemporary fiction but also in SF and many forms of fantasy. And yes, he will ask you to justify why you haven't included such characters in books like that and he'd like to hear a well reasoned argument in reply. He won't reject your work if you can't make a good argument, but at that point he and the commissioning staff will be looking a little harder at the other qualities in your story.

 

[Karlin]

I asked my publishers managing director about this, as I happened to meet him today and we had a chat over coffee and cake.

His reply was quite illuminating. As he put it, publishers are in the business to make money and that means selling books. That in turn means publishing books which appeal to as wide a range of readers as is reasonably possible. Yes he says, readers from minority groups will buy and read (or listen to) books which don't contain characters like them. But he says, these days you sell more books if there are characters which readers from all groups can recognise and sympathise with, so from a sales perspective it is better if there are well rounded characters from minority groups in the story.

He was quite clear about one thing, the key to getting a publishing contract is a good story. That means good plot, good characterisation and good dialogue. Yes, he'd prefer it if your story contains characters from minority groups, especially in contemporary fiction but also in SF and many forms of fantasy. And yes, he will ask you to justify why you haven't included such characters in books like that and he'd like to hear a well reasoned argument in reply. He won't reject your work if you can't make a good argument, but at that point he and the commissioning staff will be looking a little harder at the other qualities in your story.

Well, the director would make a good politician. I like the careful wording.

Still, I wonder. When marketing something, anything, one aims at a market segment. Do you really expect any one book to appeal to ALL groups? And, frankly, despite the talk, one has to get past the gate in order to even have someone consider your story, which tempts writers to put something in the book to get past that point.

I've got this weird feeling. I have what I think is a reasonable mix of types of people in my current novel. But it really bothers me that that should be a selling point, or a hurdle that one must cross.

 

[skip.knox]

I read a fair amount of older fiction, pre-Internet. That is to say, fiction that was written when writing for a market was the uppermost reason for most writers. It wasn't merely an acceptable argument, it was pretty much the only argument. If you were writing for an SF magazine, there were expectations and you wrote to meet those expectations. In fact, you wrote for specific editors within various markets.

I would re-cast the words of Mad Swede's editor this way: give me (as editor) all the elements of a strong story, but also show me something more. It's not that any native brilliance is somehow compromised by writing for this or that market, but can you deliver the basics *plus* something particular?

I'm repeatedly struck at how flexible were the great genre writers of earlier decades. They could seemingly write *anything*. Any length, any genre, any market, and darn near at any pace. Not only could they write hundreds of thousands of words a year, they did so while producing some brilliant stuff. In my own opinion, I need to show I have a very high level of competence and productivity before I merit the luxury of criticizing the market I so earnestly hope to capture.

 

[Mad Swede]

Well, the director would make a good politician. I like the careful wording.

Still, I wonder. When marketing something, anything, one aims at a market segment. Do you really expect any one book to appeal to ALL groups? And, frankly, despite the talk, one has to get past the gate in order to even have someone consider your story, which tempts writers to put something in the book to get past that point.

This is where it gets interesting. Fantasy books appeal to a wide range of potential readers and can sell very well, especially if they're well written. The late Sir Terry Pratchett is an excellent example.

The MD at my publishers doesn't like publishing books which appeal to only a narrow group, because books like that don't make money simply because they don't sell many copies. Which is why he wants the stories to appeal to a wide group of readers, as that gives both a bigger potential market and hence the potential for higher sales. Simple commercial logic.

As for gatekeeping, as the MD said, write a good story (in Swedish) and my publisher may well take it on. But you've got to get all the basics of story telling right otherwise you won't get offered a contract.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

I read a fair amount of older fiction, pre-Internet. That is to say, fiction that was written when writing for a market was the uppermost reason for most writers. It wasn't merely an acceptable argument, it was pretty much the only argument. If you were writing for an SF magazine, there were expectations and you wrote to meet those expectations. In fact, you wrote for specific editors within various markets.

I would re-cast the words of Mad Swede's editor this way: give me (as editor) all the elements of a strong story, but also show me something more. It's not that any native brilliance is somehow compromised by writing for this or that market, but can you deliver the basics *plus* something particular?

I'm repeatedly struck at how flexible were the great genre writers of earlier decades. They could seemingly write *anything*. Any length, any genre, any market, and darn near at any pace. Not only could they write hundreds of thousands of words a year, they did so while producing some brilliant stuff. In my own opinion, I need to show I have a very high level of competence and productivity before I merit the luxury of criticizing the market I so earnestly hope to capture.

Bradbury, Azimov, McCaffrey, Dick (Philip K. - sorry!), Shelley... Cocaine was legal for a long time. And after, no one seems to have had a problem getting it. So...

Personally, I write at the speed of Martin. This needs to change. But I'll leave the stimulants to Winter, our wizard trauma surgeon with a little problem. Girl's going to need them.

 

[pmmg]

No cocaine here.

I don't think this is the implication. I do know that if you go to agent sites, about 90% of the agents are looking for (or claim to be looking for) books by or about marginilized groups.

Sounds to me like you have found the gatekeepers. I would not think their numbers would be 90% but... when you find 90% of anything all one way that ought to be telling you something. That certainly sounds more monolithic than diverse, and when you look at the culture around us, there is great division in thought and belief. The US alone is looking at a lot of successive years of elections that have been near 50/50, but the gatekeepers would have us believe the values are 80/20. They are not. If 90% are insisting on things catering to marginalized groups then there must be a market being under represented, and under written too.

Because our 21st century readers expect to see themselves reflected in the story

I think this might be more accurately stated as not reflecting themselves, but reflecting a set of values readers want to see...but then the 'readers' is nebulous. Cause under the model above, so many cannot break through, and audiences that dont share those values dont follow them. They go indi.

Which is to say, if you are looking at the publishing houses and thinking they set the standard, their days are numbered. More and more the methods of bypassing them are becoming more prominent, and the value they bring is diminishing. If you feel you must cater to them to tell your story, that is your choice to make. But they are not the only option in town.

 

[Karlin]

What is common knowledge isn't always factually correct, though admittedly sometimes it is. And with that, I'm going to bow out of the discussion.

 

[Prince of Spires]

The MD at my publishers doesn't like publishing books which appeal to only a narrow group, because books like that don't make money simply because they don't sell many copies. Which is why he wants the stories to appeal to a wide group of readers, as that gives both a bigger potential market and hence the potential for higher sales. Simple commercial logic.

Here we run into one of the differences between traditional publishing and indie publishing. If you indie publish, then you can aim at a much narrower market. By nature of their business model, a trad publisher is looking for books that appeal to people who walk into a bookstore. Or a fantasy reader. As Mad Swede pointed out, they need to aim wide.

In indie publishing however, you can target very narrow, very specific markets. You might not sell loads, but you could sell enough to make some nice lunch money. And because your overhead is much smaller, you can get away with it. (The upfront cost for indie publishing starts effectively at $0, though $500 is probably more likely).

 

[Zombified Spider]

I agreed with the whole post except this part.

A writer should write characters he wants to write. And if he just wants to have a white CIS male as protagonist then that's absolutely fine. An author has no obligation to include specific characters in his story. He can write whoever he wants. And if he wants to write an all white, male focussed cast, then go ahead and have fun with it. There are plenty of stories where that makes complete sense.

Just as an example, Harry Potter has gotten plenty of critisism that it didnt inclu'de enough people of color. However, that is taking the story completely out of context and projecting your own ideas and wants on the story. It's a tale set on a 90's British boarding school. If you look at the actual demographic of those, than Rowling probably included too many non-white characters.

I think the real reason why people gave JK Rowling criticism is because not only is she Transphobic, but also because she wrote really racist names for those characters (Cho Chang, really?). Also, did you really just use he pronouns for writers, or am I taking that out of context?

 

[Prince of Spires]

Also, did you really just use he pronouns for writers, or am I taking that out of context?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking, did I use "he" for writers in the sentence "A writer should write characters he wants to write."?

If that is indeed the question, then yes I did. It's how I was taught to write, and as a 40-something year old living in the Netherlands, the whole pronoun discussion has passed me by. Did I intend anything specific with it? No. I just had to use something. I find typing he/she cumbersome and they doesn't feel right to me.

If you meant to ask, do I assume all writers are male, then no, I do not. There are plenty of amazing female writers and I try not to assume someone's gender here on the site.

 

[Zombified Spider]

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking, did I use "he" for writers in the sentence "A writer should write characters he wants to write."?

If that is indeed the question, then yes I did. It's how I was taught to write, and as a 40-something year old living in the Netherlands, the whole pronoun discussion has passed me by. Did I intend anything specific with it? No. I just had to use something. I find typing he/she cumbersome and they doesn't feel right to me.

If you meant to ask, do I assume all writers are male, then no, I do not. There are plenty of amazing female writers and I try not to assume someone's gender here on the site.

As a nonbinary writer, may I make a suggestion? In the future, instead of using a gender specific pronoun or he/she use they/them pronouns. I know, because my maternal grandmother thinks so, that they/them pronouns can also be applied to a group, but they can also be applied to a singular person. I'm not really annoyed or make a big deal out of it when someone misgenders me but I know people who do and will point out your use of "he" and then make a big deal.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Quite a few years ago, pretty much every agent was seeking "own voice." The nomenclature changes, but monolithic is the right word. The worm may have turned a little bit by now, on the surface, but the underlying culture is deeply engrained.

Other than that, I'll just say I don't give a shit if I offend anybody, I write what I write. I find the "I'm offended culture" offensive. I'll leave it at that.

No cocaine here.



Sounds to me like you have found the gatekeepers. I would not think their numbers would be 90% but... when you find 90% of anything all one way that ought to be telling you something. That certainly sounds more monolithic than diverse, and when you look at the culture around us, there is great division in thought and belief. The US alone is looking at a lot of successive years of elections that have been near 50/50, but the gatekeepers would have us believe the values are 80/20. They are not. If 90% are insisting on things catering to marginalized groups then there must be a market being under represented, and under written too.

Because our 21st century readers expect to see themselves reflected in the story

I think this might be more accurately stated as not reflecting themselves, but reflecting a set of values readers want to see...but then the 'readers' is nebulous. Cause under the model above, so many cannot break through, and audiences that dont share those values dont follow them. They go indi.

Which is to say, if you are looking at the publishing houses and thinking they set the standard, their days are numbered. More and more the methods of bypassing them are becoming more prominent, and the value they bring is diminishing. If you feel you must cater to them to tell your story, that is your choice to make. But they are not the only option in town.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

One thing I find amusing is that there was a point when people loathed Token characters, but we seem to have come circling back to celebrating Token characters. You can see a mirror of this with the "segregation is bad" argument coming around to "segregation is good" and it's really determined by political expedience on the part of the same side of the political aisle.

Me? I believe in celebrating Tolkien characters.

Hi,

I just read a novel that centered around family relationships and Chinese beliefs in spirits and ghosts. I finished reading it, and thought to myself "Hang on! Why is the protagonist lesbian? " Her lover only exists in the book in a few 3 line phone calls and some text messages. She doesn't participate in anything that happens- in fact, she doesn't even know what's going on. It's presented as a framework for the story, but doesn't seems necessary at all. The plot, relationships and character development would all be fine if every mention of her lover was deleted. (I'm not being entirely fair to the novel, but...)

I'm guessing that the author added this angle in order to get attention from agents and publishers. Have you gotten such an impression from books you've read? Do you do the same? Should I?

Note, my next work involves Michelangelo as the main character. He was what we called today homosexual, so I am 'off the hook' for this one.

Karlin