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

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

BWFoster78

Myth Weaver
Perhaps the question we should consider is less whether we should represent this or that group of people in our fiction, but rather why we want to represent those groups.

That would be helpful.

It's because I have developed a special interest in that part of the world that began in second grade when my class did a unit on ancient Egypt.

I would think you're writing will be much better for the fact that you are passionate about your subject matter.

That is why I want to represent Africa in my stories. It's not because I'm filling out any kind of checklist or forcing onto myself some obligation to represent every nook and cranny of humanity. It's because I have this passion for a particular nook that everyone else keeps putting down, and I want to rectify that.

This is where we differ.

I just want to tell a good story that, hopefully, others are going to want to read.

That's not to say that I think there's anything wrong with your approach as long as you are aware of the problems that you can create for yourself by pursuing such an approach.
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
I've said this before, and I'll say it again.

I think you have trendsetters, and you have everyone else.

Not everyone can be a trendsetter. Not everyone should. And I don't think it's helpful to treat everyone as if they should care passionately if they aren't passionate.

But, I do think it's helpful to talk about the little things that an author can do as they write their story that would do right by issues of diversity without making big changes to the way they write their story. Taking another look at which characters have agency, whether their arcs and archetypes are defined by those standard sets of "identity traits," whether it's viable to break the default to a typical white/male/whatever type. Those things can make better characters and a better story without always being a big deal.

For some stories it can be a big deal. If you're playing in a low fantasy, highly serious world, it can be challenging to play it loose with race without the appropriate worldbuilding overhead. If you're in the heart of a war zone, it might be difficult to include a wide range of female characters. If your story is relatively short, with a single protagonist and a tight POV, it might be difficult to make the issues of secondary characters relevant. In those cases forget about it - if it's going to compromise the integrity of your story, or the depths of your passion, then forget about it.

But most of the time you can only gain by adding another layer of complexity to your characters and the way they develop, if you don't try to overstep your interests and ability.
 
Last edited:

Mythopoet

Auror
The problem with the modern "search for equality" is that it focuses too much on the symptoms while the diseases rages on. (Apologies to Dr. Horrible.) Racism and sexism aren't really about black and white or man and woman. They are about power. Human beings seek out differences in each other because those differences can be exploited by the powerful over the weak. The differences are really just an excuse. Humans like to feel better and more important than other people. They like to have power and control over others. That's the real issue. If you solve racism and sexism it'll just pop up in another form. You can't fix inequality by trying to tip the scale back the other way. You can only fix it by getting rid of the scale.
 
I'm not sure how having female characters relates in any way to sexism, but okay...

I have a male protagonist and 6 main characters. Of the main characters, 3 are female and 3 are male.

Then, assuming the women are well-written characters who grow and change over the course of the story, and assuming they have their own part in bringing the story to its conclusion, I'm not sure what the problem is. There are only a couple of stereotypical viewpoints for women to have, so if you have three women with their own viewpoints, at least one is bound to break stereotypes. Do you just not want folks to think you're doing it for the "wrong reasons"?

It seemed like you were advocating for the inclusion of a diverse cast of characters. I consider that a "cause." If not, what are you advocating?

What you just stated is in fact a cause of mine, but I kind of expected you to come out with something more evil. I mean, you were talking like putting a gay character in a story would only be something you would do if you agreed with my cause. It is true that putting a gay character in a story would advance my cause, but I've been trying to make my arguments "cause-neutral"--arguments not based on directly advancing my cause with a "should," but on the power of "could," and the ways that adding and changing characters can allow you to tell new stories. I guess it's fine if you're not interested in that, but the vehemence of your remark and the circumstance in which you said "cause" made me think that you thought just having a gay character in a story would advance some sinister goal to which you were opposed.
 
The problem with the modern "search for equality" is that it focuses too much on the symptoms while the diseases rages on. (Apologies to Dr. Horrible.) Racism and sexism aren't really about black and white or man and woman. They are about power. Human beings seek out differences in each other because those differences can be exploited by the powerful over the weak. The differences are really just an excuse. Humans like to feel better and more important than other people. They like to have power and control over others. That's the real issue. If you solve racism and sexism it'll just pop up in another form. You can't fix inequality by trying to tip the scale back the other way. You can only fix it by getting rid of the scale.

Can I even get away with saying this? I'm not trying to start wank, and I'll be as polite as I can, but damn is it gonna be a sore point if Mindfire enters this thread. I guess I'll just say it, since it directly relates to the topic.

I was reading Fred Clark the other day, and he discussed American Christian sects that don't allow women to be priests. Clark's into the concept of "hermeneutics"--specific patterns in which the Bible is translated. (For instance, different scholars have different interpretations of what the word "ezer" means.) Anyway, there's one hermeneutic that's typically used in America to argue that women shouldn't be priests.

According to Clark, it's a slightly modified version of a hermeneutic originated in the 19th century. Its original purpose was to argue that the Bible justified slavery, and the new version actually uses pretty similar reasoning.

I bring this up not to attack Christianity in particular--Lord knows it's not the only belief system that's been hijacked in this fashion--but to reinforce Mythopoet's statement. That is not dead which can eternal lie, and bad ideas can be infuriatingly resilient.
 
Last edited:

Mythopoet

Auror
Can I even get away with saying this? I'm not trying to start wank, and I'll be as polite as I can, but damn is it gonna be a sore point if Mindfire enters this thread. I guess I'll just say it, since it directly relates to the topic.

I was reading Fred Clark the other day, and he discussed American Christian sects that don't allow women to be priests. Clark's into the concept of "hermeneutics"--specific patterns in which the Bible is translated. (For instance, different scholars have different interpretations of what the word "ezer" means.) Anyway, there's one hermeneutic that's typically used in America to argue that women shouldn't be priests.

According to Clark, it's a slightly modified version of a hermeneutic originated in the 19th century. Its original purpose was to argue that the Bible justified slavery, and the new version actually uses pretty similar reasoning.

I bring this up not to attack Christianity in particular--Lord knows it's not the only belief system that's been hijacked in this fashion--but to reinforce Mythopoet's statement. That is not dead which can eternal lie, and bad ideas can be infuriatingly resilient.

No offense, but if you're going to raise a point like that you should be able to provide the actual details of it for verification. What is the word? Which Christians is he talking about exactly? How did these Christians translate it and why? How does Fred translate it differently and why? Who is Fred Clark and what are his credentials? What documentation does he have to support his theory? Only a fool believes someone who says to them "I read a guy who believes a thing and says this thing about another group of people".
 

Jabrosky

Banned
No offense, but if you're going to raise a point like that you should be able to provide the actual details of it for verification. What is the word? Which Christians is he talking about exactly? How did these Christians translate it and why? How does Fred translate it differently and why? Who is Fred Clark and what are his credentials? What documentation does he have to support his theory? Only a fool believes someone who says to them "I read a guy who believes a thing and says this thing about another group of people".
You do realize Feo is not attacking Christians as a whole but a small number of particular sects, don't you?
 
Last edited:
No offense, but if you're going to raise a point like that you should be able to provide the actual details of it for verification. What is the word? Which Christians is he talking about exactly? How did these Christians translate it and why? How does Fred translate it differently and why? Who is Fred Clark and what are his credentials? What documentation does he have to support his theory? Only a fool believes someone who says to them "I read a guy who believes a thing and says this thing about another group of people".

I'm not sure exactly what Clark's credentials are, though he definitely knows the Bible back to front. (He got famous through his counterarguments to the theology in the Left Behind novels.) The reason I like to use him is that he's an evangelical Christian--it seems more appropriate to cite those within the group than to cite those outside it.

As for the specific hermeneutic, the modern version Clark is referring to seems to be the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. I should note that Clark is not alone in his statement of this hermeneutic's origins--he references Ken Schenk, a dean of a university seminary, who says
It is worth noting that the forebears of this modern form of inerrancy used a different hermeneutic than my church’s abolitionist forebears, and they used their hermeneutic to argue anti-abolitionism from Scripture, just as Mohler uses a similar hermeneutic today to argue against women in ministry.

Schenk specifically talks in relation to Calvinist interpretations of the Bible. Clark also mentions Southern Baptists.

Clark's article is at On the whiteness of Al Mohler̢۪s White Theology, though it's not very specific. Schenk's is at Common Denominator: Five Views of Inerrancy (Book Review Part 1)

(I don't want to get into a massive religious debate here, since Mindfire has conclusively proven to me that I don't know the Bible well enough for that. I'll back off and back down if it seems like I'm on the wrong course here. As I said earlier, my point isn't about Christianity, it's about prejudice.)

Edit: I looked at the comments for Schenk's article, and he said his parenthetical comment was related to two earlier articles:

http://kenschenck.blogspot.com/2007/10/friday-review-civil-war-as-theological.html

http://kenschenck.blogspot.com/2010/04/whatever-happened-to-evangelicalism-7.html
 
Last edited:

BWFoster78

Myth Weaver
Then, assuming the women are well-written characters who grow and change over the course of the story, and assuming they have their own part in bringing the story to its conclusion, I'm not sure what the problem is. There are only a couple of stereotypical viewpoints for women to have, so if you have three women with their own viewpoints, at least one is bound to break stereotypes. Do you just not want folks to think you're doing it for the "wrong reasons"?

Apparently, we're not understanding each other well. I believe two things in regards to this thread:

1. I don't feel it's a good idea from a writing standpoint to include anything that doesn't serve the story. You, and others, seem to advocate that it's a good idea to include diverse characters simply because diverse characters are, in and of themselves, good. I believe in tight writing. Anything that isn't there for a specific story reason is bad. I understand that others don't feel, for their stories, that including random elements to serve a cause is bad for the story, but, as for my writing, I actively seek and destroy anything that doesn't specifically belong.

2. I disagree with the concept that diversity for diversity's sake is something I need to be concerned with. If that's your thing, fine. I tend to roll my eyes when a story or show introduces "diverse" characters that seem to have no place in the story, and I try to avoid having eye-rolling directed at my stories where possible.

but the vehemence of your remark and the circumstance in which you said "cause" made me think that you thought just having a gay character in a story would advance some sinister goal to which you were opposed.

I don't think you understand how important I feel focus is to a story and how damaging I feel it is to introduce elements for non-story reasons.

Yes, introducing other characters would lead to opportunities to tell other stories. That's the problem, though: I don't want to tell other stories; I want to tell my story,
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
I think your point #1 is a misunderstanding of what people are saying BWFoster, and it is from that misunderstanding that you seem to develop the rest of your thoughts on the issue. Also, the idea that you equate tight writing or serving the story with your own personal viewpoint on this issue, to the exclusion of others, is narrow-minded. Your argument comes down to "I don't care about this because I write the correct way and that doesn't allow for it" is, frankly, nonsense.
 

BWFoster78

Myth Weaver
I think your point #1 is a misunderstanding of what people are saying BWFoster,

Have not others in this thread basically said, "Why not add characters of diverse ethnicity and/or sexual orientation to your story? It wouldn't hurt anything."

That's the way I read what they are advocating.

If not, what are they advocating?

Also, the idea that you equate tight writing or serving the story with your own personal viewpoint on this issue, to the exclusion of others, is narrow-minded.

I stated previously in the thread that I felt adding a diverse character for the sake of it was bad and listed the reasons.

I feel that others in this thread disagree with the concept that adding a diverse character can possibly be bad.

I stand by my original statement - for my writing, I consider adding anything that doesn't serve the story as a bad, bad thing. If you don't feel that way, fine. As I stated specifically, for my writing, the viewpoint is entirely valid. Again, I specifically made the point that it is valid for my writing for me to feel that way; I made no effort to say that you or anyone else should feel the same.

Are you telling me that I'm somehow wrong for saying what's right for my methodology?

Your point seems extremely wrong to me.

Your argument comes down to "I don't care about this because I write the correct way and that doesn't allow for it" is, frankly, nonsense.

My argument comes down to two points:

1. I believe that focus and tight writing is extremely important.

2. I haven't read a shread of anyone telling my why diversity should be important to me at all. It seems instead that everyone who thinks diversity is important simply accepts it as fact.
 

Mindfire

Istar
Can I even get away with saying this? I'm not trying to start wank, and I'll be as polite as I can, but damn is it gonna be a sore point if Mindfire enters this thread. I guess I'll just say it, since it directly relates to the topic.

Speak of the devil... and he shall appear. :insertevillaughhere
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
I stand by my original statement - for my writing, I consider adding anything that doesn't serve the story as a bad, bad thing.

You're telling me that you can't have the same story if one character is, say, black instead of white, or gay instead of straight? Again, that's nonsense. You have some skill with writing, and I find it hard to believe that you can't see that. We get that you couldn't care less about the issue, so just stick to that argument (though it makes me wonder why you posted in this thread). Your rationalizations don't ring true.
 

Philip Overby

Staff
Article Team
1. I believe that focus and tight writing is extremely important

I believe this is important, too. I'm not sure what this has to do with diversity though. I guess what you're saying is that including certain elements in your story may distract from the story you want to tell, and by putting certain kinds of characters in your story it suddenly shifts to being about racism or sexism when you want it to be about other themes you're more interested in.

However, for me, just because I put non-white or female characters in my story, doesn't mean I'm going to focus on elements of racism or sexism. For me, my world resembles a close approximation of a Pangea sort of continent, where people of all different races live in close proximity. So instead of having all the whites in one place and all the Asians in another place, my world is "smaller" so to speak. That's why I chose to have more diverse characters, because for my story it makes sense. However, if I want to explore sexism because my main character is female and in a position of power, then it leaves that door open. So for me, I want more diverse characters so I can explore new and different ways of presenting characters. I don't believe in shoehorning characters in just to do so and I'm not sure many in this thread are advocating that.

2. I haven't read a shread of anyone telling my why diversity should be important to me at all. It seems instead that everyone who thinks diversity is important simply accepts it as fact.

As a writer, you have to decide what you want to write about. However, as readership shifts you may hear more and more readers clamoring for different kinds of fantasy fiction that may include more diverse casts, more diverse worlds, and different kinds of stories. From the survey I did recently, "woman in minor roles" was the number 1 thing those who voted mentioned they'd like to see change. This is telling.

Of course tell the story that you want to tell, I would never tell someone not to write what they want. I think what some people are saying in this thread (at least what I'm gathering) is that if you present stories that represent a wider range of the human experience, you may find your stories become richer for it.

At the end of the day, you must present the stories you want to present to the world. Just to namedrop, Steerpike has an upcoming anthology that deals with Mesoamerican fantasy. This really interests me as these are the kind of fantasy stories I haven't considered much. As a writer, I not only want to challenge myself, but I want to expand my horizons and tackle worlds I wouldn't normally do. By doing so, you may unlock new and interesting worlds you may want to explore once again.

So by all means, write the stories you want to write. But it wouldn't hurt to consider certain opinions being expressed. That never really hurts.
 
Last edited:

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
I believe this is important, too. I'm not sure what this has with diversity though.

Not a single thing.

By way of example, one of my stories has a black character who is important to the story. The fact that he is black doesn't change the story at all. He could just as easily have been white or hispanic or native American, or whatever. Someone might ask "So why make him black?" But the only reason you'd ask that question is if you for some reason have decided that the default character in a fantasy story has to be white. One might just as easily ask "Why not make him black?"

There's no question that the demographic in fantasy novels is not reflective of the population. Some people may see that as a problem, some people may not. If you don't think it is worth considering, then just make that point and there's the end of your argument. But don't try to feed us this nonsense about tight writing and story and how you couldn't have a diverse cast without screwing all that up. It's complete BS and deserves to be pointed out as being so.

It seems to me that the idea of the straight, white character as the default has simply been ingrained in a lot of people, to the point that they can't think of not using a character like that unless they have some specific statement they want to make, at which point said character is trotted out to make the statement. That's a horrible way to view diversity in literature.
 

BWFoster78

Myth Weaver
You're telling me that you can't have the same story if one character is, say, black instead of white, or gay instead of straight?

I'm saying:

1. For my writing, I believe it's important that each element included in the story should have a story purpose. Don't insert a shotgun if you don't plan to use it. If there's no story reason for a character to be black or gay, I don't have them be black or gay.

2. As I stated before, when creating a fantasy world, society informs character. Adding additional societies means you need to do more world-building.

Instead of blanketly saying that these reason are "rationalizations" that "don't ring true," how about actually countering them? How are these not valid concerns?

We get that you couldn't care less about the issue, so just stick to that argument (though it makes me wonder why you posted in this thread).

I posted in this thread because:

1. I like arguing. It's entertaining, especially when people actually discuss issues like the exchange of ideas that Feo and I were having.

2. I'm interested for someone to explain why diversity should be important.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
1. For my writing, I believe it's important that each element included in the story should have a story purpose. Don't insert a shotgun if you don't plan to use it. If there's no story reason for a character to be black or gay, I don't have them be black or gay.

What's your "story purpose" for making them white?

I'm sorry, but that line of reasoning makes no sense. Of course it is a rationalization. You have the idea somehow entrenched in your mind that "white" is the default, neutral. It doesn't require a story reason, but if the same character were black it would require a story reason. You're telling me you can't see the problem with that logic?

Again, what's your "story purpose" for any given character being white?
 

Svrtnsse

Staff
Article Team
2. I'm interested for someone to explain why diversity should be important.

I believe diversity will support believability. Having a world where the diversity is done right will give the story more depth, making it more believable and supporting increased immersion.

I'm sure there are multitudes of exceptions to the above comment but it'll do as a quick blanket statement supporting diversity. Note the "done right" part.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
2. I'm interested for someone to explain why diversity should be important.

The better question is, why is homogeneity important to you? The world is diverse, and I find equal value in people across races, creeds, genders, sexual orientations, and the like. Diversity in fiction reflects reality. Your approach is the one that is artificial, so the question is why are other races, sexual orientations, and the like threatening enough (if they are) that you feel you have to create an artificially homogeneous cast for your story?
 
Top