Racism!

[Beef]

Okay, this is quite a serious one, so bear with me.


I am just rounding off a first draft of my first novel. It deals quite heavily in such lovely themes as racism, dehumanisation and structured genocide, and since these topics are quite contentious, I'm eager to get some outside perspective.


A little background. The book is set several hundred years into a future where society has stratified to the extent that humanity has diverged into two camps: an aristocracy, who live in floating palaces, and an underclass who live in abject poverty in the city below. The aristocrats have technologies which allow them to look pretty much as they like, while the proletariats are subject to an earth that is quite a terrible place to live, because of overpopulation, climate change, terrible underemployment, and so on. And so, being subject to two different environments, and not breeding with one another, they've begun to diverge, taking the first steps to becoming two seperate species (like the Eloi and the Morlocks in HG Well's 'The Time Machine'.)


The former are deathly afraid of the latter, and so spend a great deal of time brutalising them, shipping them out to prison vessels (one of which is the location of most of the action of the book), and talking to each other as though this state of affairs is unavoidable.


Now, at the moment, this is something of a balancing act. The society is racist, but the characters (especially the main one) are blind to it. But at the same time I don't want everyone to be completely unsympathetic and evil. They're not evil (at least, I don't think they are), they are just trapped in a broken system. I worry a little that the reader will simply dismiss the main character as completely unlikeable and stop reading. But at the same time, I don't want to be preachy. I don't want to be all 'racism is bad' because that's not a very interesting message.


This all probably sounds quite dark, but it's not the really dark stuff that interests me. It's the stuff that enables the really dark stuff to happen. It's the way people sometimes talk to each other when they're talking about whole groups of people, and they dehumanise them and call them monkeys or rats or leeches or parasites or vermin, and it's just so utterly casual. It's said in a jokey-joke banterish way. I get a lot of wisdom imparted to me when i'm at work: gypsies don't wash, black people will rob you, people on benefits are scrounging, muslims beat their wives, and so forth. I feel like i'm complicit in it for not standing up and going “That is a terrible thing to say, and you have earned my dissent!”



And so i'm questioning myself a little. There are a lot of 'what ifs'. What if the tone is wrong? What if people think i'm an apologist for racism? What if it comes across too preachy? What if someone who's been on the receiving end of this sort of thing reads my stuff and is quite upset by it? What if people go away from reading the book thinking 'racism is just great and those characters were all model citizens'? Am I just asking for trouble by having comic relief in this book?


….thoughts?

 

[Glen]

Interesting question, and a difficult topic.

It's ok to tackle the subject. Why not? As you've described racism is a part of our society. But I think you do need to tackle it head on. It sounds like you don't really want to take a stand one way or the other for fear of putting off readers.

I worry a little that the reader will simply dismiss the main character as completely unlikeable and stop reading. But at the same time, I don't want to be preachy. I don't want to be all 'racism is bad' because that's not a very interesting message.

I reckon some readers might also be turned off if they thought the author was ambivalent about the subject. Not only from a political point of view. It might also seem that the writing itself is too passive, without thought or perspective.

If you want the main character to remain blind to the raciscm...

The society is racist, but the characters (especially the main one) are blind to it.

...then maybe you could introduce another character who can do some questioning. 'Gee, I don't know, have you ever thought that it might not be right for us to impoverish all those folk, call them names and ship them off to penal colonies for no good reason...'.

 

[Abernovo]

It takes a long time for a species to evolve. What might be more believable is cultural differences and environmental factors altering appearance, cf. rickets, and the prevalence of TB in social subsets.

As a scenario, that might be enough of an analogy to refer to racism. However, direct racism would be a bit more worrisome for me. This is in the future. Was there a racial barrier to initial entry into the floating cities? If so, why? Despite the rise of some despicable groups, much of modern society is slowly moving towards a better mixture. Britain has a high level of mixed race couples and children. I can't see that being reversed. I'd certainly hope not, for purely selfish reasons.

The idea of underclass and 'overlords' would be more believable, I think, and would lend itself to more subtlety.

One thing did flag itself up to me as a risk.

The society is racist, but the characters (especially the main one) are blind to it.

Presumably, if the MC is blind to the prejudice, s/he is one of the 'overlords' in the flying cities. If you then have him changing society and helping the people below, you risk going into the 'great white saviour of the helpless savages' trope. Even if you decide to be subtle about the race aspects, this will raise hackles. But, if you are careful to avoid his/her awakening to the horror and determination to change things there are perhaps ways around it.
Sorry to be a little negative. Your idea is a decent one. It just needs to be worked carefully, which you obviously know. I'm, hopefully, just pointing out potholes, so that you can drive around them.

As to worrying about the subject matter and humour and the MC's likeability, don't worry too much. So long as the characters are rounded, having both good and bad qualities, you can take the reader with them. Racism and inequality is a fair topic, and humour can alleviate the darkness. But, as Glen says, make the reader question assumptions.

 

[Boneman]

Of course Prince Siddharta grew up in an incredibly privileged position, spending 29 years with everything provided for him, shielded from the suffering of others outside his palace... You could always do the same with your MC - I'm certain in your society that it would be quite justified by the 'haves' against the 'have-nots'. Is there a mutual dependency? Do the upper class need the lower class (for want of a better description) to provide food, clothing, or menial tasks? Do the lower class need the upper for medicine, weather control etc?

In a fantasy fictional setting, millenia in the future (even if it is Earth) only those who don't understand the meaning of the word fiction would gripe at your world. If you made the upper class blue and the underclass red with yellow spots someone would say this is racist apologism, and vice versa. I'd say don't worry about it, but finish it, put it aside for a few months and do something else and then (with the concerns you're expressing here) look at it again. If you're really worried about racism, then get the opinions of as many people (of all colours) as you can. I can guarantee there will be differing opinions.

Look at 1984, if you want to see a world that is divided by race (although you only ever see prisoners of the enemy being marched away), where the main opponent is Eurasia, mainly the African continent and beyond. I can't recall (though I didn't like the book myself, so paid little attention) George Orwell being accused of racism, mainly because the focus was on his MC, who had no choice but to live within his class and society.

You could always run it past Requires hate...

 

[Brian G Turner]

If you're going to specifically write about any topic, then ensure you understand something of the subject - do some reading about it and ensure you understand something of the subject that you intend to use.

There are some shrill people online who make a lot of noise on the subject, who are going to throw out accusations of prejudice for no other reason than the writer being a white male heterosexual (being female is only marginally less worse to them). Usually it's diversionary and hypocritical anyway. The simple approach is to ensure you don't blunder into any obvious mistakes that can be used.

This is all a point about the difference between good writing vs sloppy writing more than anything, though - know the subjects you are writing about.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Here's a post I'm reading this morning:
http://alltheworldsbooks.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/game-of-thorns-or-this-partially-being.html

An excellent quote to be aware of:

the racism while visible, isn't overt - unless one is not a white European

 

[chrispenycate]

With human genetic diversity (even in small, isolated groups) a few centuries will not be enough to divide into species. Only the rich and powerful editing their offsprings' genetic information to remove unwanted recessives, and enhance immune systems (probably the best way of avoiding 'inferior' genetic material getting into the 'true' race; make your daughters detect outside sperm as 'foreign material, possibly infectious'. and intelligence. Wisdom, unfortunately, does not appear to be genetic, but problem solving is.

The trouble is, by any present testing system, the upper class would be superior; is it still racism looking down on beings below you? Could the superior beings claim they were preventing a 'marching morons' scenario? A little bit of careful placement of your arguments the situation could end up a lot more nuance, ie. capable of taking more depth; oh, certainly it would be better if they didn't have to live like that, but they breed like bacteria and would drag everything down to their level…

 

[Toby Frost]

I think Brian is right.

As a further point, your aim here is to tell a story that works rather than to give a moral lesson. Even books that do have a clear moral point have to have the framework of a good story on which to hang the lesson. Readers will be jarred out of the story - and hence it won't work half as well - if they feel they're being preached at or addressed by someone who hasn't done the research, which is why Brian's point about knowledge is so important.

You ask about comic relief: there's no reason why not so long as it's done well. The subject doesn't demand continual hand-wringing. It's also worth pointing out that a good book about this sort of thing won't separate people cleanly into goodies and baddies: many otherwise decent people will come out with all kinds of stuff if a certain irrational prejudice is prompted, which makes them flawed, but not villains. But then you're probably aware of that.

 

[Sapheron]

It should start with the characters. They have personalities, memories and so on, like a real person. What are their opinions of the racism? These should be what is portrayed in the book and what the reader comes into contact with. If done correctly, no one should judge you for it. The Shire was a very xenophobic place, even people from 'the next valley' were regarded as dodgy folks, but I didn't take that to mean that Tolkien hated everyone who lived more than an hour's drive away from him, because that would be a ridiculous jump of logic.

I firmly believe you should only ever avoid a subject because you couldn't write it well; in which case you are only avoiding it until you can. I think the same can be said for humour as well. The only joke that shouldn't be told is one that isn't funny.

 

[Nerds_feather]

"Racism is bad" is only an uninteresting message if it's done in a trite and cliche way--and then it's uninteresting because the writing is uninteresting, not because the message is uninteresting. Racism is bad. It's very, very bad, and it's very much a part of life in the world today, and the modern era more generally (before that there were no concepts of "race," though there were plenty of other biases and prejudices).

 

[Nerds_feather]

Here's a post I'm reading this morning:
http://alltheworldsbooks.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/game-of-thorns-or-this-partially-being.html

An excellent quote to be aware of:

That's one hell of a review! Way too much for me to digest in one go, though I did make it through the preamble. Very thought-provoking.

I've noticed Lawrence posts on here; curious what his response to that review would be.

 

[MstrTal]

I know you said that the Up-Dwellers and the Bottom-Dwellers are starting to slowly become two different species but I will be honest I took something different away from your post. It seems, to me, you are writing something a little less race oriented and more class/socioeconomic prejudiced based. The Haves vrs the Have Nots. I mean just because the powers that be use derogatory and racial sounding language to belittle and degrade those that have nothing or next to nothing does not inherently make it about race.

With a little tweaking you could shift the focus slightly so the emphasis seems less based on genetics of skin and more on class. It would still be an "Us versus Them" scenario. It would also resonate with the current global climate. . . possibly.

 

[Grimmond]

I have to agree. "Racism is bad" is a boring message. For the last 50 years it's been beaten into everyone repeatedly. It's permeates everything: movies, TV, literature, and the news. Whenever someone is about to make a comment about a race issue, it's always qualified with some form of "I'm not a racist". Considering the primary consumers of science fiction are white males, most of them (us?) don't like to constantly be reminded that they're history's racist bad guys.

By all means, make a story with racist characters. Make them horrible people. It makes for a richer setting. If your main characters are blind to it, that's fine. Likable people (and characters) don't usually put other people down, they maintain neutrality. But the second your characters challenge the racists's beliefs, you start crossing into the preachy zone. I'm not saying it's wrong to do so, just that it's crossing into the preachy zone (see, there's my I'm-not-a-racist qualifier).

I'd say, make the setting racist. Make your main characters indifferent. But if your story's resolution involves swaying the opinions of the racists to non-racism, it's probably not possible without getting preachy.

 

[Brian G Turner]

That's one hell of a review! Way too much for me to digest in one go, though I did make it through the preamble. Very thought-provoking.

I've noticed Lawrence posts on here; curious what his response to that review would be.

I read it all - very long, but with moments of great literary analysis in general that I think can be applied widely in the genre as well.

However, there is a clear bias against Lawrence, evidenced by the fact the writer will not say "Jorg" but "Avatar Jorg", therefore implying he's a wish fulfillment for Lawrence.

I think he noticed the general shtstorm when published.

it's very much a part of life in the world today, and the modern era more generally (before that there were no concepts of "race," though there were plenty of other biases and prejudices).

Indeed, I've noticed that in my research of the ancient world, and just got Frank Snowden's "Before Colour Prejudice" about the subject.

 

[Toby Frost]

I agree, this does sound increasingly like an entrenched class issue rather than a race one. But then, as the original post says, the set-up is somewhat like that of The Time Machine, which was just that.

As far as "Racism is bad" is concerned, it's a worthy message, but a dull one, and one which misses the complexities around the idea. It runs the risk of turning the story into one with only pure goodies and baddies, as opposed to including the complex range of viewpoints you get in real life. Just as one can shut down a discussion by saying "Your argument is racist" - which effectively means that it's totally invalid, rather than flawed - one can turn a character flat by making him "a racist" and hence a straight-up villain. Both seem simplistic.

 

[Beef]

Wow, thanks for your contributions people. Some I've already incorporated, albiet unconsciously (the need for a character that challenges everyones worldview), some I hadn't considered at all. This is quite a lot to chew over, and as Boneman suggested I might have to come back with a fresh pair of eyes after the thing is written.

I've taken a look at the Lawrenson review. I haven't read the book in question, but it seems as thought a lot of the complaints raised could easily be applied to the book I'm writing. I think the problem (if it is a problem) stems from the perspective.
If you're writing in first person or third person limited (which I am), and a racist character comes across someone from another race, the description is going to be coloured by the prejudices of the describer. The main emotions that the character is going to feel are fear, revulsion, etc. They would be fascinated with physical differences, and so they'll be a lot of descriptions of noses/eyes/skin/hair being 'too' big/small/coarse/smooth/dark/pale. So it's the narrator's prejudices than are being described here, really, rather than the physical qualities of the 'other'.
I can see 'Avatar Jorg' syndrome rearing its head again!


The other questions are matters of fact, and therefore hopefully a little more easily answered. They stem from the plausibility of the whole thing; so if there are any evolutionary biology people present, here's your chance to help me out a great deal
I had a very rough idea for a future history:

~2100 some semi-cataclysmic global event occurs (I had in mind something linked with climate change, but since the earth is only referred to in a few flashbacks, it could be anything). This event changes the environment for those exposed to it (the lower classes). There'd be a great deal more UV exposure. The weather would change a great deal. Birth and death rates would soar, the infrastructure would collapse; there'd be no more education, roads, sanitation, or any of that other good stuff the Romans did for us.

~2700 the novel is set.

Now, in evolutionary terms, would that be enough time for one branch of the species to really change physiologically? If they are exposed to a higher amount of ultraviolet light, for example, how many generations would it take for the size and shape of the eye to change?

They don't have to become an entirely seperate species during that time, they just enough so that some of my characters can plausibly argue that such a seperation is unvoidable, for their own ends.


Cheers!

 

[Beef]

As far as "Racism is bad" is concerned, it's a worthy message, but a dull one, and one which misses the complexities around the idea. It runs the risk of turning the story into one with only pure goodies and baddies, as opposed to including the complex range of viewpoints you get in real life. Just as one can shut down a discussion by saying "Your argument is racist" - which effectively means that it's totally invalid, rather than flawed - one can turn a character flat by making him "a racist" and hence a straight-up villain. Both seem simplistic.

I agree, wholeheartedly.

 

[Nerds_feather]

I read it all - very long, but with moments of great literary analysis in general that I think can be applied widely in the genre as well.

However, there is a clear bias against Lawrence, evidenced by the fact the writer will not say "Jorg" but "Avatar Jorg", therefore implying he's a wish fulfillment for Lawrence.

I think he noticed the general shtstorm when published.

I read the term "Avatar Jorg" as related to gamer metaphor. I know Edwards on twitter, so I could always ask him.

Btw, I think this review deserves a dedicated thread...I'll go start one.

Indeed, I've noticed that in my research of the ancient world, and just got Frank Snowden's "Before Colour Prejudice" about the subject.

Yup. Lots of other prejudices in the ancient world, but "race" would have been an alien concept. Generally speaking, all the things we think of as "primordial" are really socially or historically constructed (sometimes quickly, but more often over centuries): race, ethnicity, nationality, etc. The two constants are the tendency of people to categorize themselves and others in terms of social groups, and the tendency of people to express prejudices based on that.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I would also strongly suggest that economic prejudice is a major driving force for discrimination.

History is all about the rich exploiting the poor.

In more modern times, the poor can become the rich. The rich seek to protect their status, their privilege, against any up coming poor who could take that from them.

We see this especially with immigrants who are seen as poorer and seeking to take our jobs (so that we become poorer) and this is easily interpreted in recent times in terms of skin colour because of migrations from across the Commonwealth into Britain (for the UK) or the emancipation of the slaves (in the US).

I'm not going to push the idea too much because I don't know the subject well enough.

In Roman times economic prejudice was the norm because the Roman Empire was a class-based society: noble, citizen, ally, subject, slave.

I know Edwards on twitter

I would love to have him as a beta reader. No, seriously.