LA Times article on diversity in SF/F

[Nerds_feather]

Thought it was an interesting read. Basic premise: SF/F is more inclusive than it used to be, which isn't a huge revelation, but there are also a lot of interesting quotes from NK Jemisin, Saladin Ahmed and others that demonstrate exactly what's changed (i.e. books with non-white protagonists not getting images of white people on the cover anymore).

The article also takes a "how far have we come" stance, rather than a "how far do we still need to go" one. To be honest, I'm not sure how I feel about that.

Thoughts?

 

[Brian G Turner]

The article also takes a "how far have we come" stance, rather than a "how far do we still need to go" one.

A refreshing article - thanks for posting.

 

[svalbard]

Good article. The first time I came across non-white characters central to a story were in Hugh Cook's Warwolf and the Walrus. That was in the late 80s early 90s. You see diversity more often now days in SF/F writings.

 

[Abernovo]

Interesting article. Why are you not sure about positive reinforcement, NF? It's a good way of encouraging continued progress. We should call out when we see not enough being done, but we should also praise the publishers and authors that are getting things right.

People will soon notice who is getting praise and who is getting criticism. There is still a way to go, and we shouldn't let up pushing towards it, but if we want to see a better representation of people from all backgrounds in sff, we should say 'more of this' when it's done right.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Yes, that's a good one. SF is in many ways ahead of the game - yet still gets mightily slagged off by literati. Go figure.

 

[Ursa major]

Yes, that's a good one. SF is in many ways ahead of the game - yet still gets mightily slagged off by literati. Go figure.

To be somewhat simplistic about it.... Things done in the name of Art (note the capital A) are often given extra leeway, if not a free pass. To do otherwise would be to indulge in censorship** (which can often be extended to include the refusing of public subsidy to anything an Artist produces). The guardians of Art don't consider SF to be art - in writing, only the genre of Literature is Art - so it is not similarly protected from criticism.


** - Note the calls of "Censorship!" by the those "dinosaurs" writing in the SFWA Bulletin.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Interesting article. Why are you not sure about positive reinforcement, NF? It's a good way of encouraging continued progress. We should call out when we see not enough being done, but we should also praise the publishers and authors that are getting things right.

People will soon notice who is getting praise and who is getting criticism. There is still a way to go, and we shouldn't let up pushing towards it, but if we want to see a better representation of people from all backgrounds in sff, we should say 'more of this' when it's done right.

No, I agree. When things change for the better, it's important to call attention to it. In life, I believe in a balance between positive reinforcement and criticism.

I have no problem with a generally positive take on the situation, especially if it inspires people who may have felt excluded to join the conversation, so to speak.

The thing that bothered me, though, was that there was zero mention of continued issues. It's standard journalistic practice to include such an addendum, and I think the absence of it can give the wrong impression of where the genre stands on these issues.

I also felt the article could have included more on the "why/how" side of things. Why is SF/F suddenly more open than it used to be? How did that happen?

 

[Connavar]

Why is SFF suddenly more open ? Its easy to understand there are more authors that are not from the same background as before. Writers named Ahmed will not write about yet another fantasy medevil england story.

Its the authors that make it more different, open for the readers. The publishers dont often care.

Its a nice article that make me glad there are many authors that dont write about the same old perspective as before.


“You don’t have to be Eurocentric to make it to the future,” said Andrea Hairston, a professor of theater and Afro-American studies at Smith College in Massachusetts, whose side gig happens to be writing award-winning science fiction. “We have to figure out how to be different together. [And t]hat is what storytelling is all about, particularly the mythological storytelling that we do.”


Thats the promising, good thing.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Why is SFF suddenly more open ? Its easy to understand there are more authors that are not from the same background as before. Writers named Ahmed will not write about yet another fantasy medevil england story.

Its the authors that make it more different, open for the readers. The publishers dont often care.

That is true, but it's more effect that cause. I want to know why now and not 10 years ago or 10 years from now? I don't think the publishers care all that much if they are publishing X or Y--just that it sells. But they are viewing certain things (publishing Arabian-based fantasy by a guy named Ahmed, putting non-whites on the cover of YA novels, etc.) as non-risky when not too long ago they clearly viewed them as very risky. What changed in the environment? I wanted to see more of that.

Its a nice article that make me glad there are many authors that dont write about the same old perspective as before.


“You don’t have to be Eurocentric to make it to the future,” said Andrea Hairston, a professor of theater and Afro-American studies at Smith College in Massachusetts, whose side gig happens to be writing award-winning science fiction. “We have to figure out how to be different together. [And t]hat is what storytelling is all about, particularly the mythological storytelling that we do.”


Thats the promising, good thing.

Agreed!

 

[Abernovo]

The thing that bothered me, though, was that there was zero mention of continued issues. It's standard journalistic practice to include such an addendum, and I think the absence of it can give the wrong impression of where the genre stands on these issues.

Oh, I'd agree, they could have put an addendum in. One sentence of 'of course there's still progress to be made, so come join the party' would have sufficed, I think. However, it was nice to see a positive take, as the always-negative press can turn people away, as much as bad practice in the industry. I think we're on the same page.
(Sorry if my first post was a little bullish, by the way. It was one of those days. )

That is true, but it's more effect that cause. I want to know why now and not 10 years ago or 10 years from now? I don't think the publishers care all that much if they are publishing X or Y--just that it sells. But they are viewing certain things (publishing Arabian-based fantasy by a guy named Ahmed, putting non-whites on the cover of YA novels, etc.) as non-risky when not too long ago they clearly viewed them as very risky. What changed in the environment? I wanted to see more of that.

I suspect that's a whole other article, NF, in terms of the details you could get into. I agree there was room, in this article, to say that the publishing industry has become more diverse, which probably leads to more opportunities. Again, it would only have taken a sentence or two. Still, I think this is a start. I saw Saladin Ahmed was talking about it, as well.

As to the timing, there's always been a mix of writers in sff, but it's been a hidden situation. Now that's an article possibility for Brian's front page.

 

[Connavar]

That is true, but it's more effect that cause. I want to know why now and not 10 years ago or 10 years from now? I don't think the publishers care all that much if they are publishing X or Y--just that it sells. But they are viewing certain things (publishing Arabian-based fantasy by a guy named Ahmed, putting non-whites on the cover of YA novels, etc.) as non-risky when not too long ago they clearly viewed them as very risky. What changed in the environment? I wanted to see more of that.



Agreed!

The multicultural western world, the globilization must show in economic terms for publishers there are readers from all around the world in this part of the world so there is no risk in publishing different, minority SFF because that might appeal to some readers and potentially new readers. Readers like me will desperately pay for African dystopian SFF that ends up winning World Fantasy award.

There must be a comination of that and more authors that work in other fields like writing SFF books and new generation authors with different background. The publishers cant choose to publish Arabian SFF if there is no author writing from that perspective 10 years ago.

Several of the Afro-American authors mentioned in the article for example worked first in other fields before writing fiction, SFF.

 

[Michael01]

It's nice to see it's getting more inclusive. I'd just like to ask, though, while publishers thought things like that were risky, SF stories themselves have tended to be a little bit ahead of others on inclusiveness, anyway, right? Even in TV...Lt. Uhura on Star Trek, Cisco on DS9, female captain for Voyager, etc. (although Voyager and DS9 were in the 90s, so maybe they don't count). Odd...all of my examples are Star Trek and only one of them from way back. Anyone know of more examples?