Offensive mistakes writers make

[barrett1987]

Most of them? OK, so a quick look at the very first shlef on my wall. Anything by Cherryh, Pratchett, Bujold, Harkaway, Abnett, Tchaikovsky.

Having read Pratchett. I can instantly say he doesn't meet this.

In many stories, the color of a character’s skin will only be described when the character doesn’t have a fair complexion. This typically happens because the writer is white and subconsciously thinks of xir own skin color as the default and everyone else’s as the outliers. Even JK Rowling, whose books frequently focus on tolerance and equality, is guilty of this.

The solution is simple - just describe everyone’s complexion, and all will be well.

Or this

Written accents are offensive because they essentially tell the group whose accent is being written that “your way of talking is weird; my way is normal.”

Not only are written accents offensive to the group being represented, but they’re offensive to read because you have to spend extra time trying to sort out what the writer was trying to say.

If you want to write a character who is supposed to have an accent, use grammar and slang associated with people who have that accent. You could also just mention that they have an accent. But don’t butcher the spellings of the words. “He’s got himself in a right pickle, he has” is fine, but “‘E’s got ‘imself in a right pickle, ‘e ‘as” is not.


His monks of time borrow heavily from japanese cultures if memory serves me.


That's my point, no writer writes and doesn't break some of those silly rules the blog shows.

 

[Nerds_feather]

I have a "negro" whos's "magical" but probably not a "magical negro", because he doesn't dispense any wisdom, and he's a baddie. Hopefully he's balanced by the two other black characters, both on the side of good and a lot less magical (think I referred to them as "dark-skinned"). I frequently mention the paleness of my PC.
.

The point of the "magical negro" trope isn't to say you can't write black wizards, but rather that white writers often create black characters who serve no purpose other than pushing the white protagonist forward on his or her (but usually his) path, and this is often the ONLY black character (or the only sympathetic one). Native Americans, Asians and Roma are often used this way too.

Thus the solution isn't "never give a black character magical powers," but rather "don't create a black character whose sole purpose is to push the white protagonist along his/her way," or "do develop this character so that's not the only thing he/she does" or "do have other black characters who don't fit this mold." Sounds like your book is not problematic on this front.

One Eye in the Black Company books is a good example: he's black and a wizard, but he's not a "magical negro." He's a complex and interesting character who happens to be black and happens to have magical powers.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I didn't actually notice anything being presented as a rule in that article. Just a lot of issues brought up and suggestions of how to deal with them.

But barrett1987 are you dismissing everything in that article as silly? There is a difference between being heavy-handed in dealing with an issue (and I think the person who wrote that blog article is extremely heavy-handed at times) and writing nonsense.

 

[Kissmequick]

Having read Pratchett. I can instantly say he doesn't meet this.

I can;t see really where he doesn't

He uses grammar/word choice far more often than he uses "luvva duk". He describes white people and not white people in similar detail (and I can;t think of any food references)

The thing is, he writes people, vivid, vibrant characters so those other things? Fade into the background.

If a character is defined by being "sexy latino" then you're in trouble. If you have a fully rounded character who is subtle and complex and just happens to be sexy and latino, you'll be fine

Pratchett fleshes out his characters so well, cardboard cut out stereotypes they are not. The main monk of time may be based on certain thins, but he subverts a lot of the stereotypes and is a fully fleshed character in his own right. He is not just "mystical blokey" (ETA You could make a case for "Mystical blokey with an evil sense of humour plus other stuff"). He does stuff too, even if a lot is behind the scenes. The monks all have different personalities too, so it's not just one "this is a monk/Asian person". He's not relying on one stereotype to carry the whole thing (and ofc it's parody so the rules stretch - to a certain extent he is taking the pee out of writers who do the whole stereotype thing)

That is the difference, and that is what the original article was talking about -- not that latinos can't be sexy or whatever, but they should not be defined by that stereotype -- they should have more, much more to them.

Pratchett's characters always do. That's the whole point. Not that you can never write a sexy latino. But that she should be a real, vibrant, complicated person who just happens to be sexy and latino. Bonus points if other latinos are different to her.

 

[Nerds_feather]

True. And it's usually an accident when you step on someone's toes.

However, some people insist on running ahead of you, sticking their toes in your way to get stepped on, so they can then yell, "OW!" dramatically. It's not my inclination to avoid them, in those cases. They want to cry, give them something to cry about.

This was my point in that one thread that went south on us: most things that can offend in books are not intentional. I firmly believe this is the case, and it suggests that beta readers are super important.

For example, I had a beta reader for a story of mine pick up on a deeply problematic sentence on gender--one I simply had not thought about. Once he pointed out the problem, I was horrified, because it was genuinely offensive. It was completely unintentional, but I nevertheless did it because I wasn't looking at it with a woman's eyes. (Neither, of course, did my beta reader, but he did a better job of being empathetic than I did in this case.)

 

[barrett1987]

This sort of issue always has me on the side of 'nonsense'

I think there is genuine issues with racism etc in this world but this sort of thing covers it rather than reveals it. I can't say it enough... That article is tripe

I'll stop now though, my opinion on it are clear

 

[Ursa major]

I agree. And some of the writers I know who get things right are being oddly defensive in this thread. There are some people who handle these subjects with an utter lack of sensitivity. Why are people who are not guilty of that acting as though someone is putting them in the same category with those who are. This puzzles me.

I think you answered your own question a few sentences back:

I wouldn't say that the article was poorly worded so much as the fact that it was written from a very extreme viewpoint....

While it can be painful to do so, most good writers (good in terms of skill) will accept -- or, at least, consider -- comments that are meant to help them make their writing better. In effect, they will receive the comments and criticism in the spirit in which they were provided: solely to help the writer and the writing. (Pointing out errors of fact can be included in this.)

When the comments and criticism arrive in a different spirit, one where benefit to the writing is a distant second to pushing what is, in effect, a specific world view, and which may very well also bear an agenda, is it surprising that writers don't want to engage in it in the spirit with which it arrived? And while, in the example we're discussing, the blogger may have some reasonable points to make, their supposed solutions come from their worldview, not from a desire to create better writing. (And how can one know** how accurate and serious specific criticisms are when one suspects that their creator may have a view that's not entirely grounded in life as it is lived?) And I repeat an example I've already provided:

The solution is simple - just describe everyone’s complexion, and all will be well.

This is not a realistic, universal solution to any problem. It certainly wouldn't guarantee an improvement in the writing of anyone who took this advice on board. Taking it on board may well make the story worse.


** - Only be trying to look at them dispassionately, and/or seeking out someone sensible who may have more experience in the topic being critiqued.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I agree. And some of the writers I know who get things right are being oddly defensive in this thread. There are some people who handle these subjects with an utter lack of sensitivity. Why are people who are not guilty of that acting as though someone is putting them in the same category with those who are. This puzzles me.

Because we're all sensitive writers who worry about these things. Otherwise we wouldn't be on a forum, concerned about it. (I have no idea if I'm in the get-it-right-camp, I do know I'm in the worry-about-everything-I-write camp. )

I also write about the wee folks, I'm also from Ireland (sort of) - I'm not offended if anyone else does. Though I wince when they mangle the accent...

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

(I have no idea if I'm in the get-it-right-camp, I do know I'm in the worry-about-everything-I-write camp. )

Well of course I haven't read every bit of fiction that anyone here has produced, and for some people here I haven't read any of their writing. But I can say that I haven't noticed anyone here not doing it right.

When the comments and criticism arrive in a different spirit, one where benefit to the writing is a distant second to pushing what is, in effect, a specific world view, and which may very well also bear an agenda, is it surprising that writers don't want to engage in it in the spirit with which it arrived?

But we, on the other hand, can be better than that. We can present our arguments in a cool and reasonable fashion. We can look at something from both sides. We can control our tempers. (Well, not all the time. I know I'm not the best person here for that.) So why don't we?


.

 

[Kissmequick]

Oh, I've cocked up. Some if intentional(so doesn't worry me. How can a guy become enlightened if he was a paragon to start with?) but some not, and that's a fair call.

I shoulda thought about it harder

 

[Hex]

I guess the title of the post that suggests well-meaning writers make offensive mistakes tends to make some people who write and regard themselves as basically well-meaning twitch slightly.

As it happens, I am guilty of one of the things on her list. I have described a character's skin as "dark honey" because I thought it was kind of sexy and lovely (I wouldn't mind having mine described as 'cream-coloured' even if it's actually more 'persil-blue'). However, since it's offensive, I'll remove it and describe her skin as 'tan', which doesn't have the same lickability connotations at all (but I do describe characters' skin colours all the time, not just the ones that aren't persil-blue).

(ps: if we're 'liking' posts, I'd like to LIKE -- god that got confusing -- Ursa's post ^^ up there ^^)

EDIT @springs: Mmm. I think, like Anya said, it's perhaps a danger that people will be put off writing more diverse characters because of these perceived pitfalls. If I can describe a character with the same skin tone I have any way I like (within reason), then my default response is surely to stick to those kind of characters. Which is sad.

Also, if my character has just been out in the sun a lot, does that mean I can describe her skin by comparing it to honey...?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

But dark honey is much nicer and more specific. I've done loads of things on the list - I'm changing nothing on the back of it because I've done lots of things not on the list, too.

 

[Kissmequick]

I think it's less offensive and more annoying?

Which is just as good a reason to find a fresh way to say it.

 

[Ursa major]

But wouldn't it be better to take the high road and look more closely at the article for things that may be of value?

But how many such articles (or blogposts) -- which, as articles/blogposts, are not going to be specifically criticising anything written by those of us who are not published -- are we meant to read? How much ideological dross do we have to read through just in case there's the odd nugget or two of sense?

And if I was worried about my characters being stereotypical, would these be the kind or articles/blogposts I should read? I don't think so, because helping me and my writing isn't their primary purpose. (The Chrons and beta readers are there for that.)

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

So, you've just responded to something I've edited out while you were posting. However, I still stand by it.

To answer your question, we don't have to read through a lot of dross just in case there is a nugget of truth. But you did read that article, didn't you? You could have stopped the moment you decided there was too much agenda behind it to make it worth reading. No one said you had to read it, or keep on reading it if you thought it was unreasonable. But you did read it, and you did respond to it, and in doing so, shouldn't you try for more fairness than the blogger demonstrated. Because you are the better person? (And I do mean that sincerely.)

 

[Overread]

Are we perhaps getting too worked up over a single persons interpretation (blog) simply as it rocks the boat a bit?

You'll never remove all potential insult from a work, indeed to attempt to do so would be to dilute the fantasy and story to such a point as to leave almost nothing behind. Fantasy is a release from reality and whilst we, as writers and people, will each take our own steps toward ensuring that what we write is not open insult, I don't think its right nor proper to curtail fantasy to political correctness.


I think that having an awareness of how our characters, our descriptions and how we lay out a story is important; its very important in point of fact. We must be able to step back from our work and try to see the interpretations that might be drawn from what we've written. Indeed writers use editors and proof readers to in part achieve this very goal. To gain an understanding in how our work is read; and in that how we might adapt how we describe or our use of words. I don't think we should change our characters, nor our stories - no - but we can change our language, the focus of our description and our understanding of sensitive topics to give a more worldly view.

I think we must also have faith in our readers, a faith that they will read fantasy within the context of fantasy and not seek to twist our works to their own ends.




In the end its a complicated issue, one to be aware of, one to keep in mind, but I'd not use it as a source of pure structure for a story. To curtail a story before it can even begin is a crime in my view.

 

[Ursa major]

To answer your question, we don't have to read through a lot of dross just in case there is a nugget of truth. But you did read that article, didn't you? You could have stopped the moment you decided there was too much agenda behind it to make it worth reading. No one said you had to read it, or keep on reading it if you thought it was unreasonable. But you did read it, and you did respond to it, and in doing so, shouldn't you try for more fairness than the blogger demonstrated.

I only read it through because it was linked to from here by someone I know isn't into pushing strange viewpoints. Otherwise I'd have stopped reading much earlier. And I certainly wouldn't have gone searching for it or anything like it.


To be fair to this article, the balance of obvious nuggets to obvious dross wasn't too bad. But the obvious dross did make me worry about the validity of that which was not obviously dross or nugget. Frankly, I'd far rather someone without an agenda be the source of what I need to improve my writing in this area.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Hmm...general comment: a lot of the criticisms, like the one about describing skin color through food metaphors, isn't really about the act of one person doing it once; it's about the cumulative effect of lots of people doing it a lot, and only doing it for non-white characters.

Context of using "dark honey" or "olive" thus changes a bit if you insert a "cream" or "milk-colored" in there.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Frankly, I'd far rather someone without an agenda be the source of what I need to improve my writing in this area.

I agree. Or ... well, everyone has some sort of agenda, but I'd prefer to use a source where the agenda didn't seem to be driving the article. In my opinion, much of that article was driven by an agenda, but having tortured myself by reading it, I did feel I ought to think about those things that made sense to me, or that I agreed with in principle.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Frankly, I'd far rather someone without an agenda be the source of what I need to improve my writing in this area.

I know what you mean--ideologically motivated--and I agree that the blog post was sloppy at points, but I don't see much evidence for a sinister-sounding "agenda" (unless we define "agenda" in terms of "having strong views and articulating them in public.")

Some tweets in this storify, where she's relating/endorsing comments made by YA authors on a panel, show she's got a pretty upbeat attitude, and seems to agree with a lot of the comments here:

Paraphrasing, but the panel agreed even though upsetting people is inevitable, that doesn't mean you shouldn't try. #RT14 #diversity

Make your characters 3-dimensional. Go the extra mile to show the whole person, good and bad to help avoid stereotypes. @cjomololu #RT14


To represent anything other than what you are, treat them like people, NOT an issue/token. @bethrevis #RT14 #diversity

If you're writing outside your experience, you need to find someone who a part of that community. - @cjomololu #RT14

"It's important to do a lot of research on your own in terms of reading. Don't just stop at Wikipedia-go to your library." -@malindalo #RT14

"If you're going to use Wikipedia, go to the source material." - @LydiaYKang

Make the story personal. Not every minority has the same experience. @cjomololu #RT14 #diversity

I mean, this is all sensible advice, right?