Offensive mistakes writers make

[Nerds_feather]

Describing the color of everyone's skin struck me as an extreme solution.

A story would be tedious if every single time a new character appeared the author were to describe the color of their skin, just as it is tedious when an author tells the color of every single character's hair and eyes (it can look quite amateurish when I writer does this).

I read it as asking writers to not just describe the color of non-white characters' skin, which strikes me as quite fair. So in that sense "everyone" means white + non-white.

I don't think she literally means describe every character's skin tone. That would indeed be tedious.

Of course, it isn't just non-white characters who have their skin tone described, or described in terms of food. Mediterranean-European based characters are stock described as having "olive skin." This is my problem with the article--it reduces complexity.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

Sometimes skin tone is relevant to the story and has to be described. I faced the issue with my Gus and Iris. He was white and she was black - their colour and the way society behaved towards them play into the inciting incident and their reactions afterwards. I don't actively describe describe their skin colour beyond them pointing to a postcard in the window of the B&B Gus is staying in and Gus has to sneak Iris in. Oh and I mention Iris was born in the Caribbean.

Actually Iris is the only one of my MCs whose skin tone I do not directly describe - is that racism in itself?

Angus is pasty, Tim is olive, Joe is tanned, Ian also has olive like skin, Cece is porcelain pale and panics about looking like a tanned member of the lower classes.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Anya, these issues are cumulative. The problem isn't one specific book using one descriptor for skin color, but rather than over and over non-whites are marked, and marked through food metaphors. As I see it, anything that bucks that trend contributes to a diversity of approaches, through which the cumulative effect of the "normal way of doing things" is reduced. Someone else might feel otherwise, but I think doing it the way you describe (making Iris unmarked, rather than Gus) does contribute to a diversity of approaches.

 

[Ursa major]

I read it as asking writers to not just describe the color of non-white characters' skin, which strikes me as quite fair. So in that sense "everyone" means white + non-white.

That was the title, i.e. the problem being stated, not the solution.

I don't think she literally means describe every character's skin tone. That would indeed be tedious.

Of course, it isn't just non-white characters who have their skin tone described, or described in terms of food. Mediterranean-European based characters are stock described as having "olive skin." This is my problem with the article--it reduces complexity.

But some of us are complaining that a real problem has been identified, but only a silly solution provided. If there is a more nuanced (and less silly) solution, it would have been good to say what it was. (You could step in and help us on this. Or point us towards someone who can help.) But actually, I don't think there is an easy solution and an admission that there isn't would have been more sensible, perhaps with one or two useful (as opposed to tedious) suggestions added, describing some of the component parts of an workable (though not necessarily comprehensive) solution.

The "easiest" solution would be to describe no-one's skin colour; after all, it would lack the tediousness of the suggested solution. But it would have the major problem that the author might be accused of having only white characters (on the assumption that if no differences are mentioned, there can't be any). Mentioning nationality isn't enough, not now; and it was perhaps always a bit problematic outside communities deep in the countryside.

So what might contribute to a solution? Describing the "ethnic" features of a sample of the characters? I think that would only be confusing (and a potential minefield): which characters, and how are they to be described? Saying, when two characters are first met, that one has a lighter/darker complexion than the other?


I think what might be easier, assuming there are two or more of them (and their ethnicity isn't all shared), is having the different PoV characters describing what they would usually notice, i.e. people whose physical appearance is out of the ordinary to them. In that way, we wouldn't get everyone's, or no-one's, skin colour, but might cover the major differences without making it seem unnatural. But even with this, there's a huge problem. If a character lives in a cosmopolitan environment, they'd be used to just about anyone's physical appearance. Who would stand out? Why would they? Would it be because of their skin colour or something else (such as their clothing), something that may not reflect their ethnicity at all?


As an aside, I think I've mentioned some skin tones in my WiPs, but as none of the major characters are human (they're not even mammals) and their skin is, in most cases, more or less darker than olive, I've not really had to confront natural human diversity. (Thank goodness.)

 

[Phyrebrat]

I think Ursa's example/suggestion above is the most elegant and transparent. Teresa has already said how silly it would be to describe every character's complexion and I think she's right.

Up till now I have kept out of the skin tone discussion because it has seemed - to me at least - a little redundant. As someone whose social circle, work environment and partner is afro-caribbean, I would say this is being overthought. I constantly hear, and see, my friends, colleagues and kids describing their skin and other's with food comparisons. Whether it be sweet molasses, brown sugar, honey, cocoa, dark chocolate, caramel, and phrases such as 'the darker the berry, the sweeter the fruit.'

Soul music is littered with lyrics like this in a celebration of various skin tones;

Skin is caramel, with the cocoa eyes,
even got a big sister by the name of chocolate Thai.
Brown Sugar babe

(Brown Sugar, D'Angelo).

My point is you can argue it both ways. As KMQ says, some people will always find something to get upset about. And Teresa said something a year or so ago in an unrelated thread that 'taking offense is a choice'. I agree.

In London, I'm constantly referred to as 'safe' and 'Chris is black' and have my arm rubbed as if there is black under the white because of my engagement in West African and Caribbean culture. I often ask those kids and friends how they would feel if I reversed it and rubbed them, validating them as 'white'. And they always say, 'no, but it's different', or 'I mean it as a compliment.' I know that it is meant as a compliment. I know that it carries a certain sense of membership, but it is still a rather offensive appropriation of me, and diminishment of my Christopherness. Do I take offence? No.

Conversely, in Ghana they call me Akwesi Maanu (Akwesi meaning born on Sunday; Maanu, second son) which is a far more pleasant inclusion of me.

It works both ways.

The issue is many white people still have a deep rooted sense of fear of being called racist, or an issue with their own white guilt. I don't think that serves us as authors.

It's about intention and your own compass. If you feel you have treated a BME character superficially, then own it and change it. And if it comes down to whether someone from a different cultural capital takes offence at the way you have described a honey-skinned character in your story as honey-skinned, you have to take that criticsim or ignore it*. Are you ignorant, or aren't you? If you mindfully chose that word, then why are you worried?

Just be mindful! It's simple.

pH
* as in 'you're not black, you can't use that word, it's ours '

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I think what might be easier, assuming there are two or more of them (and their ethnicity isn't all shared), is having the different PoV characters describing what they would usually notice, i.e. people whose physical appearance is out of the ordinary to them.

Yes. But also, as I have said elsewhere, the best descriptions include those details that tell something important about the person in question (age, station in life, clues to personality) and/or how the viewpoint character reacts to them. So hair color, eye color, and/or skin color could be included if they were particularly striking, or if the POV character responds to this coloring in some way (distrust, curiosity, or attraction, for instance). Also if it is relevant to the plot in some way ( for instance, a character is shunned because his skin is blue not green, or the True King is recognized because he has his family's distinctive amber eyes and silvery-gold hair). But there are a zillion other details of description that can be more vivid, effective, and revealing.

We had that thread in the workshop where we were using physical descriptions as a way to reveal a character's personality, and I don't think most of the best descriptions mentioned coloring at all.

And Teresa said something a year or so ago in an unrelated thread that 'taking offense is a choice'.

It would be interesting to see in what context I said that. Certainly it may be a choice. But it can also be an instinctive emotional reaction to something.

 

[Nerds_feather]

In London, I'm constantly referred to as 'safe' and 'Chris is black' and have my arm rubbed as if there is black under the white because of my engagement in West African and Caribbean culture. I often ask those kids and friends how they would feel if I reversed it and rubbed them, validating them as 'white'. And they always say, 'no, but it's different', or 'I mean it as a compliment.' I know that it is meant as a compliment. I know that it carries a certain sense of membership, but it is still a rather offensive appropriation of me, and diminishment of my Christopherness. Do I take offence? No.

I think it's important to point out that whites have the privilege of not being offended, because, in the UK or US, they come from the dominant group in the society they live in. They don't have to think about it everyday, like others do, as something embedded into the structure of life (when applying for jobs, when trying to hire an apartment, when watching TV, when reading SF/F, etc.). Without suffering from structural or institutional prejudices, that means that, when whites do deal with being othered or stereotyped, they have the luxury of thinking about it in terms of their individual person and individual hurt feelings.

This is not comparable to the experience of someone included in social categories that are routinely stereotyped, othered and forced to always be "spokesperson" for everyone included in that category of persons.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that "white" = "racist" or "always wrong" or any reductionist crap like that. Nor am I saying that all assertions of offense are equally valid, or that the validity (or lack thereof) is solely predicated on the social circumstances of the person making the claim. Rather, I'm just saying that the perspective of someone from the dominant group and the perspective of someone from a marginalized group are not comparable--and we're all well served by trying to look at it from other perspectives than our own. There's a lot of stuff people from the dominant group don't even notice that are painful to people from marginalized groups. (Note: this is true everywhere in the world, not just in the West.)

(And if people are to be "less offended" by things, then surely that also includes people who think they have been accused of writing something racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.? Because that's also a form of taking offense.)

It's about intention and your own compass. If you feel you have treated a BME character superficially, then own it and change it.

I agree. And I think a large part of being able to do so is predicated on listening to the people who tell you something was offensive to them, and taking it to heart.

I see a contract at play: if Person B tells Person A they find something offensive, and is civil about it, Person A has a responsibility to at least listen and consider what Person B has to say--and why. If Person A does not, then--really--there was no reason for Person B to be civil about it. A lot of people I know who get uncivil about racism, sexism, homophobia and other forms of prejudice say that, when they were civil, they get ignored. This isn't my route in life--I try to be civil whenever I feel like I can have a dialogue--but I can understand where they are coming from.

In the end, as I believe KMQ said at some point in the not so distant past, it's all about empathy. Have it, practice it--and if you mess up (usually unintentionally), then learn from it.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

(And if people are to be "less offended" by things, then surely that also includes people who think they have been accused of writing something racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.? Because that's also a form of taking offense.)

Oh, absolutely. I have noticed that those who are the most dismissive when someone else says their toes are being stepped on often have the most sensitive feet themselves.

as I believe KMQ said at some point in the not so distant past, it's all about empathy.

I think I said that. KMQ said it was about good manners.

 

[Nerds_feather]

I think I said that. KMQ said it was about good manners.

It was in the (locked) unintentional prejudice thread. But regardless, you are both absolutely, 100% correct.

I think, whenever these kinds of conversations come around, empathy is key. I'm sure that, most of the time, offensive written things are unintentional. And I'm sure that, most of the time, when someone calls attention to it, they can and do recognize this. It never hurts to be explicit about either of those things.

 

[Kissmequick]

I think I said that. KMQ said it was about good manners.

And then I agreed with you about empathy and how it also goes with good writing I think a combo of the two is ideal.

A thing to also remember is that offence differs across cultures. What is not offensive in say North London would be as offensive as heck perhaps in Northern California. The food-for-skin thing is something I've not noted being a problem in the UK, but certainly can be in areas of the US (maybe it's happened more there? Or they have a different take on it?). Which doesn't make it less offensive to those Northern Californians.

And yeah, you can;t account for every place, but you can read as widely as possible in order to see what is a problem. Because if I relied on just the people I know locally IRL....yeah

A few years ago, I write a book about magical pirates. In it there was a country made up of lots of little islands. I called it the Confederacy. No probs, right? Only they had sort of magical slaves....and I never even thought about the connotations of that mix until a beta reader of mine (from the US) said, um, you know that might, um, raise some comparisons you don't want...you know, Confederates v Yankees and all....cue forehead slap. Obvious when they pointed it out. Other things I've needed explained to me -- I was utterly unaware for instance that portraying POC eating watermelon and fried chicken (I didn't do this, it was in relation to a book we were discussing) has been used as a derogatory stereotype for quite a while in the US and so doesn't go down too well. Kind of flummoxed me for a while until someone kindly explained.


None of which is a problem if say you're sure all your readers will be Brits. But it's as well to be aware of the different stereotypes that are encountered in different areas (even within the same country) rather than rely on just your own experience. And I think that's key -- other people's experiences may not match mine but that doesn't automatically make them less valid just because I haven't experienced it. One of my black customers swears blind he's never experienced a hint of racism, and yet the news reports today that 30% of the population admits to be racist to some degree. Which experience is right?

So, again, it comes down to good writing -- writing a believable character, making us believe that this guy has never experienced racism even though it's rife all around him. If you wrote that character well, I'd believe it.

And ofc there's the point that the better, more immersive your story is, the less people will pick at it. Because they are too busy enjoying it to nitpick (This won't save you from a major gaffe though!)

Just be mindful! It's simple.

Mindful and try to educate yourself too, I think. But yeah, simple. Ish Eh, if this was easy, we wouldn't be doing it, right?

I see a contract at play: if Person B tells Person A they find something offensive, and is civil about it, Person A has a responsibility to at least listen and consider what Person B has to say--and why. If Person A does not, then--really--there was no reason for Person B to be civil about it. A lot of people I know who get uncivil about racism, sexism, homophobia and other forms of prejudice say that, when they were civil, they get ignored

Yup. If you ask nicely, you get ignored. And then after months of asking nicely, you shout a bit because understandably you are fed up with this person standing on your feet all the time, and get told to mind your tone and they won't talk to people who shout. (Tone argument). That if you were just a bit nicer about it, a bit more you know, docile and did as you were told.... Basically you lose every time.

And sometimes, things are worth shouting about.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Ah, yes I see she did say it in that other thread.

I didn't remember seeing that, but in this thread I said that empathy was our stock in trade as writers.

We, more than anyone else, should be aware of these things.

I was utterly unaware for instance that portraying POC eating watermelon and fried chicken (I didn't do this, it was in relation to a book we were discussing) has been used as a derogatory stereotype for quite a while in the US and so doesn't go down too well.

It's possible that younger people in the US may not be aware of this either, since it's been years since I've seen that stereotype. But I remember a time when it was used frequently.

 

[Mirannan]

Ursa major - You've raised an interesting point about describing differences usually described as "racial" such as skin tone and perhaps degree of hair curliness, in settings where non-human sapients are present in significant numbers. I think it's logical that racial differences would be thought less important in such a setting; of course, humans are often not logical.

To take a recent example, Alan Dean Foster's Commonwealth milieu in which there are a significant number of thranx - who are very significantly non-human and in fact not even humanoid; they look (superficially at least) like human-sized insects who habitually walk on two of their six limbs. I would imagine that the difference between (random example) Japanese and Indians would seem less significant in comparison.

Fantasy settings, of course, often abound in non-human sapients. Although the most common (elves, dwarves and perhaps halflings) are quite similar in appearance to humans.

One more thing. In some settings, people of another race really might be undesirable for good reason. As an example, in the D&D setting drow and elves are similar enough to interbreed; but purebred drow are usually rather unpopular, for the very good reason that nearly all of them are moustache-twirlingly evil.

 

[Ursa major]

Yes. But also, as I have said elsewhere, the best descriptions include those details that tell something important about the person in question (age, station in life, clues to personality) and/or how the viewpoint character reacts to them. So hair color, eye color, and/or skin color could be included if they were particularly striking, or if the POV character responds to this coloring in some way (distrust, curiosity, or attraction, for instance). Also if it is relevant to the plot in some way ( for instance, a character is shunned because his skin is blue not green, or the True King is recognized because he has his family's distinctive amber eyes and silvery-gold hair). But there are a zillion other details of description that can be more vivid, effective, and revealing.

Definitely. I only wish I was better at it.

We had that thread in the workshop where we were using physical descriptions as a way to reveal a character's personality, and I don't think most of the best descriptions mentioned coloring at all.

I'll have to go look, and learn from where it's done well.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

purebred drow are usually rather unpopular, for the very good reason that nearly all of them are moustache-twirlingly evil.

I think non-human sapients make more interesting antagonists if instead of being evil they simply operate according to a different system of morality and ethics. If they have evolved differently, if they have slightly different biological imperatives, this would seem to be inevitable.

 

[Nerds_feather]

A thing to also remember is that offence differs across cultures. What is not offensive in say North London would be as offensive as heck perhaps in Northern California. The food-for-skin thing is something I've not noted being a problem in the UK, but certainly can be in areas of the US (maybe it's happened more there? Or they have a different take on it?). Which doesn't make it less offensive to those Northern Californians.

Ain't that the truth. In Jakarta, jokes based on ethnic stereotypes are used as ice breakers in a lot of conversations. They may still be sharp-edged (especially those aimed at persons from a small number of very marginalized ethnic groups), but for the most part, this brand of joking isn't viewed as terribly offensive

On the other hand, everyone knows not to joke about anyone's religion, because that's understood to be deeply, deeply offensive.

 

[End of Time]

I think it's important to point out that whites have the privilege of not being offended, because, in the UK or US, they come from the dominant group in the society they live in.

Let me guess... Tumblr logic: you can't be racist against whites, because racism is power + prejudice?

TumblrInAction: Actually Not That Bad

 

[j d worthington]

I think you might want to read the entirety of the post, as it makes that query rather obsolete, EOT.... While I disagree strongly with much said there, it is a much more nuanced situation NF is describing, as he attempts to make clear.


Now... given recent events, I'm going to make a moderator's request that we tread rather carefully here, folks. Debating the issue(s) is fine, but when a deliberately provocative approach is used, it is much more likely than usual to be frowned on, and therefore subject to intervention. Let's avoid such, shall we?

 

[Brian G Turner]

I think it's important to point out that whites have the privilege of not being offended, because, in the UK or US, they come from the dominant group in the society they live in.

This is completely untrue and has no basis in sociology - it is a simplification that stereotypes "white people" as all sharing the same economic striata and associated social benefits.

It overlooks so many issues of subculture, nationality, and individual status within such societies.

If we are going to have a serious discussion about prejudice, we cannot rely on errant definitions just because a minority of well-meaning white people on other websites think it will shrive them of their liberal white guilt.

Prejudice is a fact of any social group, through defining group identity. Urban cultures - not least Western - are especially complicated, as they are collections of cultural subgroups - traditional ties of kinship and tribe have often long been supplanted.

"White people" simply cannot be described as all enjoying a shared level of privilege any more than we can define all black people as "underprivileged" - status is unevenly distributed in any society and prejudice is both rampant and accepted in many societies, ironically as part of defining social status.

Heck, enjoyment of speculative fiction is often regarded as culturally subnormal by the "mainstream", and I can guarantee that the majority of active members on chronicles will have been subject to anything from patronising behaviour, at best, to systematic violence, intimidation, and humiliation.

More to the point, oppressive behaviour is still considered acceptable in the West, so long as it isn't overtly seen to be racist or sexist - we are encouraged to laugh at people over any characteristic that makes them struggle to find acceptance in society - instead, we being directed to look up to tall, faux-muscular archetypes, whose sole redeeming feature is the ability to dominate through physical prowess.

We are still living like apes, and aspire to animal qualities.

Now, the point of this thread is that if we really want to write well-developed characters from different social and cultural backgrounds to ourselves, then ideally we need to challenge our own social and cultural perceptions.

But if this thread is going to do little more than argue that Westerners should feel guilt for being born in the West, then I'm not going to consider that an acceptable discussion to have.

Now, a lot of good and interesting points have been made and for the most part this has been a good discussion. But it's skirting too close to an argument again, and I have no patience for that. If anyone wishes to make any summary points, they are welcome to, and then I'll close this thread so that we can get back to discussing SFF again.

 

[Coolhand]

I agree. And I think a large part of being able to do so is predicated on listening to the people who tell you something was offensive to them, and taking it to heart.

I see a contract at play: if Person B tells Person A they find something offensive, and is civil about it, Person A has a responsibility to at least listen and consider what Person B has to say--and why. If Person A does not, then--really--there was no reason for Person B to be civil about it. A lot of people I know who get uncivil about racism, sexism, homophobia and other forms of prejudice say that, when they were civil, they get ignored. This isn't my route in life--I try to be civil whenever I feel like I can have a dialogue--but I can understand where they are coming from.

I understand, and I empathise. I have a question as to how this relates to writers being taken to task by readers for perceived offensive mistakes they have made, as in the article originally highlighted in this thread.

Person B (a reader) tells Person A (a writer) they find something they have written offensive, and is civil about it, Person A has a responsibility to at least listen and consider what Person B has to say --and why.

I agree with that this is reasonable. My question is this.

If Person A does listen, considers Person B's statement and reasoning, and yet still decides that that their original artistic choices in their writing were still valid, and that person B's offence, whilst unfortunate, does not stem from what Person A considers to be reasonable position, or that the solutions being proposed are simply not artistically viable, how does the contact then apply to person B? How should person B proceed?

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I might be more sympathetic to white people if they told the truth about themselves and described themselves as pink.