If white people were described like people of colour in books

[Kerrybuchanan]

I don't understand why you would do that though? Surely there would be local variations in skin colour? Why would it be such a problem to describe the actual colour of someones skin?

If I was writing a story that only featured a white english cast there would still be variation at an individual level - some people paler while some are more tanned?

I am not trying to start any sort of inflammatory discussion or focus this thread around me - I am just generally interested? You are trying very hard to NOT describe skin colour - but to what end, does this improve the story?

I am generally interested in your opinion here and am not trying to rub off my world view into the thread.

EDIT: Another question - if you set this in Yorkshire or Northern Ireland would you then not describe colour? It seems like a crucial part of someones physicality - I assume you would not shy away from depicting someone weight or eye colour?

I am looking to educate myself on this minefield of a topic.

No offence taken! I'm only really having trouble with this particular story, because I've made the mistake of setting it in a geographical area of which I have no first hand experience. It makes me unsure of myself.

My main novel is set in Britain in the Dark Ages (okay, I don't have first hand experience of that either, but then neither does anyone else currently alive!), where the majority of the population would be white but there are still a lot of Roman Empire folks rattling around too, who would probably have different skin colours. I might mention a Mediterranean cast to features if I really need to, but mostly I am using language, dress and attitude to distinguish between them. This isn't a conscious effort to be PC -- it had never crossed my mind until these threads began -- but just that I don't really see skin colour as representative of someone's origins as much as their habits, language, prejudices etc.

If I set this in Yorkshire or NI, I doubt anything would change. I've dozens of short stories set in these places and I don't recall using skin colour much at all. I rushed off a short for the PSekrit Psummer Pstory for @Phyrebrat, who had missed out on receiving one, and I think I used skin colour in it (can't actually remember), but that would be the exception rather than the rule. Besides, it was set in the 1970s when skin colour would have been freely discussed everywhere, so it would have fitted the era.

I'm not saying I don't use skin colour at all, and yes, I might say someone was pale, or their skin had a grey tinge, if I was trying to suggest illness or blood loss, just as I might say their lips were blue. It's nothing to do with skin colour as related to race. I do use eyes a lot, however (probably far too much). I will describe their colour, but I also use them for expression of mood. They crinkle in amusement or darken with pain, and they fill with tears. I like eyes! I don't shy away from weight either, but I wouldn't usually call a character fat or thin; I'd be more likely to mention long, slender fingers, or imply overweight by saying how much someone puffs for breath as they climb a hill, or the way they hitch up their trousers all the time. I like to leave as much as possible to the reader's imagination, just giving hints every so often.

I'm on a steep learning curve with all this writing, but it's such a ride -- like a roller coaster. I get it wrong a lot, but we earn by making mistakes.

 

[Brian G Turner]

My main novel is set in Britain in the Dark Ages

This leads us into another interesting issue - how to apply discrimination in an historical setting.

Everything I've read suggests that discrimination has primarily been driven by social status, which in itself has often been linked to economic status. For example, in the Roman Empire there was the nobility, free men, then slaves, and each would look down on the strata below them.

Skin colour was irrelevant - all that mattered was if you were connected to a noble family, or free. Slaves were always discriminated against, but the word "slave" is apparently a corruption of "Slav" as in the Slavic peoples of Eastern Europe, who were the traditional historical source for Roman slaves.

Skin colour might be remarked upon, but only in the same way a modern regional accent is - it shows a place of origin, but does not determine social class, and so generated no other comment.

However, the distinction of the Roman Empire is that it was a huge geographic entity, so anyone within was inclusively Roman. Once you step outside of that you enter a world of different cultures seeing themselves as superior - the Ancient Greeks are famed for their use of the term "barbaroi" as in "barbarian" to denote other cultures as uncivilised. But, again, it's not discrimination based on skin colour, but the presumption that being Greek was the highest social status a person could be. Further distinctions by economic class follow.

By the time you reach the period of the British Empire you have a similar effect in play - but because the world is much more open skin colour can now become an indicator of social status. The British were clearly white people, so anyone else wasn't British and therefore not equally civilised.

As a point of note, slavery was abolished within Britain in 1102 by Bishop Anselm. Supposedly, the new Norman nobility were happy to support it because although slavery wasn't rife - around 10% of the population - it was cheaper to hire temporary labour than have to pay for the upkeep of a slaves.

2c.

 

[Dan Jones]

This discussion's pertinent to me as my novel is set in London and the Nigerian city of Port Harcourt, sometime in the 22nd century. The cast, therefore, is quite diverse, and features a British Indian family, Scots, Yoruba Nigerians, an ethnic Spaniard who lives in France, southern French people, a Sinhalese Sri Lankan, and a handful of white English characters, male and female. For me, this breadth of characters isn't some tiresome box-ticking exercise (of which I'd disapprove) but a realistic reflection of the communities and social fabric in which the story is set.

To me, it seems axiomatic that setting a story in future London - one of the most diverse cities on earth - must include a cast of many colours. It's unrealistic not to. Likewise, the setting of Nigeria is not one plucked at random, but again a reflection of my vision of 22nd century Earth, where Nigeria has become one of the most powerful oil-producing countries, which is integral to the plot. So again, not a box-ticking exercise. I've not been to Port Harcourt, but through consultation with people who have, and a fair amount of desk research, I can try to create what hopefully will be a reasonable simulacrum.

The settings in place, I have a duty to create a cast of characters that are sensitive to each of their ethnicities as well as their own personalities. To me, I (try to) achieve this through not thinking about their race and/or ethnicity. My POVs are: the British Indian fisherman, the Sri Lankan gangster, the Nigerian civil servant, the English businesswoman, the Scottish policewoman, and the Spanish engineer. It's not my intention to bring focus to their ethnicities, nor to shout about how inclusive I'm being. To me, all my characters are human, and are afflicted by the same doubts, weaknesses, strengths, attitudes, flaws, hopes and aspirations, fears, emotions and dumb decision-making capability as any of us are. Their ethnicity or race might only be hinted at, perhaps through food, or memories, or the odd idiosyncratic word here or there.

Race is not an indication of character; thought and deed are a reflection of character. It's my job to define my cast by their thoughts and their actions. If I can reflect that accurately, what the hell does it matter what skin colour they have?

There is a saying along the lines of "nothing human can be alien to me." Broadly that's a reasonable assumption to work with when writing (unless you're writing about long-lost Peruvian tribes who've never known contact with outsiders, or something along those lines...).

If anyone's looking for a step-by-step guide of "How to write characters of colour" then I'd put good money on the fact that such a thing doesn't exist. And if it did it would most likely only be used to catch people out. Yurgh. All a writer can do is write truthfully, without attempting to insult, humiliate, or degrade, and build three-dimensional human beings. And if one does that, the I'd wager that the vast majority of readers would be extremely forgiving.

 

[SilentRoamer]

No offence taken! I'm only really having trouble with this particular story, because I've made the mistake of setting it in a geographical area of which I have no first hand experience. It makes me unsure of myself.

My main novel is set in Britain in the Dark Ages (okay, I don't have first hand experience of that either, but then neither does anyone else currently alive!), where the majority of the population would be white but there are still a lot of Roman Empire folks rattling around too, who would probably have different skin colours. I might mention a Mediterranean cast to features if I really need to, but mostly I am using language, dress and attitude to distinguish between them. This isn't a conscious effort to be PC -- it had never crossed my mind until these threads began -- but just that I don't really see skin colour as representative of someone's origins as much as their habits, language, prejudices etc.

If I set this in Yorkshire or NI, I doubt anything would change. I've dozens of short stories set in these places and I don't recall using skin colour much at all. I rushed off a short for the PSekrit Psummer Pstory for @Phyrebrat, who had missed out on receiving one, and I think I used skin colour in it (can't actually remember), but that would be the exception rather than the rule. Besides, it was set in the 1970s when skin colour would have been freely discussed everywhere, so it would have fitted the era.

I'm not saying I don't use skin colour at all, and yes, I might say someone was pale, or their skin had a grey tinge, if I was trying to suggest illness or blood loss, just as I might say their lips were blue. It's nothing to do with skin colour as related to race. I do use eyes a lot, however (probably far too much). I will describe their colour, but I also use them for expression of mood. They crinkle in amusement or darken with pain, and they fill with tears. I like eyes! I don't shy away from weight either, but I wouldn't usually call a character fat or thin; I'd be more likely to mention long, slender fingers, or imply overweight by saying how much someone puffs for breath as they climb a hill, or the way they hitch up their trousers all the time. I like to leave as much as possible to the reader's imagination, just giving hints every so often.

I'm on a steep learning curve with all this writing, but it's such a ride -- like a roller coaster. I get it wrong a lot, but we earn by making mistakes.

Kerry I really appreciate your response and it makes sense to me. I suppose the way you describe things sidesteps the issue while still allowing you to present visual cues to your readers.

WRT your points and also Brians later post - I would expect that historically skin colour was a much more accurate indication of race due to more fixed geopolitical factors. Whereas today there are English born Black man a historical novel can make a more accurate assumption of race based on skin colour. Although I find Brians post above very interesting.

Personally I don't mind descriptions of colour as they help me visualise but other visual cues would be just as useful - although if these cues aim to paint a certain picture of skin colour the I think it may be easier just to state said colour - although as a white male it may be difficult for me to appreciate the impact these descriptions may have it would never stop me trying to!

Anyway thanks Kerrybuchanan that was a really informative response.

 

[Montero]

After the BBC did their series of the Three Musketeers last year, there was an article on people of african descent in Europe in the period, including that Dumas himself was partially of african descent. Why did the BBC cast a mixed-race Porthos in The Musketeers?. One point was historically in Europe there were a lot more people of African descent than is realised these days.

 

[SilentRoamer]

That was a very interesting article Montero, maybe my assumptions above need to be challenged somewhat.

 

[Idealect]

The problem is that whenever sensitive subjects are raised, such as race, gender, and sexuality, it is the norm for white male heterosexuals to dominate - and dismiss - such discussion, even though they are the least qualified by default to have anything to say on such matters.

So by all means, if you are non-white person, feel free to share your experiences of identifying with depictions of your ethnicity in fiction. If you are a white person, feel free to discuss the challenges of depicting ethnicity in the fiction you are writing.

White male heterosexuals are hardly a monolithic group that marches in lockstep. Far from all are meaningfully "privileged", and far from all are insensitive to issues of (particularly-, effectively-systematic) discrimination. I have no doubt it's more often been white male heterosexuals who dismiss such discussion, as white male heterosexuals have been the speaking majority in certain countries, and have had more power, and temptation, to act in such a manner. At the same time, it's generally considered good-form not to describe the wrongdoings of some, from a category of people, as "the norm" for that category of people.

I understand there's terrible, terrible things which have been done, and us whiteys have to put up with a certain amount of flailing fists as the boots are, on a too-long-timescale, too late begun, lifted from the necks of those our fathers, great grandfathers, or the great grandfathers of others of our race, (or races of a similar colour with little or no geographical or cultural relation, and/or, for some of us, ourselves), held down, by complacency and self indulgence, or active malice).

And it's not "despite" those "provisos" (or, "objective facts"), but because of them, that I'm willing, and sometimes happy, to look the other way when someone treats me as a mere appendage of the worst elements of the group I am by-accident-of-birth a categorised-member of, but because they're a part of the truth of the situation- -as the history of marginalisation, and oppression, and even terrorization, by people who broadly share my skin colour, is (in my judgement) the greater part, which has a deal of priority, not for it's direct pertinence to me, but for it's sheer scale, sheer wrongness, sheer weakness and laziness, and sheer wrongness again.

-A history which is ongoing but hopefully tapering off. That truth, -being truth, (and history, and present), is the basis for my understanding of the situation. It allows for toleration of a few bruises, and even lost teeth from the instantiations of a zeitgeist-part that's been eating dirt for no good reason, and in places still is, but not for equivocation between myself and another man, in another country, - -'s grandfather. Yes, we're both white males, but so are a murderer and a person who has their life stolen, sometimes, members of the same race. My sins are my own, and no one elses, and so too in reverse.


So a little of the same sensitivity, and even, simply logical politeness, that we are progressing towards expecting in such matters, and matters-more-generally, would be well spared to offhandedly throw on groups that, on a group level, have been at the beneficial end of a racist divide, -that is the more beneficial end, because it's not good for anyone to be a part of a society's sickness, other than those who are not worth saving, not good, not people in many useful senses. I know there's a lot of asymmetry I'm expected to put up with, and I know why, and happen to feel it, not exactly fair, but fair enough. But regardless, it's just more efficient to apply principles generally and equally, and to, if one can, go out of one's way, and make it one's way, to not get in those juicy revenge-marginalisations and microagression digs at the group which is supposed to be letting go of its, (or the remnants and shadows of its-) irrational and unfair fears, aversions, hatreds, superiority-posing, and sadisms, to make appropriate correction, and redress.


I mean, it's just good tactics, and it's also just, well, good.



/essay

 

[Idealect]

If I may post something more directly on topic, the colour of a person's skin is an essentially decorative detail, except when it has been turned into something else by culture. Theoretically it can be turned into perfectly neutral, or even good things, for instance if skin colours had astrological-style associations that people, as loose schemas (perhaps of self exploration or development) to play with, like one might consider the MBTI personality-index if they don't believe in it, or if one branches out to ethnically associated cultures, one can find real life examples, like "Ghurkas are hard as f*ck."

So is hair colour, one might point out. The way I see it is, and this is why I prefer to avoid mention of, and especially dwelling on without particular reason- (and especially what could be seen as fetishisation: "delicious chestnut flavoured red hair, omnomnom" -the omnomnom isn't written down, but I tend to read it when I come across certain kinds of food based descriptions. Perhaps this is a personal quirk, but perhaps it is a common one? Not sure (and not sure exactly what that would imply either))

My reason is that hair colour isn't objectively actually that important. It's probably easier to say something relevant or evocative about someone's hair than their skin (-that's an offhand judgement by the way, could be wrong), but if hair-colours were as touchy a topic as race, for the same reasons, then I'm sure a lot of people would avoid mentioning them where possible, and especially would be careful not to be seen as drooling over "exotic" hair colours like something to be consumed, for similar reasons. Though perhaps less so, as I imagine it's quite a lot harder to have lascivious or fetishized thoughts about hair than about skin.

Anyway, that's roughly what I think the centre of what should be avoided is. Description of skin colour can certainly be done, and sometimes positively should or even must be, if it's pertinent or relevant, or simply for the sake of normalisation and exposure, but there are certain stances it's better to avoid being read as taken, whether one is or was taking them in one's mind, or not.

 

[Montero]

@Idealect - I've actually managed to accidentally cause offence with hair colour. Someone I worked with years back was very blond and glamorous, and every so often, when she got something wrong, it would be "whoops, just had a blonde moment" - so that was common parlance in the office.
Then I moved to a new job and at some point said "oh, having a blonde moment" (and I'm not blond) and a blond co-worker took great offence to it. I explained and it was all smoothed over. But any application of stereotype can cause offence.

I do also know people who consider dyed hair to be an unfavourable comment on the character of the person who dies their hair. (Until you get to elderly ladies and the famous blue rinse. For some reason, that is fine..... go figure.)

 

[Ursa major]

an unfavourable comment on the character of the person who dies their hair.

Well, it's accurate: hair is already dead....

​

​

 

[Phyrebrat]

As this thread clearly illustrates, we all come from different directions to this issue. Write your story, not an apologist's version. Write from your POV's perspective and provided you know your POV's position, you'll be fine.

All this thrashing over something so specific is a little out of proportion to me.

pH

 

[Montero]

Well, it's accurate: hair is already dead....

​

​

Yeah, yeah yeah. Dyes. Alrightee

And apart from that, wandering off onto hair colour again, just started reading Justina Robson's Glorious Angels, and thanks to this thread was a bit more alert on both skin and hair colour. No mention of skin colour yet (I don't think(, but I did notice selective mention of hair colour - one character has long black hair she shakes loose from a constricting hat. And she has two daughters, one blond, one with long black hair (and there seems to be a bit of character commentary on them as being very different - they are still off-stage at the point I've reached). However the man observing the long black hair being shaken loose - his hair colour is not mentioned (yet).
So there you go, for what it is worth, selective mention of hair colour - it matters on a gorgeous woman, not so much on an unobserved spy hanging on a cliff face.

 

[Old_Man_Steve2016]

The link was hilarious. I loved it.

I might be in the minority on this issue, but I think writers (and screenwriters) are missing out on a big opportunity to work with race issues in a humorous or mildly entertaining fashion.

For example, some people threw a big fit over the Harry Potter play where they cast Hermione with a black actress. I wish they would have addressed with some sort of funny aside like this.

Harry: Hermione! You're black now!
Hermione: Yes, I'm in the Witness Protection Program. El Chapo will never find me now.
Harry: Yeah that'll never happen.

If the producers turn Mary Jane Watson into a different race, they should mention why in the next Spider-man movie and have fun with it.

Spider-Man: So Dr. Octopus is looking for me and my wife. I've got this Avengers thing so I won't be in town. Can you turn Mary Jane black?
Doctor Strange: This sounds like the dumbest idea ever.
Mary Jane: Trust me. He had dumber ones before we settled on this.
Doctor Strange: This is so far into the wrong that it almost loops back to right.
Spider-Man: Trust me this will work!

Mary Jane's apartment, 3 Days later.

Mary Jane: (door knocks, opens door) Hello?
Doctor Octopus: Mary Jane! I've come to cap-...are you Mary Jane?
Mary Jane: Yes I am. What do you want?
Doctor Octopus: I thought a redhead named Mary Jane lived here.
Mary Jane: She left 2 weeks ago. Landlord gave me the same rate because he was too lazy to reprint the lease.
Doctor Octopus: Where'd she go?
Mary Jane: Springfield.
Doctor Octopus: Springfield. Which one?
Mary Jane: She ain't say. Good luck with that. (closes door).
Doctor Octopus: (walks away) **** there's like 40 of them!
Mary Jane: Haha whatta putz.

 

[Lew Rockwell Fan]

Words that are actually linked to colors may convey the image better, e.g. Olive skinned (both a color and fruit).

Outside of this one context, when used as a color word, most people are refering to some shade of green. Which might be literally true if you are talking about an ET or a corpse. Otherwise, not. I have a suspicion that it has this atypical meaning in this context because a lot of people native to places where a lot of olives are grown have this color skin. The skin color of the people from the land of olive trees. Just a guess.

Actual living olives are only green when unripe, like most fruit. Ripe, they are in the bright yellow to red range. No resemblance at all to any variety of human skin, except maybe an extremely sunburned Nordic person.

The only one I'm happy with is Pigskin (for the white)

Pigs come in more colors than people do, you speciesist chauvinist human!

/me shakes hoof in remonstrance.

 

[JunkMonkey]

In my WIP I haven't specified any skin colours. Many of the characters have ethnic surnames and I've left it at that, though because they have those surnames doesn't necessarily mean that's where they are from. There are reasons for this off the page in my world building; centuries of migration and colonisation throughout the solar system. Also, I describe characters in terms of the perception of them that the POV character has of them, more about their personality than their appearance because their appearance isn't really important. I'd rather let the reader decide what my characters look like and get on with characterizing them.

Sounds like a really good approach because when it comes down to it IT DOESN'T MATTER what colour a person's skin colour is. Especially when you can't actually see them. What matters is what they do which is shaped by their upbringing and cultural norms.

Whatever you do, when Hollywood buys it, they're going to cast by type anyway: Anglo Saxons for the leads, Hispanic for the comedy sidekick, Afro-Caribbean/Black (young) friend who dies before the end of the movie, Afro-Caribbean/Black (older - ok... Morgan Freeman) avuncular mentor etc. etc.

Just remember to give all the ships' engineers Scottish names.

 

[JunkMonkey]

Ok, so what we really need, if we have describe skin colour in a book is this:



It gets printed on the back cover of every book and new characters are introduced thus

"N'waha was naked, a tall, handsome woman with Black 2 XGC hair and Pantone 71-4 C skin, her full breasts tipped with tipped with wide Pantone 324-6 C nipples. Her second name was O'Hara."​

That should do it.

 

[Phyrebrat]

Sounds a little too similar to pre-apartheid SA

I don't mind skin colour being compared with food - along with most Afro Caribbeans as per my comments upthread about it being a celebration. I think it's a bigger problem to a white-normalised readership. And white authors.

A bigger problem for me is when an Anglo-African is cast in a (drama or soap) show and their character is supposed to be Anglo-Caribbean - or vice versa.

ph

 

[WaylanderToo]

Ok, so what we really need, if we have describe skin colour in a book is this:



It gets printed on the back cover of every book and new characters are introduced thus

"N'waha was naked, a tall, handsome woman with Black 2 XGC hair and Pantone 71-4 C skin, her full breasts tipped with tipped with wide Pantone 324-6 C nipples. Her second name was O'Hara."​

That should do it.

that chart is racist, as far as I can see there are no Hispanic types nor Asian and only one Oriental person

 

[JunkMonkey]

No Martians on it either. Obviously the one printed on the books will have to be bigger and more extensive. It would also allow people to keep a tally to make sure that the book contains a suitably diverse ethnicity.

"A bigger problem for me is when an Anglo-African is cast in a (drama or soap) show and their character is supposed to be Anglo-Caribbean - or vice versa."

That's why they employ 'actors'. If you follow your train of thought, eventually people will only be able to play people identical to themselves in every respect.

 

[Phyrebrat]

"A bigger problem for me is when an Anglo-African is cast in a (drama or soap) show and their character is supposed to be Anglo-Caribbean - or vice versa."

That's why they employ 'actors'. If you follow your train of thought, eventually people will only be able to play people identical to themselves in every respect.

Not really. If that were the case then a white actor from the ROI could portray an Anglo-Caribbean/African. It's like pasty old me being cast as a Spaniard or south Italian based on the fact we're both 'European'.

It's a failure for writers to understand the distinction between different black, Asian, and South East Asian diaspora.

There is a strong difference in manner and superficial looks between African and Caribbeans. I can't believe there aren't sufficient actors of relevant heritage. It's just lazy or cheap research.

pH