Writing Characters Other Than Your Own Experience: A Roundtable

[The Big Peat]

In any case, when creating characters, drawing attention to their blackness, gayness, caucasian-ness etc isn't really drawing a character, it's creating a reductionist / essentialist cipher. I have written PoC, and that was simply a matter of geography - I needed a people from particular countries to play a part in my novel, and ipso facto had to include people from that country for the plot to work. And to be perfectly frank I didn't worry about my representation of them (which in itself is comprised of a broad collection of ethnicities and religious groups); I was more worried about writing believable characters who could drive the plot forward.

Yes and no (assuming I actually know what a reductionist/essentialist cipher is). Obviously it isn't a a character in and of themselves, but I think readers (wittingly and unwittingly) drop a lot of subtext from what a character is and that is at least part of drawing the character.

There's also the part where trying to hide it also damages a character.

I think the ideal is to make the character feel as natural as possible, neither drawing attention to their identities nor shying away (at least for stories that don't concentrate on that).

That's an interesting assumption. I wasn't writing a book for any audience in particular (apart from me, I suppose). And at the Essex Book Festival (I think in 2017, before MOW was published) I met a couple of Nigerian writers (funnily enough in a writing workshop about writing PoC) and we got chatting about what we were all doing and they seemed really interested that I was writing something (partially) set in the Niger delta, and said they would look forward to reading it. When I went to LBF in 2017 I met a young woman at a publicity company called Jacaranda which specialised in publicising fiction by / about African people. I told them about the book and they seemed eager to do some work about it. I kept in touch with them, and although not much came out of it apart from a bit of social media back-and-forth, they were open to the possibility and were attracted by the book content rather than wary of it.

Personally I would've been over the moon if I'd managed to get some sort of tiny market access to Nigeria, as apart from anything else it's a huge audience which is crying out for new material (the publishing industry there is undercut by digital piracy something chronic, but that's another story).

If its an assumption, it's a small one. It's not naturally tilted heavily to any one particular community in terms of content, nor is it marketed to them, much like The Little Drummer Girl isn't really aimed at Palestinians, Israelis or Germans. It might well find fans among those communities as "This gets us", but it'd be quite the fluke if it got serious traction, and I say that in the nicest possible way. It's almost too cosmopolitan for that. Every little bit of traction is great though!

Although that said, there's possibly an over-great assumption on my part, in that I tend to let the American dynamics of race in which Black Americans and Chinese Americans and Chicanos have been written about endlessly and are marginalised endlessly and are unsurprisingly sick of it. I'm not saying that Nigerians don't care about it at all, but they're coming from a different place and maybe feel differently. And conflating the experience of a kid from the Atlanta projects with a guy from Nigeria is exactly the sort of sloppy thinking that leads to mistakes.

 

[Star-child]

There is a transcript link under the video. Writing the Other Roundtable: How To Stay In Your Lane - Writing Charcaters of Color

"And I think it’s really incredibly lazy to not consider whiteness as a very specific, very particular experience."
All white people have the same specific, particular experience?

Which seems to be the lynchpin assumption of the roundtable - that an author concocting a "mainstream" story is conceiving everything as having appeal to this supposed white monoculture, and that all uses of PoC are for novelty, pathos or to check some sort of saleability box.

This is a strawman, as there isn't a white monoculture that the mainstream is constructed out of - and the typical writer is unlikely to conceive of the world that way. The mainstream, if anything, is the out-culture that people who are not intimate share with one another in mixed settings. For instance, my black co-worker was recently bemoaning how another coworker didn't know who He-Man was. The fact that she assumed I would (being her age) is because that's the stuff we definitely share as Americans. She would probably assume that there are in-group things from her family and neighborhood I wouldn't know about, and I would not expect her to know about Midwest Catholic bar culture - just as I didn't expect to understand everything about the white Southerners whose family I had married into. But some stuff we all share. That's the mainstream, not some fictional unified white ideal.

So I found the discussion based on a false premise and offering no real advice: One interviewee suggested writing PoC as secondary characters, then the other said that was a bad idea. A lot of advice to not write any PoCs, and a lot of speculation about PoC character quotas in the publishing industry from two people outside of it. Does such a thing exist, and is it equally true of every major publisher? Hard to tell when it is simply stated as fact.

The overall feel of the round table was that the majority of people attempting to write fiction are lazy fools, with little resource beyond vague stereotypes to apply to writing anything but white people. And that is almost certainly true, because writing well is not something just anyone can do, even though we all share the same ability to format grammatical sentences. One could go to enormous lengths to get some subculture nailed down in an otherwise poorly written and derivative book that has no hopes of publication - and that sounds like the people that are taking courses from these two experts. But is advice for that broad swath of people actually useful for the kind of thoughtful, diligent people that are likely to write something saleable? I sorta doubt it. Most of this seems like blacksmithing advice for people with no anvil.


I have seen the question asked more than once: How do I write good female characters? The female answer is usually - we are people, not unicorns. Write them like you would write any reasonable male character. It is hard to see how this advice fails to work across cultures just as it works across genders - especially if you are writing a book about individual characters rather than for some cultural placeholders. Stories are about people, and a black character can act however that character wants to act, given the situation, background and sophistication that character has. Unless you're writing about a subculture specifically, your PoC characters could simply exist the way they do in real life - interacting using that mainstream shared cultural illusion we all are familiar with, rather than forcing every character to represent an epitome of a certain specific subculture.

 

[sknox]

> Write them [women] like you would write any reasonable male character.

I've never agreed with this. Thinking about it yet again, a new angle occurred to me. There's writing the other gender (or PoC) as that person within themselves, then there's writing that person in the context of their personal history, which can vary wildly, and then there's writing the cultural context for that character.

This last is where I'm more comfortable. Of course I have females in my stories, but it gets interesting because I have so many non-humans. If a human character has a romance, the man and the woman are not going to have identical experiences. On the other hand, when I write a dwarf or an elf, I spend some considerable time trying to puzzle out how a female dwarf might differ from a male dwarf but also how she might differ from a female elf. Not so much in her female-ness as in her life experiences. To write her simply as a male would do a disservice to that culture.

More generally, I hold that I am writing characters and stories. They are not biographies. Every portrayal is necessarily bent to the service of the story. So, my characters, male or female (I've not addressed non-binaries), must first and foremost be true to themselves. I try to think of them as individuals first, while keeping a constant eye on how this individual person would affect and be affected by other characters and the world around them. At times, their gender enters into it; at times, it doesn't. And while I don't have any PoCs in any of my stories, I do have non-humans and I do touch on popel who are disenfranchised. If the reader chooses to draw parallels with their own world, that's fine, but such parallels are not intended. I have my hands full just trying to get the damn story told.

 

[.matthew.]

Just a quick heads up on this - according to census data from the USA, white people are expected to constitute less than 50% of the American population within the next 10 years.

Additionally, there are almost as many people who speak/read/write English as a second language as there are first language speakers, obviously to various degrees. We actually have a lot of members on chrons for whom English is a second language. Point being, be careful of being dismissive of them as part of your target audience.

Fair enough, though I was generally considering that most readers prefer to read in their native language. I'd be interested to see what the other percentages are in that data though? I imagine the 50% isn't a single demographic, more a mix of African, Asian, and Latino? The figures I got on a quick googling were still 77% white, 13% black, with near 70% of college admissions being white as well (indicating that at least for the time being the 'current' generation will follow the same trend. That would still leave the white readers as the biggest target for sales.

As to second languages, if we also include the countries of Europe in those second language speakers, they are still predominantly white. Not that it should matter for anything but potential sales figures and the ability to 'write what you know'. I'm certainly not arguing against diversity in characters or authors, even though most people need to be able to relate to the protagonist in some way and the 'easiest' way of doing that is basing their culture on that of the primary audience. I know people who refuse to read anything that doesn't have a female protagonist as well, so the slightest thing can put people off reading a book. Not including diversity is the safe bet. But again, that wasn't my point.

I'm all in favour of writing 'the other' into the work, what I'm opposed to is jumped up pundits who profit by stirring the pot and who themselves often lack the experiences of those they claim to protect. That and it's impossible to be right because there are so many different cultures within any culture group. If the author uses stereotypes, well that's okay, stereotypes largely exist for a reason. They may not be fair to everyone but as I pointed out, western culture gets the exact same treatment.

For instance... is it okay to write a derogatory stereotype if you can back it up with a real life example? They can't claim you're being insensitive because it is an actual thing. Rather they'd be saying they are embarrassed about that aspect of their culture and seek to bury it. To be clear, this is not something I'd do, or find acceptable if it was done with intent to wound, but an honest question... where do you draw the line? who gets to say what is and isn't true?

I've said in another thread that I'm currently working on an east Asian fantasy novella. Not for publishing, just as a writing exercise and this discussion has me looking at it in a different light. It's only loosely based on that 'culture' and being a short story doesn't dive into anything too deeply but I do see some issues with accuracy (for one I didn't subscribe to the last name first name inversion because it's not written for people familiar with that idea). That said, I'm not being offensive about anything, they have an emperor and dynastic families (but that time period saw the same in Europe), they have a deeper 'respect' ingrained in there as well, though that is more taken from current east Asian customs than any historical evidence I found. For the most part, it touches on the culture but then veers off in it's own direction because it's fantasy. That doesn't mean I should stop, print it out, and burn it. It doesn't mean I should edit all possibly offensive stereotypes out of it (I don't see any myself but I'm not a sensitivity reader). It doesn't mean I should rename all the characters and make them all white just to avoid the potential to offend (which apparently also causes offense). Somebody will always complain.

As a side note, what is so bad with stereotypes? Say you read a book about native Americans, you quite like the change in background from your usual fare, but you're left with a distorted view of them. First it's not a peer reviewed paper so shouldn't be taken as fact in the first place. Second, it would likely encourage you to broaden your reading. You enjoyed it, so you find another, this time with a bit of a different take. Then again, with another angle. After a few books you start to piece together a more 'realistic' take on the culture from the common threads. Maybe you then go and read up some non fiction articles as well. As a western reader (and amateur writer), I've researched a lot about our own history, why can't even bad representations help with understanding in the long run?

The link essentially stated that trying is not enough, so does that mean that zero diversity is better? Wouldn't our understanding grow over time as more and more of the lore and customs are acknowledged and integrated?

 

[Stephen Palmer]

The main task of the author is to understand, and convey to the reader, the minds of other human beings.
Minds come with all sorts of different types of bodies.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

I agree with the majority of statements and observations made in the article. I read the transcript, as I find that a better way to look at information that can generate side thoughts about what I am reading. That way i can go back and reread something, or even skim ahead to see where a particular line of reasoning is going instead of having to wait for the author to get around to laying out the whole story in their words the way they feel it should be heard. Sometimes I would rather get all the information and make up my own mind instead of allowing a designed format to sway me one way or the other. For me the article is about real people and how writing effects them, and I am not sure how integrating the mechanics of fictional characterization offers any insight into how people get impacted by what we write. It is quite possible that by sticking to fantasy and far out places type science fiction that we don't even make a dent in people's attitudes one way or the other. It can determine whether they buy or not.

 

[Steve Harrison]

The main task of the author is to understand, and convey to the reader, the minds of other human beings.
Minds come with all sorts of different types of bodies.

Exactly.

If anything, this discussion has made me more interested in writing a wider range of characters. It seems like a far better way to explore all races and cultures, and promote understanding and awareness, than limiting writers (and readers) to their own ever-shrinking demographic.

But I do understand why groups are protective of their own unique shared experiences and there is absolutely nothing wrong with criticising writers when they get it horribly wrong or make lazy, stereotypical choices. That's the normal process to help writers learn and lift their game.

 

[The Big Peat]

Trying to keep this on the literary side of things rather than general cultural as a) That's what the mods want and b) That's what I'm least likely to get wrong but -

The problem with stereotypes is their wide usage means that using them can cease being meaningful diversity - or even just good writing. If every novel has the spicy Latina firecracker best friend who swears in Spanish and the stoic black kid who's a great athlete but just wants a hug from the dad he never knew, then its not meaningful diversity because every book is the same and it doesn't reflect the truth - and authors going there will get slated for their use of cliche and lack of exciting new characters.

The latter part can get lost in these discussions. This isn't just about there being some sense of fairness, it's also about being a good writer, because a hallmark of many of the greats is their empathy and attention to detail. Missing an opportunity to exercise those is missing an opportunity to be a better writer. If people don't want to go there, that's their call. It's not essential. But it is a missed opportunity.

And if someone wants to know what stereotypes have completely totally jumped the shark and which ones haven't, which ones get people really offended and which ones might get a few isolated cases, which ones have people laughing because they know someone just like that and which ones have people rolling their eyes because who actually knows someone like that...

Then it comes back to research. It comes down to reading articles like the one I linked. It comes back to asking people who know that reality better. It comes back to reading what has been written, and really reading it, not looking for excuses to say "Hey, we're all the same really, it's good and my back is covered here" but taking everything in and accepting it as their truth, and believing in their sincerity as much as you'd believe in their own. And if that contradicts another person's experience, then find yet more people, more accounts. There is never a shortcut to well researched fiction on any issue. And once you've found those accounts, make a decision about what to portray.

And ultimately, the decision will always rest with the writer (well, and publisher and maybe editor). There never will be any seal of approval that you can get and that's it, you're good, you've done your research and can't be criticised. The writer needs to decide how much they care, what they think is right to do, what they're willing to defend in public if it comes to it.

But if people want to make an informed decision, then they need information. And again that comes back to the research. And - bluntly - it doesn't involve asking us, because the majority here don't have the knowledge. This community can point people in the right direction, it has a few members who can speak with authority on the subject who can offer part of the information... but no more than that.

Each individual's judgment. But I think it'd be a shame to miss the chance to be a better writer due to the uncertainties of the situation, or getting nettled by parts of the message coming across.

@AMB seems to get the balance right for me.

If you're setting a book in a modern western society (ie mid-20th century onwards), it's axiomatic that your cast is going to be diverse in many different ways. If you have a multitude of characters then "staying in your lane" as AMD says, may be safe, but it's also strange, unrealistic and stretches credibility beyond breaking point.

Historical fiction may be an exception, but I guess is out of scope for this thread.

In any case, when creating characters, drawing attention to their blackness, gayness, caucasian-ness etc isn't really drawing a character, it's creating a reductionist / essentialist cipher. I have written PoC, and that was simply a matter of geography - I needed a people from particular countries to play a part in my novel, and ipso facto had to include people from that country for the plot to work. And to be perfectly frank I didn't worry about my representation of them (which in itself is comprised of a broad collection of ethnicities and religious groups); I was more worried about writing believable characters who could drive the plot forward.

In this respect, while it's impossible for any one person to empathise with every other person on the planet because we don't all share the same points of reference, it is possible to create sympathy for any fictional character irrespective of their ethnicity, sexuality etc because there are certain human characteristics that everybody does share. Some examples might be: the fear / threat / response to violence; power dynamics / positions within hierarchies; the desire for more (to advance oneself); sex; the spectre of death; parental protective instincts; hunger etc etc.

How different cultures deal with these things may differ, but these things are common to all, and I believe it's possible to create complex characters filled with drive, remorse, regret, hate, love, antipathy, despair and the whole range of emotional responses / states. Similarly, anyone, regardless of background, can encounter difficult decisions, which is the key to good fiction.

I think I've put my finger on what I disagree with here.

Its not that you're wrong, but it's that you've not addressed the whole of the issue. The universality of human experience can elide the specificity of it too. We are all the same, but all different. A book that ignores that misses the mark on reality. I don't think anyone here has done that but there is a potential here, both to get it a lot better... and to get it a lot worse.

Not to mention the advice here isn't, at least mostly, stay in your lane - it's know the map on whichever road you're driving.

 

[Brian G Turner]

And with those wise words I'm going to close this discussion, as rather than being focused on the writing aspect there's too much focus on the social-politics instead, which is best avoided here.