SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
Members' Chat
>
Political Correctness, Bigotry, and Hypocrisy In Current SciFi/Fantasy Circles
Yowza! I'm glad I read speculative fiction books and keep the hell out of debates. (Ducks quickly)
Mark wrote: "Yowza! I'm glad I read speculative fiction books and keep the hell out of debates. (Ducks quickly)"You're probably in the right place!
May I duck with you?? :)
Yep and this isn't just SFF writing, this is all over society especially the internet.Honestly my bigger grips were his opinions on books. The guy clearly likes specultive SFF and bashes everything else.
Aaron wrote: "Yep and this isn't just SFF writing, this is all over society especially the internet.Honestly my bigger grips were his opinions on books. The guy clearly likes specultive SFF and bashes everyth..."
Agree with the "all over the internet", but then, that's freedom of speech as US people like to call it.
As for May's reading preferences - each to his own.
I'm not a fan of 'token' characters, whatever gender/race they are meant to represent. The author has a point and I agree with him.
My philosophy is a simple one. Who gives a damn what someone else's reading habits are? Who gives a damn if someone prefers reading on an ebook as opposed to paperback? As long as people are enjoying the written word, isn't that what matters most? Just because someone is reading a genre or novel I don't particularly care for is no excuse to demean or ostracize them. I'm pretty laconic but the one thing that riles me up the most is snobbery and pretentiousness. Genre fiction has just as much to offer as so-called literary fiction. Every piece of literature has SOMETHING to offer SOMEONE.
TL;DRAnd from y'alls reaction, I'm glad I didn't.
Chris wrote: "My philosophy is a simple one. Who gives a damn what someone else's reading habits are? Who gives a damn if someone prefers reading on an ebook as opposed to paperback? As long as people are enjoyi..."Agreed; and which is why I never make any personal comments in my reviews - yup, I'm terrified of upsetting people :)
I, too, think personal preferences in reading is purely personal, and has nothing to do with me whatever. It's nice to meet/talk with people who have enjoyed the same book/s as me, but I don't criticise other people for NOT reading the same books as me :) All that leads to is the slippery slope to Hell.
Holy crap that's long.I gather from skimming that the tl; dr version basically says, "People are people, welcome to the internet."
Although I got a very strong whiff of white male privilege in what I read. I'm a white male of privilege and I do hate people making me look bad. Even if they look like me.
Is that really an essay, or somebody's bloody thesis? [as in...really? it has to be that long?].I might revisit it later, but he seems to be addressing a certain subset of the SFF world that most people are either unaware of or don't pay any attention to anyway. A kind of SFF intelligencia?
If you look at what SFF books people always rave about, reccomend and put forward for reading here and elsewhere, you mostly find the old gaurd works, the kind he seems to be saying are being forgotten.
I can see his point, but I'm not really sure it's as big a problem as he's putting forward. Or maybe I'm just blind to it all.
And, yes, I'd never heard of Lord Dunsany. Does that make me a bad person?
Micah wrote: "And, yes, I'd never heard of Lord Dunsany. Does that make me a bad person? ..."
No! I also never head of this Lord Dunsany, even though I am 59 years old and read a lot of SF.
No! I also never head of this Lord Dunsany, even though I am 59 years old and read a lot of SF.
Michel wrote: "Micah wrote: "And, yes, I'd never heard of Lord Dunsany. Does that make me a bad person? ..."No! I also never head of this Lord Dunsany, even though I am 59 years old and read a lot of SF."
I propose that only bigwig Professors of Literature should be allowed to get away with saying "You know NOTHING if you haven't read X, Y, and Z!"
And that we respond by smiling fixedly and then going away to laugh into our beers. :)
I've heard of Lord Dunsany. Never read anything by him though.Didn't even manage to get a tenth of the way through part one of this epic. I think I preferred James May when he was setting fire to caravans on Top Gear. ;-)
Michel wrote: "Micah wrote: "And, yes, I'd never heard of Lord Dunsany. Does that make me a bad person? ..."No! I also never head of this Lord Dunsany, even though I am 59 years old and read a lot of SF."
he's not SF. He's fantasy.
Indeed, Lord Dunsany is pre-J.R.R. Tolkien fantasy, and Tolkien liked him and may have been influenced by him.
Michel wrote: "Micah wrote: "And, yes, I'd never heard of Lord Dunsany. Does that make me a bad person? ..."No! I also never head of this Lord Dunsany, even though I am 59 years old and read a lot of SF."
That's because SF/F isn't generally considered worthy of being taught, so there are no comprehensive literature or history classes in it.
That's partly why this James May guy's thesis feels broken to me: you can't tar an entire field if said field is not given to formal or rigorous study. By definition things will get missed or duplicated or certain voices will rise to the top because there isn't any historical context.
Art is in constant conversation with itself and the culture at large, but if you remove a major voice from that exchange you lose a vital component.
Dunsany is seminal to modern Fantasy. Without Dunsany you don't have... well anyone, actually. His work is to Fantasy what Shelley's is to Science Fiction. But he is ignored. I don't know what it's like nowadays in school, but I seriously doubt that SF/F is taught at all. Perhaps it gets mentioned simply because of Harry Potter and the like, but I'm sure classes beyond the odd college course are still few and far between.
Shakespeare? Hawthorne? Dickens? Sure. Dunsany, Shelley and Haggard? Nope.
From my quotelog:
“The particular animus against Tolkien in particular and Fantasy in general is, I find, not really easy to explain. … It’s not just that critics dislike or pan Tolkien, it’s that they get obsessive about it. It’s a point that Michael Drout, the great Tolkien scholar, made when he said really smart people, really smart literary critics, who are brilliant when talking about other things just seem to get vacuous when talking about Tolkien. They say these things which they would never say about other authors. … I had a colleague once look me in the face and say, ‘I don’t think Tolkien should be taught. I’ve never read it, but I really don’t think it should be taught.’ Of what other book would you ever say [that] without blushing? ‘I’ve never read Jane Eyre, but I don’t think it’s any good!’ No English professor would ever say something [like that], except about Tolkien, then it’s okay.” – Professor Corey Olsen, podcast
I refuse to comment on the original link because my brain might explode, but I do have to comment for Trike- it's taught some places, in different ways. I did several courses, first for college credit, then for audit because I loved the teacher, that were entirely devoted to SFF and Horror literature. I still miss that teacher. I don't doubt we could do more to lead kids to it, or deepen adults' understanding of it, and that quote is pretty egregious, but it's not entirely overlooked.
Yeah, I took a SF class at VA Tech back in . . . oh, must have been '77 or '78. Granted it was more of an overview class, but it was being taught back then in some respect.I don't read fantasy, so no wonder I'd never heard of Dunsany (although wikipedia lists a few SF books by him).
Speaking personally, I've not read a lot of older SF and probably will never get around to it. Most of the older stuff I've ready is '60s or later (with only a smattering of people like Clarke and Bradbury...I've found I really don't like much of these old classics, they seem very dull and dry to me). But I feel I could literally spend all day every day reading SF and never make a dent in the SF I haven't read. There's just so much of it. I prefer to keep up with contemporary authors that I know I like, as well as the occasional foray into authors I don't know.
But all this political correctness he's talking about I just haven't witnessed.
Katie wrote: "I refuse to comment on the original link because my brain might explode, but I do have to comment for Trike- it's taught some places, in different ways. I did several courses, first for college credit, then for audit because I loved the teacher, that were entirely devoted to SFF and Horror literature. I still miss that teacher."Yeah, I took a couple classes on SF in college, too. As my teacher said at the time, "We're going to read 1984 because it is." But that's completely different from the constant teaching of literature we get from a young age. That's what I was getting at: the reason why so many people are ignorant of the long history of Science Fiction and Fantasy is because it's not taught systematically in school.
"I don't doubt we could do more to lead kids to it, or deepen adults' understanding of it, and that quote is pretty egregious, but it's not entirely overlooked."
We've all read books by authors we'd never touch as adults because we had to as kids, but it's only recently I've even heard of any SFF being taught in grade school or high school.
I've suffered through dissecting Dickens over several years, but had to discover Tolkien and Clarke on my own. Why aren't those seen as worthy subjects? Not even once.
Micah wrote: "YI don't read fantasy, so no wonder I'd never heard of Dunsany (although wikipedia lists a few SF books by him).Speaking personally, I've not read a lot of older SF and probably will never get around to it. Most of the older stuff I've ready is '60s or later (with only a smattering of people like Clarke and Bradbury...I've found I really don't like much of these old classics, they seem very dull and dry to me). But I feel I could literally spend all day every day reading SF and never make a dent in the SF I haven't read. There's just so much of it. I prefer to keep up with contemporary authors that I know I like, as well as the occasional foray into authors I don't know."
I would distinguish between "what we like" and "what we should know."
I don't like Dickens. At all. He is the very definition of purple prose to me. He was paid by the word and owed creditors and you can see that in his writing. His plots are generally ridiculous and turn on far-fetched coincidences and I just want him to get on with it already. But I understand why he's important to literature and the developing style of the novel and storytelling, purely because I was forced to read his work in school.
I never got that same opportunity with Science Fiction or Fantasy or Westerns. The sole exposure I had to Crime fiction was And Then There Were None by Agatha Christie. I suspect that was simply because she's the best selling author in history, so they included one book.
But Dickens? Man, I had Dickens coming out of my ears. A Tale of Two Cities, David Copperfield, Great Expectations... bleh.
Looking back, we got a very stilted view of literature, and I think that continues to this day. It's likely one of the major reasons people don't read for pleasure: reading stories is homework, and it's always those dry, dull authors.
Trike wrote: "the reason why so many people are ignorant of the long history of Science Fiction and Fantasy is because it's not taught systematically in school."For a long time the history was taught by fandom, on its own, with its own histories and everything.
Not everyone knew it, but then, not everyone held forth on topic that really need a knowledge of the field.
I guess my real problem with the "it's not being taught" argument is that this phenomenon isn't isolated to SFF. Popular fiction, aka genre fiction is not taught as a whole either.What gets taught is "literature" and by that I don't mean literary fiction, I mean works that history/society/critics/the public have come to recognize as enduring classics of writing.
Dickens is actually a pretty good example. In his day, what he was writings wasn't considered high literature, it was popular fiction--very popular fiction. Henry James called him "the greatest of superficial novelists." But his enduring popularity is what makes people now study his work now as "literature."
SFF generally has not climbed to that height of popularity in reading circles, partly I think because of the taint of TV and cinema. SFF is seen as a pop culture thing, thereby ephemeral, trite, trendy.
But then where is the study of murder mysteries, spy novels, war novels, horror, romance? I mean, yeah, some classes will include Agatha Christie or a work by Dashiell Hammett, but most of the general English speaking public doesn't know George Simenon, and most American mystery fans probably don't know John Mortimer either.
I don't think it's exclusively a SFF thing.
I guess I was lucky - I did 'The Hobbit' in high school. Also Sherlock Holmes.We also did Dickens - but I used the cliff notes. I tried to read it, I really did...
c.o.lleen ± (... never stop fighting) ± wrote: "I guess I was lucky - I did 'The Hobbit' in high school. Also Sherlock Holmes.We also did Dickens - but I used the cliff notes. I tried to read it, I really did..."
Ugh. Better than me.
I (and everyone else in the class except 1 girl) got kicked out of class once because of refusing to read Moby Dick. God, I hate Moby Dick.
Micah wrote: "I don't think it's exclusively a SFF thing."I agree to a point. I studied a little SFF in college, Bloodchild and other Stories being the only one I really remember.
When I was being forced to read The Awakening by Chopin for like the third time, I protested: why can't we read more interesting books?? I was told that the primary characteristic that knocks a lot of books out of the running is page length. Some books are just short enough but dense enough to fit in a class.
I read it and thanked the Good Lord that I don't live in America :-)Actually and being serious here, I've read some Lord Dunsany (and he's good in parts but yes, I'd have described him as fantasy)
Here's a story of his, free and gratis,
http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/dun/s...
Strikes me that some people just get a kick out of telling other people what to do and will use any belief, creed, ideology or religion to do it.
Micah wrote: "I don't think it's exclusively a SFF thing. "Yeah, in every genre, it's the fandom that maintains the history and produces the criticism.
Not a large chunk of it, to be sure, but enough.
What's particularly sad about Lord Dunsany, however, is that while he is, as Ursula K. Le Guin put it, "the First Terrible Fate that Befalleth Unwary Beginners in Fantasy," once the stage of trying to imitate his style is over it has generally taught the aspiring writer a lot about how to make words leap through hoops.
MrsJoseph wrote: "I (and everyone else in the class except 1 girl) got kicked out of class once because of refusing to read Moby Dick. God, I hate Moby Dick. "Moby Dick never came up in any of my classes. Believe me, I am relieved. ;)
c.o.lleen ± (... never stop fighting) ± wrote: "MrsJoseph wrote: "I (and everyone else in the class except 1 girl) got kicked out of class once because of refusing to read Moby Dick. God, I hate Moby Dick. "Moby Dick never came up in any of m..."
LOL! I wish I could say the same. Most of the stuff they had us read was dead boring.
But I loved the Animaniacs take on Moby.
Moby Dick is great, in my opinion. I'm tired of seeing praise for To Kill A Mockingbird and Gatsby, or Catcher.
The TL;DR I got out of that essay is that SFF is often discounted because of public perception, and that is based on some high-profile but poorly conceived works. And he's further saying that it suffers additional damage from revisionist PC dogma being applied when modern critics review classic works. Heinlein was a sexist pig, they might say. Sure. Maybe it's even true. But should we marginalize his work based on that, or that Orson S Card is a homophobe? Do we denigrate authors of bygone eras because they didn't rail against slavery or the improper treatment of women? We often say that so-and-so are ahead of their time. Many great authors were ahead of their time in considering the future of technology and exploration, but perhaps less so in social topics. Is this somehow not okay? We seem perfectly capable of overlooking that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, or that Edison conducted a vile smear campaign against Nikola Tesla. Werner Von Braun worked for the fascist state before fleeing to America.
We look back with rose-colored, selective vision. And this article is chastising us for doing so, and failing to appreciate the great works of SFF because they are a product of a different age. And his final point, is that they are a product of a subset of society. He argues that they are not White Male centric because of racism or sexism, but because that is the demographic that wrote those stories. And that other classics exist with a pro-Chinese social consensus or pro-Arabic - written by members of those cultures.
The TL;DR of my own post: It's akin to blaming women for being the primary source of romance novels and the primary demographic that reads them, and that saying there should be more men writing and reading them, and then promoting those men who do. It pushes an agenda that is inconsistent with the nature of the situation in a misguided attempt to equalize what is already in its own self-regulated balance.
Okay, one last thing, and then I'll stop. It reminds me of the anecdote about the National Park Service. When they set up the Park Service in the US, with early parks like Yosemite and Yellowstone, rangers' policy was to try to preserve everything against human intervention and maintain the current state of the biosphere. Control populations, control growth and climate to the best of their abilities. This failed dramatically. They were perplexed as to why their ecosystems were in such poor health with their oversight. As a result, they decided to change their policy to one of limiting human intervention, but allowing nature to run its course without guidance. Surprise surprise, the parks flourished under that plan instead.
Never read Gatsby, either. I considered doing so when the movie came out, but my husband said it was the most boring book he'd ever read, which sort of turned me off the idea. :>And I don't remember anything about Catcher. I did like 'To Kill a Mockingbird', though, and still enjoyed it last year(ish) when I read it again.
I don't know about comparing someone like Heinlein to Card. Card is alive and well in today's society as a homophobe who makes a financial point to try to oppress others. He isn't some dinosaur that we're digging out of the past. Heinlein has the benefit of being dead in this aspect. And I see nothing wrong with looking back at past works and point out concerns/issues. What, should we NOT say that Heinlein was a sexist pig?? Because he was. If we cannot learn from our past we are destined to repeat it.
And I've never forgotten that Jefferson was a slave holder - maybe others do.
A lot of people like Card. A lot of people like the PC writers who are totally opposite him too - the ones who intentionally represent all races and sexes in a utopian fairness that doesn't even come close to reality. The point being that the PC stuff is artificially supported by PC emotional appeal while better writing is cast aside, when the flaws of its social climate are considered.
Kenneth wrote: "A lot of people like Card. A lot of people like the PC writers who are totally opposite him too - the ones who intentionally represent all races and sexes in a utopian fairness that doesn't even co..."Umm, personal opinion re: "The point being that the PC stuff is artificially supported by PC emotional appeal while better writing is cast aside, when the flaws of its social climate are considered." A lot of people can love Card for all I care. Long before I knew he was an asswipe I hated his prose. I feel Card is an atrocious writer who only got his start due to the time period he started in. I also feel that if Card tried to start as a new writer today he would not have hit the heights he has.
So, no. I do not agree that "better writers are being cast aside" based on "artificial" PC-ness.
Kenneth wrote: "...it suffers additional damage from revisionist PC dogma being applied when modern critics review classic works...We look back with rose-colored, selective vision. And this article is chastising us for doing so, and failing to appreciate the great works of SFF because they are a product of a different age. And his final point, is that they are a product of a subset of society. He argues that they are not White Male centric because of racism or sexism, but because that is the demographic that wrote those stories..."I agree with all that except that, again, it's not just a SFF thing.
I also don't know how much actual readers are swayed by "revisionist PC dogma being applied [by] modern critics."
All this does bring to mind a recent discussion about whether The Mote in God's Eye is sexist based on its shallow depiction of women (although from what I gather its male characters are pretty shallowly written as well...haven't read it).
Micah: Absolutely. It's not exclusively an SFF thing. It is present in all genres.
@ Micah & KennethAgreed: not exclusively SFF; but other genres appear not to be as "emotional" as some SFF writers.
Going WAY BACK in history, most writers were men; and they were also the educated and rich! Unfortunately, women seem to have been left behind (apart from Sappho who wrote quite 'extreme' stuff); and then women who used pseudonyms in the late 18th/early 19th centuries - purely because the publishers wouldn't print anything from them!!
I think there is more acceptance in other genres - don't know why - so women, PoC, and LGBT writers are treated without discrimination. Why this doesn't happen in SFF, I have no idea; but I think the so-called 'excluded' section are probably making mountains out of molehills.
Indeed, and I'll say that gender is a non-factor for me in selecting reads and recommending them. From Shelley to Borges, it matters not to me. I find the role gender plays in fiction to be a fascinating sociological topic, but it should not be one that deters a reader from a given story. I think discrimination is reprehensible, and we've certainly come a long way (with farther to go). But one thing I won't condone in response to that challenge is the political correct attitude of injecting a particular 'minority' view into the fore just to have it equally represented. Rather, I'd like to read the best stories, regardless of gender, creed, race, or favorite band of the 80s. And I think [i]that[/i] is the real measure of an equal opportunity.
Kenneth wrote: "I think discrimination is reprehensible, and we've certainly come a long way (with farther to go). But one thing I won't condone in response to that challenge is the political correct attitude of injecting a particular 'minority' view into the fore just to have it equally represented. ..."
I believe that, in the years and decades to come, this will be less and less of a problem, as this World is getting more and more of a mixed humanity. Racism is on the wane in most places and continued population movement and immigration will gradually wipe out those who believe in racism and sexism. Thus, if one writes today a SF story about a future period, there is no need to 'inject a particular minority view', as that view will most likely become that of the majority in a few decades at the most. Depicting a non-racist, non-sexist humanity of the future is not an attempt at PC-World building: rather, it simply depicts what will most likely become of Humanity.
However, if one writes a SF novel about time travel involving a modern person traveling to the past, then the societal attitude of that past society should be accurately depicted and not painted over just in order to be PC towards readers. Having a modern person go to, say, 1850s Mississipi, and having the locals of the time not use the 'N' word would be historically incorrect. Any reader who would then say that this made a racist of the author would be a hypocrite, pure and simple.
I believe that, in the years and decades to come, this will be less and less of a problem, as this World is getting more and more of a mixed humanity. Racism is on the wane in most places and continued population movement and immigration will gradually wipe out those who believe in racism and sexism. Thus, if one writes today a SF story about a future period, there is no need to 'inject a particular minority view', as that view will most likely become that of the majority in a few decades at the most. Depicting a non-racist, non-sexist humanity of the future is not an attempt at PC-World building: rather, it simply depicts what will most likely become of Humanity.
However, if one writes a SF novel about time travel involving a modern person traveling to the past, then the societal attitude of that past society should be accurately depicted and not painted over just in order to be PC towards readers. Having a modern person go to, say, 1850s Mississipi, and having the locals of the time not use the 'N' word would be historically incorrect. Any reader who would then say that this made a racist of the author would be a hypocrite, pure and simple.
I think the "minority view" is not what you think it is.Here, try this: As a young white male, you can pick up hundreds - if not thousands of books - and find "yourself" in them. One of my faves is The Belgariad Series by Eddings.
As a young black girl...
...
...
I'm trying to think of a book staring a young black girl. Sadly, I cannot. I'm sure one must have been written since I stopped reading YA (long ago) but...
So, you see that is what the conversation is about. Representation. Not "view point." The view can be the same but the characters make a difference (not sure if that is clearly said, let me know).
Oooh! Got one! Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry This book stars a young black girl. Sadly, it's about racism and the like in the Jim Crow South.
MrsJoseph wrote: "I think the "minority view" is not what you think it is.Here, try this: As a young white male, you can pick up hundreds - if not thousands of books - and find "yourself" in them. One of my faves..."
I've never looked for myself in books. I know where I am, if I want myself I know where to look. I read because I can enter a different world and experience different viewpoints.
Out there are hundreds of books with different protagonists, even if restricted to young white males aren't a monocrome unity, Tom Sawyer isn't Just William. But the last thing I look for is myself.
MrsJoseph wrote: "I think the "minority view" is not what you think it is.Here, try this: As a young white male, you can pick up hundreds - if not thousands of books - and find "yourself" in them. One of my faves..."
I completely understand the point MrsJoseph is trying to make, I also like to find myself in the characters I'm reading.
Sadly, I'm South American and come from a very very mixed breed. I cannot even say "I'm a black young girl". It would end up something like: "I was raised in a Latino community by a very British grandmother, and have slight Asian features in a dark skin". Where's my representation?
So I tend to find myself in the personality of the characters I read. (It helps if they are female!)
But just like Kenneth said, I don't believe you can force the minority, be it view point or representation. You cannot just tell the authors: "You need to write more Asian characters" (or whatever specific representation you want) it would be great if it happened! But it should happen at its own pace.
I do, however, clamor for better female characters. Strong and smart ones. I'd love if they were protagonists, but I will accept even supporting characters, as long as they are awesome and well written. I praise these authors, write reviews about them and hope that by doing that I'm doing a bit of help in growing that representation.
I believe that the more globalized the world is, and the more people interact with other nationalities, cultures and races; the more representation you'll find on books.
Also, please correct me if I'm wrong but I think the main character of the book of the month (Dawn by Octavia Butler) is a black young female.
Micah wrote: "I guess my real problem with the "it's not being taught" argument is that this phenomenon isn't isolated to SFF. Popular fiction, aka genre fiction is not taught as a whole either."That's what I was getting at. No Westerns, one Mystery. We get a very limited view of literature. I got plenty of war stories, with the Red Badge of Courage and a bunch of others I can no longer recall. Gone With The Wind probably counts.
That's why I have a hard time blaming either readers or writers of SFF for their ignorance of the field, because it's difficult to suss out that history and find the agreed-on Great Works. We get a class or two in college as a fun elective, but it doesn't compare to spending year after year reading Shakespeare.
Alexa wrote: "I was raised in a Latino community by a very British grandmother, and have slight Asian features in a dark skin". Where's my representation?You cannot just tell the authors: "You need to write more Asian characters"
I do, however, clamor for better female characters. Strong and smart ones...."
I think speculative fiction does lead the rest of the market here, and certainly I see more diversity in SF&F than in a lot of mainstream literature. Which is understandable. If you can't experiment with different viewpoints in speculative fiction, where the hell can you?
I've not done any stats, but I'm sure there are also more strong female leads in SF&F than elsewhere. Yes, there's also tokenism, bigotry and PC bull as well, but we're trying. People, vote with your purchases; support and spread the news with your reviews as Alexa said.
Kenneth wrote: "Indeed, and I'll say that gender is a non-factor for me in selecting reads and recommending them. From Shelley to Borges, it matters not to me. I find the role gender plays in fiction to be a fasci..."This is pretty much where I stand. I don't care who the author is or what gender, ethnicity, etc. they are. The only thing I care about is that I get the best story possible.
But people also have to vote with her hip pocket here. If people want more stories about a particular kind of character (e.g., a strong female lead), then they need to support the stories that have those characters. Otherwise, those stories will die. Whether people like it or not, there is a business side to things. Stories that don't make a profit aren't going to get a lot of support from the big publishers.
That sums it up L.G. If you light a certain type of story, buy that certain type of story. Make it so the writer can afford to write more of them. Buy the books and give them to friends in the hope you'll educate them.Get out there and make a difference.
I agree with Alexa's point. I like to see diversity represented. My heritage is very mixed, despite how pale I look in my picture. But I don't want to see token characters inserted for the sake of representation. If the story takes place in Africa, I expect to see a lot of Africans, and different African culture. If it takes place in China, I expect that many of the characters will be Chinese. If the story takes place in New York, I expect a mix of everything.
Most importantly, is the old phrase "write what you know". If you're a white male, it might be harder to write as a young black girl. Maybe not. Maybe you were friends with someone growing up that you could use as a reference. I'd rather cultural heritage not be misrepresented by someone ignorant of the social mores, who is just inserting that character or that setting haphazardly in order to please a demographic. It doesn't work for the demographic, because they can easily pick out all the flawed conceptions about their culture, and it doesn't work for the story, because the person is writing what they do not know.
Make it real, make a good story, and include whatever characters are appropriate. I don't believe we require affirmative action. Like Michel said, time will destroy these antiquated views of racism and sexism as the world becomes more connected.
MrsJoseph wrote: "...I'm trying to think of a book staring a young black girl..."I think the lead character in Alastair Reynolds's Blue Remembered Earth is black, though not necessarily young. I say "I think" because I don't remember it ever being explicitly stated. She's African with the last name Akinya and I think he may have described her as dark skinned...the book wasn't written with any racial references that I remember.
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
How the World Became Quiet (other topics)Against a Dark Background (other topics)
Blue Remembered Earth (other topics)
2312 (other topics)
Queen of Angels (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ursula K. Le Guin (other topics)Lord Dunsany (other topics)
J.R.R. Tolkien (other topics)
http://www.jamesmaystock.com/essays/P...
What hit me sideways from the start is the honest fact that I never considered any SFF authors I've read to be anything other than clever Human Beings with No Other label. To find this not so, may reveal my gullibility, not to mention that I've probably read 95% of the authors mentioned in this Essay, and never once thought about their gender, colour, sexual orientation, or what have you.
Yes, I started reading SFF in the late 50's so I've been exposed to the "old guard"; and I'm still reading it now with all the up-and-coming new talents.
I don't really ask for any comments here; just that you read the Essay and ponder for a while.