Books that you thought would be good for diversity - but weren't.

[Kay Dee (what is your storygraph name?]

NancyJ wrote: "....Regarding all the comments about stereotyping: I don't think the book presented a stereotype, it presented ONE CHARACTER. The stereotyping occurs in OUR heads, when we assume that the character is supposed to represent all characters with that condition or diagnosis. He's not supposed to represent all people on the spectrum, or all people with Asperger's. The author never even stated Christopher's diagnosis. Many readers recognized key behaviors consistent with certain diagnoses, and we "learned" about it. I think that's beneficial overall, as long as we keep learning that there will be many variations, just like in people with any other characteristic.

The way we can prevent stereotyping in our own brains, is to expose ourselves to a wider variety of people. I would love to see more authors present different characters, so that we don't assume if you're X, you must also be Y. I would love to read a story perhaps about a school or community center for kids on the spectrum, where we could see that people with the same diagnosis all have their own individual personalities and..."


THIS.

[Kat]

Regarding all the comments about stereotyping: I don't think the book presented a stereotype, it presented ONE CHARACTER.

Yes and no.

This statement of "the author was only trying to represent one character" becomes problematic because this excuse is how harmful stereotypes and tropes get started in the first place--it's never JUST one author or JUST one character.

This is where we get harmful tropes in books like:

"magical Native American"
"sassy black best friend"
"kill your gays"
"everyone with schizophrenia is violent"

and on and on... authors who write this (especially authors who are writing from a non-#ownvoices perspective) and excuse it by saying "it's just my book ... it's just one character ... without paying attention to the fact that this is the representation these marginalized groups are getting, and that they are doing harm. Again, sadly, it is usually NON-#ownvoices authors who are writing these harmful story lines, and closing their ears to the overall problem these marginalized groups are voicing to how they are represented in literature. Because Native people would like books where they are NOT always the "magical Native American." Would you like it if every time, the person who was like you was "randomly" chosen to be killed off? People who suffer from schizophrenia and other health conditions would like to see them portrayed accurately in books, NOT always to be cast as the "crazy psycho murderer." And so on and so on.

[Messina]

katwiththehat wrote: "Regarding all the comments about stereotyping: I don't think the book presented a stereotype, it presented ONE CHARACTER.

Yes and no.

This statement of "the author was only trying to represent o..."

THIS! Thank you!

[Sarah]

I'll probably be crucified for saying this, but I wasn't a huge fan of "Wonder." I felt like it fell into the trap of making Auggie the "inspirational disabled character." He was quite passive- things happened to him instead of him being a strong-willed agent in his own life.

I find that nonfiction and fiction written BY people who are disabled tends to have a pretty different viewpoint than books by able-bodied people that include disabled characters. I strongly prefer to read novels and nonfiction about disability by people who have that lived experience.

One of the only able-bodied authors I think really got it right was "Good Kings Bad Kings" by Susan Nussbaum. I think it's because she has spent a lot of time with and advocates for disabled youth.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...