quote: Original post by Logodae

quote: Original post by adventuredesign

quote: Again, I have to ask: Do you think that most stories do not contain logical roles for minority characters?

No, I think they do, but I also think there are not as many places for them as you would like, which points to your underrepresentation arguments earlier. It''s becoming pretty obvious you are advancing a political race based argument wrapped in the sheep''s clothing of a creative question, and it won''t vet.

You infer too much.

Note that I''m neither the original poster, nor a direct respondent, as of yet.

You quote the OP, and I answered both of you at the same time.

quote:
And I''m still not sure why you think there are a limited number of logical roles from minority characters, such that I might perceive a shortage, while you believe that any increase would be forcing minorities into unsuitable roles for political reasons.

A, because it is what the mass medium public at large demands, supported by industry data, and b, I don''t believe any increase in forcing minorities into unsuitable roles is good for the sake of the art, no other reason. An increase forcing minorities into unsuitable roles for political reasons is political, not artistic, and smacks of affirmative action in the arts where it does not belong, nor should be utilized as such. It''s the artist''s art, not the politician with an issue to grind.

quote:

quote: Exclusionary stories exist in majority because what the public demands and asks for predominantly in their entertainment doesn''t include minoritism in their tastes and preferences. They do not reason like you seem to want them to, such as, "Oh, let''s not represent these people or those people", they think in terms of, "Wow, that big handsome, muscular hero type is the kind of character I want to empathize with, let''s go shoot some bad guys".

Okay. But if the hunky hero happens to have a different skin color than they do, they''ll probably still empathize with him, right?

Yes, because he is a hunky hero, the kind of protagonist that audiences like, but color is secondary in consideration, what audiences respond to is of primary imprortance, to the writer, the director, the box office. The thing that keeps that aspect of the art world turning.

quote:
Does that mean it isn''t worth discussing?

It is worth discussing, but in the right context for the right purpose if you are going to make a meaningful and progressive point. The OP didn''t have those intentions, and that was what I was challenging the view of and the format of.

If you are against the death penalty, do you think movies about the death penalty against sympathetic characters you don''t believe should be put to death do anything more for the issue than finding out the activist organizations with established connections, legal representation, political action committees and supporting them? Of course they won''t, but the OP would lead you to believe that. Why, because it is an old argument technique dating back thousands of years called the wolf in sheep''s clothing argument. You garb in the most inimicable and soft tones an issue that is hard and sharp, and see if the ballon flies and you capture gullible supporters who fall for the argument. It''s bad news, and represents back door, smoke filled room methods of political agendizing. It''s exactly what we don''t need on this planet right now, or ever again, and I wouldn''t be a n advocate for progressivism if I let that go unchallenged.

It would be like me going into the AI forum and asking if anybody had ever considered building a bot for jesus conversation entity, so you could e-mail it to everyone on the agnostic/athiest address list. I encourage you to recognize you have an opportunity from this thread to learn that some people out there in this world have political agendas they will advance in the most subtle and innocuous ways simply to get progress on their political aim, and don''t really give a darn about the content or context they were asking the question in? It''s the soft version of Jehovah''s witnesses knocking on your virtual door, and you can learn to realize it''s a very bad thing to engage or support in anyway.

quote:
"Boxers are a minority"? Well, in a sense... but in that sense, virtually every story can be said to be about "a minority."

But what would that portend for mass appeal? The minorities portrayed are designed as homogenistically as possible, so they appeal to as wide an audience as possible and are given mental acceptance and credibility during the performance, but in the end, they are going to find a way to slip in their doctrine to the masses, realizing the more they slip it in, the leasser the resistance comes, and that is why when you see a commercial over and over and over, and then two weeks later, you find yourself buying the product, buddy, you''ve willingly let yourself be manipulated. The OP''s communication strategy was just another form of advancing a racial issue garbed in a senstivistic, artistic manner, and I chose not to tolerate it and challenged it. That''s all.

quote:
And there are many stories with minority characters, by the more usual definition. More than "dozens," I''m sure. And they can and do make a profit.

No question about that. Raisin in the sun is a great example, with Sidney Poitier. However, well prior to the production getting distributed for exhibition to collect box office revenues, way before that in the earliest creative processes and business plan formulations for the project, one of the first questions that have been asked is, "Has it been done." These minority films have been done over and over and over, and I''m not saying that is a bad thing, I am saying that each time through, it sorta loses it''s effectiveness, and the message really belongs in the political arena if the message is to have maximum progressive impact, not in an artistic entertainment arena.

quote:
At the SF/F convention I was at last week, an editor on a panel mentioned specifically looking for stories by writers of various ethnicities, based on their success with Octavia Butler''s books -- interesting, well-written, character-driven speculative fiction, in which the characters are most often black. You''ve implied that good writing is more important than having diverse characters, but that goes both ways -- good writing is also more important than making sure your protagonist "matches" your majority audience.

Which is exactly what I was saying earlier, if the target audience is a specific demographic, then write for that with archetypes that demographic characteristically enjoys, but don''t expect it to fly in the mainstream markets. That editor probably sells into those minority markets, which can be lucrative and a good niche to be publishing into, but it is a specific intended target audience, and not a main stream audience, who''s readers number in the tens of millions or more per title exposure, whereas a minority market is on the order of hundreds of thousands per title exposure, still good money, but not the big time dollars. And, Octavia Butler wrote great stories where the color of the protagonist''s skin was a secondary issue, the success of her titles came from as you said, ''interesting, well written speculative fiction'' something everyone is looking to publish more of. Look at the Ender series, the main character we loved from the first book, eventually became a bug and we still loved him, but he started out as a homogenic kid with some special talents that were interesting, and any other character developments that came out in the sequel were a function of the plot necessitating character advancement.

quote:
What people want is a good story.

My point all along, skin color has little to do with that unless you are playing a race card.

quote:
At that same convention, I heard Tamora Pierce talk about gay teens coming up to her at signings in tears, thanking her... because she includes gay and gay-friendly characters in her books. She said, to paraphrase: how could she not, when that was the reaction she was getting?

So she ran into empathetic audience members of a particular demographic. Good for her, but those kids would have never come up to her in tears if the story sucked. So again, ethnicity, lifestyle, minoritization is a secondardy consideration. If she got empathy and thanks, it was icing on the cake of being a good writer who told a great story, of which character is subsidiary.

quote:
Now, I suspect that there is nothing in the narrative structure of her stories that requires gay or gay-friendly characters. So, is she "injecting a political agenda" by continuing to write them in? Should she, too, try to "get past this" and focus on creative self-expression?

No, I don''t believe she is. I believe that she is writing what she knows, and has enough contact, experience and interaction with that demographic to write well about them. So she does, it works dramaturlogically, the audience responds and comes to your signings and says so and shows so. The author has nothing to get past, the OP does. He has to get past the fact that you cannot use art as a political agenda tool effectively. What happens is called the Uncle Tom''s Cabin effect, and your work becomes a token, and we all know what happens to tokens, they become powerless examples of progress that really hasn''t occured.

The author has nothing to get past, she is writing what she knows. I would say very clearly she is doing nothting but focusing on creative self expression. The OP was whom I was addressing that context to, not authors. I would certainly never do so in the case of an author who was familiar with, artistically enthusiastic about and creatively productive with any controversial or even homogenistic subject. Hell, Thomas Kincaide makes a ton of money, and he''s violating every rule of light every great master painter has ever used in the last five hundred years since the second rennaissance.

quote:
I''m not saying "you must write more diverse characters." Neither was wes.

I believe wes absolutely was, he just didn''t say it directly, it was inferred and insinuated.

quote:
Right.

I''ll point out that you were the one saying "write what you know" -- and that you couldn''t fairly write about specific minority characters, beyond the aspects of their lives for which you knew about the people you based them on.

Thank you for making my point for me.

I was talking about me personally as a writer when I said write what I know, and I was quoting some of the oldest writing advice in existance that says generally to writers to write what you know. I personally can''t write about minorities other than the ones I have good handle on contextually and content wise. To write beyond that is stretching it in terms of creative consistency, which makes faulty simile in fiction.

I don''t know how you could say I made your point for you unless you are taking what I said out of context, albeit the context was carefully created so misinterpretation is minimized. Can you, or any author for that matter, write credibly or believably about specific minority characters they know little about?

quote:
I was addressing the specific sentence I quoted, in order to make a very specific point concerning your choice of words in that sentence, a point which was not affected by the broader context of the sentence.

I can''t even follow you here. Reconstruct the duologue and I''ll address it. Otherwise, you are making a point with no proofs inline.

quote: ]
So you don''t see any difference between saying "I don''t think of my characters as gay or black, I think of them as people with various character traits," and saying "I don''t think of my characters in terms of orientation or race, I think of them as people with various character traits?"

You are asking me to compare differences between interpreting the words "gay" or "black" and "orientation" and "race". I see little difference, as the last two and the first two can be used interchangeably and not cause me any confusion. Various character traits are what is important in character design, not orientation, race, the fact they are gay or the fact they are black. :D There, I used it in a sentence so you can see it is true.

quote:
I don''t know about you, but when I say "it sounds that way," that''s my way of indicating that it is my attempted interpretation of what someone is saying

Yeah, and I indicated I believed you had interpreted what I''d intened incorrectly, and tried to restate it for clarity.

quote:
, as opposed to presuming I could ever "objectively diagnose" another person''s reason and intent based on their words.

You can, in fact, with practice. Listening is the biggest part of glistening.

quote:
Communication is inherently subjective... in my opinion.

So when I yell, "Look out!", or "Duck" or "Fire!!" or "Run for your lives!" at the top of my lungs with all the urgency and sincerity one can muster, you are going to sit there and ponder if my rationales is inherently subjective? LOL :D

quote:
Well, since I can''t figure out how to create a human character who has no race, ethnicity or orientation, I can''t really see them as "superfluous" characteristics. Secondary, yes... but not something that can ever be "left on the editing room floor."

Well, it''s pretty simple. You think first of the why before the what. Why is that character needed, why is that character needed here, why is that needed here to say to the protagonist or other type of character *what* to advance, complicate or characterize plot, character or setting. Limited choices there, really. What they look like, or what they sound like, what other attributes they have are derivative from the essential reason why they are in scene, in action, in plot in the first place. Paying attention to anything else first is poor design, and it will show in the reader''s notes, the editor''s evaluation, and if you don''t put it on the cutting room floor, they will, and there go your chances of getting paid because you just discredited your writing skills by making a fundamental mistake in plot design.

quote:
It''s not a decision you can avoid, regardless of how unimportant you think it is.{/quote]

I''ve never said it was a decision to avoid, you can''t avoic it. Readers are going to want to know what a character looks like, acts like, is backgrounded in. It is so much less important than other considerations though, to give it primary effort is a big mistake creatively.

quote:
That''s a rather off-handed "unless." Yeah, it has nothing to do with it... except when it does, of course.

But it has so little to do with it, I can''t understand why you phrase it as an either or, when it is more cause and effect. A character''s ethnicity, lifestyle or minoritization is a secondary consideration to the reason why they are there to do what for whom in consideration of the primary importance of advancing the plot, complicating the action, or characterizing a character.

quote:
Including a range of less specific (and therefore larger and fewer) minorities (e.g.: black people, gay people) is a reasonable possibility for most writers.

Anything is possible. But in fiction, probably, then plausible, then potential suspension of disbelief is the standard that must be met for the medium and the market. Possible doesn''t cut it. It''s possible for there to be life on mars. It''s plausible it could be similar to our DNA. It''s potentially nearly believeable it would give us insights into the questions of life in the universe as a whole as we know it if conditions a,b,c,d,e,f,g, are met when the sample is tested. It''s the specification of a,b,c,d,e,f,g that meet the test of fact. Fiction doesn''t have to go quite as far as science, but it is far more scrutinous than possibility.

quote:
Again: I never said "you must do it this way." I am simply exercising my own right to free speech to say that there are reasons you might choose to.

No argument there. I support you in your rights, always. I suggest that the reasons you would choose to make those type of character design selections could work against you in terms of professional quality, the credibility in the publishing community and the audience who pays for your work.

quote:
And those "richer opportunities" involve less diversity?

No those richer opportunities involve thinking about what is important in good writing to engage and stimulate an audience to think, namely, plot and character design, not minority advancement at the price of that.

quote:
Divide "socially progressive impact of the ACLU" by the difference between the ACLU''s total funding, and the dollar amount an individual author might have had to contribute, if they had elected to write a generic "bestseller" -- as if avoiding minority characters is the way to do that in the first place -- and you''ll at least have an orange.

quote:

I wasn''t referring to any authors, I was referring to the OP''s method of politicking. I dont'' follow the rest of your reasoning, can you find another way to illustrate it so I may understand the point you are truying to make?

Addy

quote: I don't believe any increase in forcing minorities into unsuitable roles is good for the sake of the art, no other reason.

And I think that most roles are suitable for minorities. I think there could easily be more diversity in fiction, without any need for writers to "force" minorities into stories where they don't belong.

quote: Why, because it is an old argument technique dating back thousands of years called the wolf in sheep's clothing argument. You garb in the most inimicable and soft tones an issue that is hard and sharp, and see if the ballon flies and you capture gullible supporters who fall for the argument. It's bad news, and represents back door, smoke filled room methods of political agendizing. It's exactly what we don't need on this planet right now, or ever again, and I wouldn't be a n advocate for progressivism if I let that go unchallenged.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe you could cut back on the analogies and metaphors, and be more specific... exactly what do you think the OP was trying to accomplish, and why is it wrong?

quote: I encourage you to recognize you have an opportunity from this thread to learn that some people out there in this world have political agendas they will advance in the most subtle and innocuous ways simply to get progress on their political aim, and don't really give a darn about the content or context they were asking the question in? It's the soft version of Jehovah's witnesses knocking on your virtual door, and you can learn to realize it's a very bad thing to engage or support in anyway.

See above.

quote: The minorities portrayed are designed as homogenistically as possible, so they appeal to as wide an audience as possible and are given mental acceptance and credibility during the performance, but in the end, they are going to find a way to slip in their doctrine to the masses, realizing the more they slip it in, the leasser the resistance comes, and that is why when you see a commercial over and over and over, and then two weeks later, you find yourself buying the product, buddy, you've willingly let yourself be manipulated. The OP's communication strategy was just another form of advancing a racial issue garbed in a senstivistic, artistic manner, and I chose not to tolerate it and challenged it. That's all.

I feel like I'm beginning to grasp your argument... and I don't like the feel of it.

The OP suggested that minorities could be more included in fiction, because A) it could lead to interesting situations and B) it might also lead to more tolerance of said minorities.

You appear to be objecting to B).

"...they are going to find a way to slip in their doctrine to the masses, realizing the more they slip it in, the leasser the resistance comes..."

Perhaps I misunderstand you. Perhaps you could elaborate on exactly what "their doctrine" is, and why we should be careful not to let them manipulate us into believing it.

quote: Which is exactly what I was saying earlier, if the target audience is a specific demographic, then write for that with archetypes that demographic characteristically enjoys, but don't expect it to fly in the mainstream markets. That editor probably sells into those minority markets,

No. This is mainstream SF/F, with a predominantly white readership. It flew quite nicely, which is why the editor was looking for more like it.

quote: And, Octavia Butler wrote great stories where the color of the protagonist's skin was a secondary issue, the success of her titles came from as you said, 'interesting, well written speculative fiction' something everyone is looking to publish more of.

Yes. Precisely. And when the fiction in question features minority characters, it doesn't just sell to their specific demographic. It sells to people who appreciate good stories in the genre it's written in... and, perhaps, additional readers from that specific demographic.

quote:

quote: What people want is a good story.

My point all along, skin color has little to do with that unless you are playing a race card.

Okay... so is Octavia Butler "playing a race card" in her fiction? Or would it only be "playing a race card" if she wasn't black, herself?

quote: So she ran into empathetic audience members of a particular demographic. Good for her, but those kids would have never come up to her in tears if the story sucked. So again, ethnicity, lifestyle, minoritization is a secondardy consideration.

The orientation of the characters is of secondary importance to the average reader. For those kids, at that point in their lives, it was probably more important than everything else in the book combined. They weren't crying because she wrote a good story, they were crying because she wrote about a world where people like them were included and accepted.

quote: No, I don't believe she is. I believe that she is writing what she knows, and has enough contact, experience and interaction with that demographic to write well about them.

*sigh*

We're really not that different from anyone else, actually...

And I think Tamora Pierce is writing gay and accepting characters because she understands that, and she wants her readers to understand it, too. During the discussion, she referred to a scene where one character makes a homophobic comment, and another says (to paraphrase): I don't see what your problem is, where I come from there are gay couples and it's no big deal.

I think she's writing with an agenda... and more power to her.

quote: I personally can't write about minorities other than the ones I have good handle on contextually and content wise.

Then don't. But I don't think you should assume that what's true for you is true for everyone. I'm not saying other people don't need to have a handle on their characters... but they may think that speculative empathy and some research will suffice.

quote: I don't know how you could say I made your point for you unless you are taking what I said out of context, albeit the context was carefully created so misinterpretation is minimized. Can you, or any author for that matter, write credibly or believably about specific minority characters they know little about?

"That assumes one can't imagine, speculate, design or reason beyond what one knows now. Are you really conditioning this on one cognitive faculty alone? That's kinda thin. When you do, if you do, run out of what you know, well, it's easy enough to put together. You go learn more, go back to the drawing board, and keep trying to do better."

See "my" point?

quote:

quote: Well, since I can't figure out how to create a human character who has no race, ethnicity or orientation, I can't really see them as "superfluous" characteristics. Secondary, yes... but not something that can ever be "left on the editing room floor."

Well, it's pretty simple. You think first of the why before the what. Why is that character needed, why is that character needed here, why is that needed here to say to the protagonist or other type of character *what* to advance, complicate or characterize plot, character or setting. Limited choices there, really. What they look like, or what they sound like, what other attributes they have are derivative from the essential reason why they are in scene, in action, in plot in the first place. Paying attention to anything else first--

Okay, let's stop right there. I did not say "I can't figure out how to create a character without starting with race, ethnicity, or orientation. My point is, whatever your method, your character is going to end up with those secondary characteristics. And you, the writer, are going to have to decide what they are.

quote:

quote: That's a rather off-handed "unless." Yeah, it has nothing to do with it... except when it does, of course.

But it has so little to do with it, I can't understand why you phrase it as an either or, when it is more cause and effect. A character's ethnicity, lifestyle or minoritization is a secondary consideration to the reason why they are there to do what for whom in consideration of the primary importance of advancing the plot, complicating the action, or characterizing a character.

What are you saying, exactly? It's okay that writers may decide not to write minority characters, for fear of alienating non-minority readers and reducing their sales, because for any given character, their role in the story is more important than their minority status?

Am I understanding you correctly?

quote: No those richer opportunities involve thinking about what is important in good writing to engage and stimulate an audience to think, namely, plot and character design, not minority advancement at the price of that.

I don't think it's an either/or, fortunately.

quote: I dont' follow the rest of your reasoning, can you find another way to illustrate it so I may understand the point you are truying to make?

Earlier on, you argued that authors with agendas would be better off keeping those agendas out of their fiction, writing bestsellers, and donating some money to organizations working to achieve their agendas. I disagreed. You compared the work of some specific authors-with-agendas to the work of the ACLU, implying that the ACLU had done more. The point I failed to make clearly, rephrased: Sure... but the ACLU is an organization with a lot of people behind it. Do you really think one author's donation to such an organization will have more of an effect than their fiction will?

Personally, I think fiction one of the few things that can really affect people's beliefs. People can empathize with fictional characters in the same way that they can empathize with real people. If the writer does their job, then the reader won't be alienated by the fact that a character is black, or gay, or otherwise different from themselves... and that can actually have an effect on how the reader feels about real people who are different from themselves.

[edited by - Logodae on February 21, 2004 10:53:32 PM]

quote: Original post by Logodae

quote: And I think that most roles are suitable for minorities. I think there could easily be more diversity in fiction, without any need for writers to "force" minorities into stories where they don''t belong.

Like I''ve tried to say several times by now, suitability, ethnicity, minoritization, lifestyle choice, they are all far from critical in selecting, implementing and demonstrating character. Why a character is there, what they are to exposit and how they exposit it is so much more important, that diversity is almost a non issue.

quote:
I honestly have no idea what you''re talking about. Maybe you could cut back on the analogies and metaphors, and be more specific... exactly what do you think the OP was trying to accomplish, and why is it wrong?

The OP suggested advancing minorites was good for literary characterization. I debated those were not good selection criteria, and cited literary tradition, practice and market reality as my proofs. When the OP continued to advance minoritization via characterization, it became clear the OP was not talking about literary characterization, but racial advancement via creative development choice. So the OP had a race based political agenda to advance, and could have cared less about literary characterization technique. That was when I objected to censorship and propaganda and advanced the notion the artist has free speech and free choice rights in artistic development, and that there were market considerations any artist had to pragmatically consider when making these design choices.

quote: See above.

See above.

quote:
I feel like I''m beginning to grasp your argument... and I don''t like the feel of it.

I didn''t make the rules of the publishing industry reality. I just won''t be in denial of them, or work against them if it means less of a chance of making a living to enjoy what freedom I do have in this democracy yet to be fully realized.

Let me tell you about a phenomenon in filmmaking called "The Billy Wilder Film" The Billy Wilder film is where a major player in Hollywood hopes to get one day.

They spend their entire careers making compromises on creative choice, material development, final production values, often made to the personal detriment of their artistic vision. They have to make these choices in the presence and collaberation of a, people with less talent and vision, b, motives for profit instead of good filmic art, and c, pretend they all are copacetic about it when sometimes it makes you want to puke because you feel like a sell out.

But these people hang in, become major stars with major clout, and have major influence. Then, one day, they say, ok, I''ve found the material that represents the film I''ve always wanted to do (sometimes they look all their lives for this material) and I''m going to cash in everything I''ve got and do my Billy Wilder film, my artistically uncompromising, tell it like I see it, hold nothing back film. Clint Eastwood''s Billy Wilder film was "The Unforgiven." Kurt Russell''s was "Dark Blue."

Both of these films showed the dark underbelly of humanity in corrupt or blackhearted ways. They aren''t Road Trip, American Pie or Ferris Bueller''s Day Off films. They don''t make these kinds of films at Disney Pictures.

These films often garner critical acclaim, and sometimes good box office, but box office was not the intent this time out. Making a film that means something was.

This is the long justification these artists sought after years of compromises on content and company. It''s small but significant payoff for the years of shit and lousy deals they took to get where they are to not have to deal with it anymore.

Writer''s are the same way. We know that there is a reality about the mass media market that includes feel good fluff, because it is good for the pathetic majority that are trapped in short, pointless lives. We don''t screw with them by serving them a plate full of blood, guts and more dispair. We give them what they want, escape to fluffy doggy land with flowers and baloons and candy canes. Not because we want to, but because we want to make a living and have the clout to someday write our "Ask The Dust." Welcome to the reality of main stream media. You have to know the rules before you can break them. And, the public buys trust. If they don''t know you and trust you, your Tom Sawyer is going to get a pass, and all your work for a significant artistic expression that might have done some good for people''s education in serious social contexts would have been for naught.

quote:
The OP suggested that minorities could be more included in fiction, because A) it could lead to interesting situations and B) it might also lead to more tolerance of said minorities.

You appear to be objecting to B).

What inclusion hasn''t already been done, seen and recognized? Raisin in the Sun, Apocalypse Now, Six Degrees of Separation, Othello, The Merchant of Venice, 12 Angry Men, Billy Jack, Pride and Prejudice, The Fountainhead, Rosewood.

These films have demonstrated tolerance out the ass. Tell me there is something new under the sun here?

Since the beginning of civilization, prejudice has existed, and in only recent times, contextually, has a few events, like the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the 1964 Civil Rights Act have done something to put a finger in the leaking dyke of corruption, racism, predudice, slavery, exploitation and sexism that has existed and has highly refined mechanisms well entrenched for thousands of years.

And let me indicate to you just what the vast majority, but thankfully not all of many, many minorities have done with this precious, rare and fleeting opportunity things like the Civil Rights Act and Equal Opportunity have given them. They have chosen to glorify, exalt and advocate to impressionable youth things like, pimping, whore collecting and profiteering, gang violence, gun violence, drug use, drug esteem and oh yeah, car modification, guitar modification and body modification.

All noble, effective, progressive and useful choices with this rare and precious opportunity. Well done. Take a bow, minorities, ethnicities, lifestyle diversitites -- what a shining example you have set. We look forward to your next wonderous concoction.

We both know, we all know, they pissed it away while they were pissing on the very same thing that could have set them free. Frankly, I don''t even think they recognized the opportunity was there, and took it for granted. Ever wonder why old people have such disgust for youth? It isn''t because they envy youthfulness, but because they see everything they fought for, bled for and many, many of them died for sitting around in NOS cars, smoking dope waiting for the Payrents to die so they can inherit and have a big party. This is the fate of the naive.

quote:
"...they are going to find a way to slip in their doctrine to the masses, realizing the more they slip it in, the leasser the resistance comes..."

Perhaps I misunderstand you. Perhaps you could elaborate on exactly what "their doctrine" is, and why we should be careful not to let them manipulate us into believing it.

See above, and, those who choose this lifestyle wrapping it in some pseudo-sixties rhetoric as if they have actually figured out something new. All they have figured out is how to not be like the elder generation, which is a plus in many cases, and the worse mistake they could have made in others.

I object to the doctrine that bling bling is more important than investing for the day when you will be too old to work and make money. I object to the doctrine that having a louder boom box and better hydraulics on your car is more status than a decent mind cultivation education. I object to the doctrine of stereotyping women as sex objects to be made into profit centers, I object to the regurgitation of countercultural rationales without full realization of their implications, and I was a counter culturalist. I even danced disco! Now you really hate me.

I object to the person who thinks that playing their car stereo so loud it sets off my car alarm is so cool when they don''t realize those subwoofer vibrations are causing both deafness and schiztophrenia to set in still acting as if they got a brain in their head.

I object to minority cultures, ethic cultures and lifestyle choice cultures telling me they have found a better way to live when they contribute little significant art or science back to us all, yet pose as if they are our icons.

I object to ethnicities, minorities and alternative lifestyle advocates advocating their heritage is so noble that I should not look on them now as the drug addicts, alcoholics, criminals and poor contributors to society that they quite often are, but as the source of civilization they once were. Talk about a personal Papal procession without having to be Catholic. What arrogance! It''s intolerable.

I object to anyone using art as a political forum, when neither the art or the politic are advanced by it significantly enough to do even any progress against the status quo.

quote:
No. This is mainstream SF/F, with a predominantly white readership. It flew quite nicely, which is why the editor was looking for more like it.

Like I said before, it flew because of a great story, the character just happened to be a minority character design choice. The color of the skin had nothing to do with it, the quality of the story did. I said this before, but you must have missed the point.

quote:
Yes. Precisely. And when the fiction in question features minority characters, it doesn''t just sell to their specific demographic. It sells to people who appreciate good stories in the genre it''s written in... and, perhaps, additional readers from that specific demographic.

Oh yeah, they found a way to sell a few more copies, because they can please a secondary demographic. What amazing social progressivism that was, so subtly disguised as a simple marketing tactic. Wow, how did they do it? Is this the kind of goal the OP or you really seek out of minority characterization. It would seem to me that you would want greater tolerance, not more sales for the author.

quote: Okay... so is Octavia Butler "playing a race card" in her fiction? Or would it only be "playing a race card" if she wasn''t black, herself?

Who can tell? I''m not Johnny Cochrane or a judge with dozens of racial discrimination lawsuits past my bench. Octavia Butler is black, she wrote what she knew. She is appearantly smart enough to know that playing the race card can make you more money, so why wouldn''t she play it, any way she could, not just the ways you characterize it. But that is secondary and subjective in importance to the fact she is black and she wrote a black character. She wrote what she knew. The vast majority of writers probably reflects the demographics of this country, so the vast majority of stories out there are going to be white stories. It''s just the math, I think.

My first writing teacher was black. He wrote the difinitive crime fiction novel set in harlem called "When Cotton Comes to Harlem". He also wrote Panic in Harlem, a progressivist radical countercultural treatise on the fear of black in white america. You can''t even find a copy of it anywhere. When I wrote the first three chapters of my first science fiction novel, I took them to him. He read them and pointed to the bookshelf near him.

He said, "You see those twelve books there on the bottom row? I wrote them all. I am the second most published black author in america. {this was way back in the early 80''s) You know who is first? Alex Haley. He only wrote one book. "Roots." Me, I can write circles around him. But I still have to teach community college to feed my three little girls."

He handed me back my three chapters and said, "Forget everything. The politics, the society, the power, the money. Just keep working. And always think of your audience." Two weeks later, I was on my way to Hollywood, and I have never looked back.

In the end, you will find he was right. It does not matter whether Octavia Butler plays the race card, or even if we think she does when she may not be. It does not matter if you advance minorities or alternative lifestylers or ethnicities in your character choices. What matter is the story you tell, the people it reaches, and the impression it makes on them and the joy it gives you in your life creating your special work of beauty and significance. All else, as anonymous poster once said, is vanity.

quote:
The orientation of the characters is of secondary importance to the average reader. For those kids, at that point in their lives, it was probably more important than everything else in the book combined. They weren''t crying because she wrote a good story, they were crying because she wrote about a world where people like them were included and accepted.

If it was so secondary, how could she have written a world where people like them were included and accepted if she had not designed a character of similar background the audience could engage and sympathize with? I think you forget that in many senses, character isstory.

quote: We''re really not that different from anyone else, actually...

No, we''re not. We all bleed red, we all cry clear, all our shite stinks. That is why advancement of minorities as literary character, albeit great, we''ve seen amazing art come from it, as I cited herein, but the real reason racism exists is because it is a tool of greed, and to combat greed, you are going to have to have a better weapon that art, you need politics.

quote:
I think she''s writing with an agenda... and more power to her.

Perhaps she can make that work with her audience demographic, and publisher. But were the story not great, she would never be affored that lattitude.

quote: Then don''t. But I don''t think you should assume that what''s true for you is true for everyone.

I don''t think I did. But I do know one thing about every writer, if you don''t write what you know, it shows, and to your regret. Because the effort is so great to begin with, to see in retrospect how it was a mistake to make a work of art a political vehicle that you curse your own motives, and feel yourself a fool. Who wants to feel like a fool?

Why do you think Picasso made it so emphatically clear that "Guernica" was *not* a painting, but a tombstone? He knew the difference between art and politics.

quote:
See "my" point?

Nope. I don''t.

quote:
Okay, let''s stop right there. I did not say "I can''t figure out how to create a character without starting with race, ethnicity, or orientation. My point is, whatever your method, your character is going to end up with those secondary characteristics. And you, the writer, are going to have to decide what they are.

What I don''t think you or the OP are getting is how unimportant those choices actually are compared to what is important in writing a literary fiction.

quote:

quote:
But it has so little to do with it, I can''t understand why you phrase it as an either or, when it is more cause and effect. A character''s ethnicity, lifestyle or minoritization is a secondary consideration to the reason why they are there to do what for whom in consideration of the primary importance of advancing the plot, complicating the action, or characterizing a character.

What are you saying, exactly? It''s okay that writers may decide not to write minority characters, for fear of alienating non-minority readers and reducing their sales, because for any given character, their role in the story is more important than their minority status?

Am I understanding you correctly?

A characters role in a story is so much more important than any other attribute you may assign that character. Some writers think of the market when writing, and deliberately choose to avoid character attributes they feel may not sit will with the perceptions their audience has because they know their audience better than anyone, also know they are not going to have the magic forever with the keyboard, so they go for what they go for. But selfishness is not prejudicial, it''s self preserving.

quote:
I don''t think it''s an either/or, fortunately.

Good, because that is the way the OP and you seem to have been coming across all along.

quote:
Earlier on, you argued that authors with agendas would be better off keeping those agendas out of their fiction, writing bestsellers, and donating some money to organizations working to achieve their agendas. I disagreed. You compared the work of some specific authors-with-agendas to the work of the ACLU, implying that the ACLU had done more. The point I failed to make clearly, rephrased: Sure... but the ACLU is an organization with a lot of people behind it. Do you really think one author''s donation to such an organization will have more of an effect than their fiction will?

No, I didn''t make the original point that way. I said any author meaning every one who had the choice, not one author. If every author who had the choice made the choice to donate to the ACLU, their collective donations would have massively more impact than their works alone would. No question about it.

quote:
Personally, I think fiction one of the few things that can really affect people''s beliefs.

There is no doubt about it. It is something I have believed it and studied how to do for almost twenty years, and use it in my fiction writing itself. One thing you learn as you begin to get some expertice, experience and exposure with this tool is how the vast majority of people trying to use this tool, powerful as it can be, screw it up and actually make things worse because they didn''t do their homework and sharpen their tools first before setting down to work.

When you see something you have been working for twenty years to develop as an effective tool for this very benefit, and then you watch as poor implementations from underprepared amateurs strip the tool of value and create the perception with audiences that this is not to be taken seriously, or as seriously as it should be, you sit back and shake your head and say to yourself, ''well, I''d better write it over, and even better.''

quote:
People can empathize with fictional characters in the same way that they can empathize with real people.

Not exactly the same way. A character is fiction, a person is real. In the mind of the observer, this is an important distinction. Some women who read romance/passion novels know they would never do things the heroine does, but they think it. See the difference. It''s what you would think but never do. That is the escape they turn to entertainment for.

quote:
If the writer does their job, then the reader won''t be alienated by the fact that a character is black, or gay, or otherwise different from themselves... and that can actually have an effect on how the reader feels about real people who are different from themselves.

But also, part of doing your job is understanding the limitations of acceptance and tolerance of the audience. I am not opposed to writing this type of minority character if a, I can do it justice, b, it belongs in the story, and c, if that is what my audience wants, and I should know because if you don''t know your audience, how are you ever going to convince a publisher or editor your work is appealing to his or her readers?

Addy

In most sci-fi settings, assuming white people haven''t killed off all other races and your have a similar racial mix as Earth''s current population, white people will actually be a minority. Even if you have a population similar to the US, at least a few minorites should show up, even if they are minor characters.

Using the argument that most consumers of sci-fi, fantasy and video games are white and therefore most characters in those things should be white is bullshit. Most consumers of rap music are also white, does that mean all rappers should be? Having minority characters in important roles, or having a lot of minority characters in your story will not hurt your product''s appeal. Look at the success of the Matrix with a variety of different races interact together. I also think Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic handled race pretty well in a sci-fi setting. There are a variety of different race characters (as well as aliens, etc.)

You can argue that all of these characters are "raceless," mostly because sci-fi cultures are usually different than the cultures we have now, but that doesn''t really matter. In fact, because a sc-fi story takes place in a different culture it makes it even easier for non-minorities to write minorty characters.

The closer you get to current times the less "raceless" the characters can be though. If you''re writing a cyberpunk story then minority issues should come up with your minority characters. I think Snow Crash did this nicely. Hiro Protagonist, the main character, is half black half korean and there are a variety of characters of various races and nationalities.

There is the possibility of doing sci-fi that focuses on something only a minority would experience. This would be hard from someone of another race,sexuality,gender,religion\,tc. to write though. I don''t think there''s much of this out there. It could result in some pretty interesting stories.

Not putting minorities in fantasy makes a little bit more sense, but I think there is a place for them in a lot of settings. There are sometimes were I feel like they force in a token minority in a fantasy story, and something like Lord of the Rings not having minority characters doesn''t bother me at all. Of course, if you had a fantasy story that took place in ancient China, Africa, India, etc. throwing in a token white character would feel odd as well.

I''m looking at this entirely from the perspective of race, btw. I think this is more important than sex because women will always be decently represented in sci-fi, fantasy and games even if its just for sex appeal. Portrayal of women is a whole different topic imho. Its also one that is discussed a lot in the game industry, while race is barely brought up.

When it comes to gays, I don''t think sexuality is a factor in enough games for that to come up. I do think it is a good idea to allow the player to choose a love interest of the same sex though, as long as they can''t accidently end up in that situation (like its been said, some people may be uncomfortable with that.)

quote: Original post by Impossible
...women will always be decently represented in sci-fi, fantasy and games even if its just for sex appeal.

I'm not sure that "decently" is the right word, there.

Joking aside, you make a lot of good points. No arguments from me.

quote: Original post by adventuredesign
When the OP continued to advance minoritization via characterization, it became clear the OP was not talking about literary characterization, but racial advancement via creative development choice. So the OP had a race based political agenda to advance, and could have cared less about literary characterization technique.

I don't believe the OP ever posted to this thread again. You're probably thinking of me, actually. And I do care about characterization. I just don't see how it's incompatible with writing about minority characters, or even with advancing "political" agendas through one's work.

quote: That was when I objected to censorship and propaganda and advanced the notion the artist has free speech and free choice rights in artistic development, and that there were market considerations any artist had to pragmatically consider when making these design choices.

I've never said that you must write minority characters. I have, at most, suggested that perhaps you ought to.

Now, market considerations are another matter entirely. I'm not convinced that writing minority characters will necessarily affect the saleability of one's work, but I can't prove otherwise. It's a difficult thing to determine, one way or the other.

quote: I didn't make the rules of the publishing industry reality. I just won't be in denial of them, or work against them if it means less of a chance of making a living to enjoy what freedom I do have in this democracy yet to be fully realized.

If those are the rules, then I do intend to work against them. To borrow Tamora Pierce's phrase: How can I not?

quote: We know that there is a reality about the mass media market that includes feel good fluff, because it is good for the pathetic majority that are trapped in short, pointless lives. We don't screw with them by serving them a plate full of blood, guts and more dispair. We give them what they want, escape to fluffy doggy land with flowers and baloons and candy canes. Not because we want to, but because we want to make a living and have the clout to someday write our "Ask The Dust."

Damn.

If I thought that way about writing... I wouldn't.

quote: Welcome to the reality of main stream media. You have to know the rules before you can break them. And, the public buys trust. If they don't know you and trust you, your Tom Sawyer is going to get a pass, and all your work for a significant artistic expression that might have done some good for people's education in serious social contexts would have been for naught.

Sooo... write feel-good fluff, get your audience to trust you to write more feel-good fluff, and then hit them with your "artistic statement"?

To quote Baron Von Munchausen: "Your reality, sir, is nothing but lies and balderdash. And I am quite thankful that I have no grasp of it whatsoever."

quote: What inclusion hasn't already been done, seen and recognized? Raisin in the Sun, Apocalypse Now, Six Degrees of Separation, Othello, The Merchant of Venice, 12 Angry Men, Billy Jack, Pride and Prejudice, The Fountainhead, Rosewood.

These films have demonstrated tolerance out the ass. Tell me there is something new under the sun here?

"Tolerance has been done, so why should I bother"?

You know something? I think you're right. You've convinced me.

You shouldn't.

But don't think you're going to stop me.

quote: All noble, effective, progressive and useful choices with this rare and precious opportunity. Well done. Take a bow, minorities, ethnicities, lifestyle diversitites -- what a shining example you have set. We look forward to your next wonderous concoction.

We both know, we all know, they pissed it away while they were pissing on the very same thing that could have set them free.

Kindly refrain from telling me what I "know." You had your pronouns right in the preceding paragraph. I may not be a racial minority, but I know something about wasted opportunities. I also know something about being fucked up because the environment you grew up in convinced you of your worthlessness.

And you've said nothing to convince me that you know anything about it.

quote: I object to the doctrine that bling bling is more important than investing for the day when you will be too old to work and make money. I object to the doctrine that having a louder boom box and better hydraulics on your car is more status than a decent mind cultivation education. I object to the doctrine of stereotyping women as sex objects to be made into profit centers, I object to the regurgitation of countercultural rationales without full realization of their implications, and I was a counter culturalist.

And what, dare I ask, does this have to do with the topic at hand?

Do you think that anyone who writes minority characters into their fiction is trying to forward these "doctrines"?

Do you think that the OP was proposing to forward them?

Do you think that I am?

quote: I object to ethnicities, minorities and alternative lifestyle advocates advocating their heritage is so noble that I should not look on them now as the drug addicts, alcoholics, criminals and poor contributors to society that they quite often are, but as the source of civilization they once were.

I think you misunderstand the point of the advocacy you refer to, although without a more specific complaint, I can't be sure.

I'm curious, though. Why are we so often drug addicts, alcoholics, criminals, and otherwise "poor contributors to society," in your opinion?

quote: Oh yeah, they found a way to sell a few more copies, because they can please a secondary demographic. What amazing social progressivism that was, so subtly disguised as a simple marketing tactic. Wow, how did they do it? Is this the kind of goal the OP or you really seek out of minority characterization. It would seem to me that you would want greater tolerance, not more sales for the author.

You're the one talking about "market considerations." You're the one talking about making a living by giving the audience what they want -- instead of what you really want to write. But to answer your question: No, it's not my "real goal."

quote: It does not matter if you advance minorities or alternative lifestylers or ethnicities in your character choices. What matter is the story you tell, the people it reaches, and the impression it makes on them and the joy it gives you in your life creating your special work of beauty and significance.

I think these two sentences contradict each other. I believe that whether or not my writing is inclusive has a significant effect on the people I reach, the impression it makes on them, and the joy that I find in writing.

Therefore, it does matter -- at least to me.

quote: No, we're not. We all bleed red, we all cry clear, all our shite stinks. That is why advancement of minorities as literary character, albeit great, we've seen amazing art come from it, as I cited herein, but the real reason racism exists is because it is a tool of greed, and to combat greed, you are going to have to have a better weapon that art, you need politics.

I think racism and similar "isms" are caused by a lack of empathy -- of people failing to understand, at a fundamental level, that we are all alike. Politics can combat the symptoms -- which is certainly important -- but I think art is better at addressing the cause.

quote: But I do know one thing about every writer, if you don't write what you know, it shows, and to your regret. Because the effort is so great to begin with, to see in retrospect how it was a mistake to make a work of art a political vehicle that you curse your own motives, and feel yourself a fool. Who wants to feel like a fool?

If I write without addressing these issues, I will feel myself to be a coward. Given the choice, I would rather risk feeling like a fool.

quote: A characters role in a story is so much more important than any other attribute you may assign that character. Some writers think of the market when writing, and deliberately choose to avoid character attributes they feel may not sit will with the perceptions their audience has because they know their audience better than anyone, also know they are not going to have the magic forever with the keyboard, so they go for what they go for. But selfishness is not prejudicial, it's self preserving.

Yes. But if I had to make that kind of self-preserving decision based on my audience's prejudice, I'd want a different audience.

But then, I'm queer. I'm inclined to take that sort of thing personally.

quote: No, I didn't make the original point that way. I said any author meaning every one who had the choice, not one author. If every author who had the choice made the choice to donate to the ACLU, their collective donations would have massively more impact than their works alone would. No question about it.

I'll question it. You're talking about a world with no fiction that challenge the majority viewpoint... and a somewhat better-funded ACLU.

No thanks. Don't get me wrong, what the ACLU does is vital. But stories have had profound personal impact on me. Multiply that kind of impact times everyone who's experienced it, and I don't care how much more money you think those authors could have made, writing "bestsellers." What they actually did -- and continue to do -- is more important.

quote:

quote: Personally, I think fiction one of the few things that can really affect people's beliefs.

There is no doubt about it. It is something I have believed it and studied how to do for almost twenty years, and use it in my fiction writing itself.

Really? I have to admit, I'm surprised. Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean -- can you give a specific example?

quote: But also, part of doing your job is understanding the limitations of acceptance and tolerance of the audience. I am not opposed to writing this type of minority character if a, I can do it justice, b, it belongs in the story, and c, if that is what my audience wants, and I should know because if you don't know your audience, how are you ever going to convince a publisher or editor your work is appealing to his or her readers?

So how do you know what your audience wants? I suppose we can assume that if you're an established author, they want to read something like what you usually write. I can see how that might be a problem if you think you need to write something radically different in order to incorporate minority character(s). I don't see how you can tell what percentage of them will have a problem if, say, your series' protagonist's new love interest is a black woman, or if his brother turns out to be gay, or whatever. How do you gauge the "limitations of acceptance and tolerance" of your audience?

[edited by - Logodae on March 3, 2004 11:21:41 PM]

"force" minorities into stories where they don't belong...

that one is a good idea...; think about most sucessfull adventure-type stories....they all force "minorities" (if I may, minority also represents a character that is not suppossed to act in a certain manner) into roles that they are not expected to be in. For example Frodo, in Lotr, or Neo in the matrix, or Richard M. in Neverwhere...

in summary, I believe we are looking at minorities in a whole different perspective than what it should be. For myself, I think we all are persons, humans as a generalized being, what differentiates us is in fact our behavior, and how we respond to different kinds of stimuli.

looking in this direction, the minority problem should not be an issue in any way, but again it also depends on the mentality of the writers or the readers...basically, behavior and response to stimuli.


[edited by - LaCelestina on March 5, 2004 11:33:46 PM]