Welcome to Gaia! ::


7,150 Points
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Mark Twain 100
  • Megathread 100
Please review this if you plan on making a post about why this isn't a problem/your problem.

For those not in the know, RaceFail 09 refers to a series of events starting in January 09 that have exploded across the greater part of the F/SF writers and readers blogosphere and has bled into other areas of readership and authorship as well. There have been literally hundreds of posts and comments made on this topic (racefail in general, not just this wave). Both rydra-wong and naraht have compiled link indexes.

This thread is meant to discuss the role that social responsibility plays in writing. I feel that this is especially relevant to Speculative fiction writers, who create new and different worlds and get to populate them as they see fit. But it's also relevant to writers of any fiction or nonfiction, because when we write we create worlds - even if it's re-creating the one we all live in - in our own worldview. What's included and excluded changes the fabric of any story.

I'm talking about unexamined privilege in authorship.
I'm of the stance that it is the responsibility of authors to not blindly perpetuate racism/sexism/classism/-ism in general in their works. This does NOT mean not talking about it or exploring it or creating worlds in which it exists or characters that are racist/sexist/classist! It means being aware of the tropes and of the history and hierarchies of oppression worldwide, in your own country, and in the setting of your story. It means being mindful and doing things for a reason. It means stopping and taking a hard look at your own creations and thinking about why you did certain things (Ex: Why does Larry Niven choose to repeatedly create alien races in which females are BIOLOGICALLY subjugated? or the Patricia Wrede decision to erase the existence of Native Peoples of North America). It's something that I think that all authors have the responsibility to do when creating.

Do you think that authors have any responsibility at all concerning what they put forth into the world? Do you think any of this matters? Were you aware of it at all or had you ever thought about it before? If so, how so? If not, why not - and what do you think now that it's been brought to your attention?

ETA: There've been a couple of hangups about the word 'Worldview', so I'm posting a clarification.

"Worldview the framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and interacts with it."

Worldview is how you approach objective reality and how you see the world, not how you want the world to be or how you imagine new worlds. Worldview in changeable, but it cannot be CONSCIOUSLY changed. It's part of your unconscious and subconscious mind.


Yes, I will Ignore people who spam, flame, and try to derail the thread.
I don't think this is a new thing at all, especially in speculative fiction. Social issues, consciousness and theorizing have always been very much a part of the speculative fiction genre. One of the first books classified as science fiction was written by a woman, and the last chapter was her telling her audience that she, as a creator, could have created anything because she has the power, but that she chose to create this. Ursula K. Le Guin has addressed many things in her books, including women's rights. Attwood's "A Handmaiden's Tale" is science fiction. De Lint is active socially in his books by bringing attention to domestic violence, homelessness, and (yes) the condition of aboriginal people in North America. And so on and so forth.

We, as writers, only write if we have something to say. This is something I have always known, and always expressed. We have a responsibility for what we put into the world, as we always have. Speculative fiction is a good genre for social activism because we can alter the parameters of our world. Things are always as notable by their absence as they are by their presence. We can make our points using language that is not as close to home, and that often makes it easier to swallow, but it is always a comment about us. It is always a story about us.
I've never really looked at things like racism/sexism/etc in my writing. Then again I live a colorblind life. I figure it's kind of a writer's perogative to write things as they want in their fictional worlds. Most of the time what a writer writes isn't really their world view. I'm sure there exceptions, but I've never been one to watch the trends or reactions of others in judging the content of a novel or author. If things work in Wrede's novel the way she intended, then I guess it's just fine. I'm not supporting downtrodding minorities (I am one), but really in ficition anything and everything is fair game to be done with as they please.

Quotable Conventioneer

8,000 Points
  • Person of Interest 200
  • Conventioneer 300
  • Forum Sophomore 300
Speaking as a webcomic writer / creator:

This s**t ain't easy!

I'll offer my own comic (Last Res0rt) for analysis, but as far as any -isms go, I was being fairly careful to let the girls be nice and potent, to not dress 'em in skimpy little combat outfits (and flat-footed boots, no less!), some nice religious balance, even a few references to the Autism spectrum and such...

... and then I figure out six months ago that all the Celeste I have in the story so far (The 'evil' yet holy winged hybrids) are non-white Celeste. Well... those that have any human blood in 'em to be able to be dubbed one way or the other, anyway.

Likewise, the human players on the show are fairly light, with the exception of a Chinese Vampire with a so-long-it-must-be-a-running-gag queue on him and a Djinn who used to be fairly dark-skinned but is now blue-skinned... so she's a tossup. (OTOH, Slick is a black-furred Talmi, though this doesn't really illustrate much one way or the other, especially when almost everything else about his character background screams Italian instead.)

I realize I'm actually, y'know, aware of this and so I do try to do things the right way, which is a lot better than most folks, but in the end, a lot of the time it's still swerving to avoid the deer and hitting the curb instead; easy enough to avoid the obvious things not to do, but still end up screwing up something else.

7,150 Points
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Mark Twain 100
  • Megathread 100
Kirrun: I'd disagree that most writers don't write their worldview. Worldview is one of those invasive things that you cannot escape because it is your reality. You can try yo write a reality that's different from the objective/agreed-upon one, but you ultimately can't write a world that doesn't mesh with your worldview. View=/=Reality. EX: A person with a scientific worldview can totally write a magical setting, but their magical setting will probable behave by very different rules and assumptions than one written be a person who has a magical worldview.

Veled: Nobody's demanding that authors never make mistakes or that everyone be perfectly diverse and create balanced utopias. Social responsibility means that you're thinking about it: You're already doing that. It means that when you're called on it, you recognize the validity of those making the calls and attempt to do better (either in revisions of current work or in future works).

O.G. Elder

I really hate the phrase social responsibility in writing. I fully believe that people have a responsibility in the real world to, if not make it a better place, at least help prevent the world from becoming a worse place.

However, especially as a writer and fan of speculative fiction in particular, I don't think that I, or any other writer, has a particular responsibility to acknowledge any issues. While it's a great forum to do so, that doesn't mean I have to identify with or conform with any that I don't want to.

Your initial example I had to look up, but from what little I read about it, I'm just not feeling you on the issue. In alternate history, as the book claims to be, things have gotta be profoundly different in some way -- and it doesn't have to be pleasant for anyone. So there's no "native Americans" in this alternate America? That would definitely profoundly impact the way that the United States would or would not develop.

In speculative fiction, I may throw in something as absolutely terrifying as a total purge of some social group in the U.S., but that doesn't mean I dislike them, just that I chose to explore the impact of something like that -- and you may never even be aware of that, because it may only be a minor subplot to my primary issue. An author may not choose to highlight everything they do in an activist fashion.

And further, I think that the call to make what you might term "responsible choices" in our work could do great harm to the over-all cause of art if it was heeded. Suddenly a lot of territory would be a "no touch" zone by people who take this bit a little too far.

I wanna call attention to what I believe is a key phrase in your post,
Quote:
when we write we create worlds - even if it's re-creating the one we all live in - in our own worldview.


The bold is mine, of course, but I think this is a very, very troubling phrase -- particularly because it's not true. The world I write in is not always the world I want to exist. Sometime's it's the exact opposite (some of the forefathers of speculative fiction worked in worlds they never wanted to come about. Huxley, Bradbury and Orwell wrote to scare us off of the "perfect communism" ) Sometimes it's just different.

It's really easy to read into choices an author makes, especially if similar choices are made repeatedly as in your "sexist aliens" example, but more often than not it's just a choice, and maybe a choice made just because the work would be poorer for not having it.

7,150 Points
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Mark Twain 100
  • Megathread 100
Black Gabriel
I really hate the phrase social responsibility in writing. I fully believe that people have a responsibility in the real world to, if not make it a better place, at least help prevent the world from becoming a worse place.

However, especially as a writer and fan of speculative fiction in particular, I don't think that I, or any other writer, has a particular responsibility to acknowledge any issues. While it's a great forum to do so, that doesn't mean I have to identify with or conform with any that I don't want to.


So, do you think that writing isn't a part of the real world? That written media has no effect on objective reality? That it doesn't change minds and change cultures?


Black Gabriel
Your initial example I had to look up, but from what little I read about it, I'm just not feeling you on the issue. In alternate history, as the book claims to be, things have gotta be profoundly different in some way -- and it doesn't have to be pleasant for anyone. So there's no "native Americans" in this alternate America? That would definitely profoundly impact the way that the United States would or would not develop.


But the author didn't explore that as the point of the novel. That would have been interesting and deep and an exploration and examination of racist assumptions. What the author did, instead, was to offhandedly get rid of a whole people for the express purpose of making room for her white characters to frolic in an empty land.

Black Gabriel
And further, I think that the call to make what you might term "responsible choices" in our work could do great harm to the over-all cause of art if it was heeded. Suddenly a lot of territory would be a "no touch" zone by people who take this bit a little too far.


Slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy.

Black Gabriel
I wanna call attention to what I believe is a key phrase in your post,
Quote:
when we write we create worlds - even if it's re-creating the one we all live in - in our own worldview.


The bold is mine, of course, but I think this is a very, very troubling phrase -- particularly because it's not true. The world I write in is not always the world I want to exist. Sometime's it's the exact opposite (some of the forefathers of speculative fiction worked in worlds they never wanted to come about. Huxley, Bradbury and Orwell wrote to scare us off of the "perfect communism" wink Sometimes it's just different.

It's really easy to read into choices an author makes, especially if similar choices are made repeatedly as in your "sexist aliens" example, but more often than not it's just a choice, and maybe a choice made just because the work would be poorer for not having it.



In fiction, nothing is 'just a choice'. Specifically because the author had to either consciously make that choice or simply didn't think about it at all - Which is more often the case. Why are all the characters white? Author didn't think about it! Why is the fantasy story set in Standard Fantasy Setting? Author just didn't think about it. Going with the default is easy. THAT'S What worldview means: Worldview is where your brain defaults to.

O.G. Elder

Point by point:


On "the real world":
No, not always. There is some writing that does, but the over-whelming majority of us will never affect the world in a significant way. Especially those who aren't trying to. Sometimes entertainment is just entertainment.

And the primary purpose of entertainment is just to lighten up the day. I don't watch a sitcom for its social commentary, and I sure the hell ain't taking anything heavy handed away from it.
The same goes for a lot of books. Especially Fantasy.


On the missing native Americans:

You ignored a HUGE chunk of that point off-hand. I'll repeat it: sometimes it's just a subpoint, or even a non-point the author just wanted to play around with. I mentioned a race purge in the U.S. as an example I might throw in as a background point you'd never really think about. You may take it as an insult, but that doesn't mean it is. More likely it means -you're- over-thinking it.

Or maybe she is racist. Doesn't really matter to me. Don't give her any money, don't buy her books.
But I'm willing to bet you don't have evidence from the author's own mouth that says she just didn't like native Americans, and felt they were entirely unnecessary.

Deep exploration isn't required for everything in a novel. Hell, maybe there was exploration of it in an earlier draft, but it got cut because it wasn't doing anything for the story.

On slippery slope:
You're right, it is.
But I didn't say anything about it. It's happening right now. This entire "event" is that immediate effect of people really taking this way too far, and trying to tell well-meaning authors like me what I should or should not do in my writing.

I was trying to be nice, but quite frankly, all of this is an insult. You want to infringe on the author's right to make choices as he sees fit for the benefit of "culture." Unbridled freedom of speech includes the right not to say things too.


On "just a choice":

Way to be the heavy-handed, black-and-white judgementalist. =/ In fiction sometimes things are just a choice. I believe an even better word is "arbitrary." I might think about it, but I don't think about it very long, because my primary responsibility as a writer is to the work.


Let that sink in a bit.

Even if I do have a responsibility in the world and I should take it into account in my writing, my responsibility to the writing comes before it, because I want to write something good far more than I want to write something socially responsible.

And the majority of readers want to read something enjoyable, far more than they want to be preached to about the issues.


And as far as your "all white" example, more often than not, when I see that as a complaint it refers to works where color was not really specified that often, and it just so happened that the color of people who were specified is white.

In most work, the color isn't that important, and I rarely specify at all. I leave it to reader's imagination. [With exceptions for characters whose coloration is important. Happens, but not often.]


But really, you seem to be taking this all too seriously. As writers we should have fun doing what we do, don't you think? This isn't a nine-to-five desk job -- this is art.

7,150 Points
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Mark Twain 100
  • Megathread 100
Black Gabriel
Point by point:

On "the real world":
No, not always. There is some writing that does, but the over-whelming majority of us will never affect the world in a significant way. Especially those who aren't trying to. Sometimes entertainment is just entertainment.

And the primary purpose of entertainment is just to lighten up the day. I don't watch a sitcom for its social commentary, and I sure the hell ain't taking anything heavy handed away from it.
The same goes for a lot of books. Especially Fantasy.


I disagree. You don't realize that you're being changed by what you experience, but you are. Everything you see and hear, fiction, nonfiction, direct or indirect, changes the way your mind works. The brain discards nothing without analyzing it even if your conscious mind has moved on.


Black Gabriel
On the missing native Americans:

You ignored a HUGE chunk of that point off-hand. I'll repeat it: sometimes it's just a subpoint, or even a non-point the author just wanted to play around with. I mentioned a race purge in the U.S. as an example I might throw in as a background point you'd never really think about. You may take it as an insult, but that doesn't mean it is. More likely it means -you're- over-thinking it.


And we've hit the first bingo market on derailing for dummies. The 'NO U!' card.

http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#personally and/or http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#false

I'm gonna quote coffeeandink here for a minute:

Racism is an institutional system of prejudice enforced by political and social power, custom, media, and personal interaction. When I say that you have said or done something that was racist, I do NOT necessarily mean that:


* You intended to do or say something racist
* You belong to the Klu Klux Klan
* You burn crosses on lawns
* You consciously discriminate against people of color
* You have no friends who are people of color
* Your friends who are people of color are race traitors
* You have never done anything for any cause of social justice
* You are a worthless human being
* Deep in your soul, you are evil
* You need to engage in public or private guilt or self-abuse



I mean:


* You have said or done something that reinforces systemic oppression based on race
* You have said or done something that reveals racist assumptions you may not consciously subscribe to



Sometimes I even mean:


* I am willing to explain why I think this thing you've said or done is reinforcing systemic oppression based on race
* I think if we discuss this, you will be willing to change your actions or amend your speech, because you do not approve of systemic oppression based on race



Black Gabriel
Or maybe she is racist. Doesn't really matter to me. Don't give her any money, don't buy her books.
But I'm willing to bet you don't have evidence from the author's own mouth that says she just didn't like native Americans, and felt they were entirely unnecessary.


Which misses the point entirely. It isn't about calling the author a racist. It isn't about implying that the author did this on purpose. It's about pointing out that, in all liklihood, the author did not think about why this was problematic AT ALL.

It would in fact be less troubling if it HAD been a deliberate act of open racism, because that at least implies thought on the subject. It implies deliberation.

Black Gabriel
Deep exploration isn't required for everything in a novel. Hell, maybe there was exploration of it in an earlier draft, but it got cut because it wasn't doing anything for the story.

On slippery slope:
You're right, it is.
But I didn't say anything about it. It's happening right now. This entire "event" is that immediate effect of people really taking this way too far, and trying to tell well-meaning authors like me what I should or should not do in my writing.

I was trying to be nice, but quite frankly, all of this is an insult. You want to infringe on the author's right to make choices as he sees fit for the benefit of "culture." Unbridled freedom of speech includes the right not to say things too.


Oh BAW. "Your criticism WOUNDS me!"
No. We're not discussing censorship. We're not attempting to silence or ban. We're complaining about shitty writing. Sorry, but you do not deserve protection from criticism or from being called on something problematic. You're free to ignore what we say and write what you like and nobody's going to stop you. But neither should we be told that your concerns are invalid and that we shouldn't have them because they bother YOU.

Freedom of speech: It goes in all directions, including the ones that make you look bad.


Black Gabriel
On "just a choice":

Way to be the heavy-handed, black-and-white judgementalist. =/ In fiction sometimes things are just a choice. I believe an even better word is "arbitrary." I might think about it, but I don't think about it very long, because my primary responsibility as a writer is to the work.


Let that sink in a bit.

Even if I do have a responsibility in the world and I should take it into account in my writing, my responsibility to the writing comes before it, because I want to write something good far more than I want to write something socially responsible.

And the majority of readers want to read something enjoyable, far more than they want to be preached to about the issues.


If your writing is socially irresponsible? It isn't good. If your writing is preachy? It isn't good. If you never think about this stuff and get defensive when asked to: You're probably exactly the kind of person who should be nudged out of their safety cocoon because they're unconsciously churning out the same old utter crap song and dance.

Black Gabriel
And as far as your "all white" example, more often than not, when I see that as a complaint it refers to works where color was not really specified that often, and it just so happened that the color of people who were specified is white.


Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.
Also: Characters whose ethnicity is not mentioned can and will be assumed to be white because of the existence of white privilege. Claiming otherwise is a cop out.

Black Gabriel
In most work, the color isn't that important, and I rarely specify at all. I leave it to reader's imagination. [With exceptions for characters whose coloration is important. Happens, but not often.]


Because this is clearly a personal attack on you, and your writing, and your assumed level of privilege. You you you you you. Certainly not addressed in general. Heavens no.

Black Gabriel
But really, you seem to be taking this all too seriously. As writers we should have fun doing what we do, don't you think? This isn't a nine-to-five desk job -- this is art.


"I am in authority to decide what level of seriousness is acceptable. You make me think harder than I want to and are thus wrong."

O.G. Elder

Geezus. The brain discards tons of the stuff almost instantaneously. =/ Any first year psych student knows that. The brain is biologically incapable of analyzing everything.
Fact: I've seen every episode of the t.v. show "Friends" over five times.
I forget what the episode was about almost as soon as I'm done watching it. Why? Because I'm not really paying that much attention to it.

It's the same psychological reflex that allows you to concentrate on a conversation in a crowded room full of conversations. You discard everything that isn't pertinent to the immediate situation.

If we couldn't do this, we wouldn't function at all.

On "No U":

The post you referenced reinforces my point, although I'm certain you won't agree, may not even understand. You're operating under the assumptions that things are racist, or that they matter at all to the person you believe is perpetuating some kind of horrible sin through their subconscious actions.
Get over yourself.

This is my biggest problem with this subject. The people who want to criticize all of this behavior they loathe really only loathe what they believe someone is saying.

Again, you BELIEVE the absence of indians in the book in the first post is doing harm in some way shape or form, but it only does if you actively believe it's harmful. If everyone disregarded it, then it would never do any harm because it's not all that important.


On your whining:

This is certainly not about shitty writing. =/ In fact that's pretty much the biggest thing this isn't about. Nice try though.
A book can be well written, and the story and content can be good without any sort of social responsibility. Does the fact that all the characters are white, black, green or polka-dotted make a book shitty? Hell no, and you'd have to be some kind of moron to think it does.

You can try to turn this onto a subject of bad writing, but that was never what you were talking about, and please don't insult the intelligence of the people of the WF by making it about that on a whim.

I'm going to say this as clearly as I can now: The quality of writing, and the plot of a novel will never suffer by the inclusion of racism real or imagined. It may not make you happy as one reader, but the actual quality of the novel will never be affected. You as a reader will probably call it shitty because of your strong personal belief -- but most people are going to enjoy it anyways.

If her book is shitty, it's because it's shitty. Not because there were no injuns for the cowboys to fight. =/


On "youyouyouyouyou":

I'm not attempting to make this personal if that's what you think, but I can only address a subject
from my own experience - books I've read, things I've written, people I've met.

The same goes for you, whether or not you're willing to acknowledge it. You said it yourself in your statements about "Worldview." In this case, very simple omissions, and your brain is defaulting to racism.


I'm also very disappointed by your falling back on insults to my points rather than discussing them. Because that was a solid point, if you take a few moments to think about it, instead of jump the gun and consider it an attack automatically.

You're refusing to accept that things can be written just for kicks, or to entertain an audience. You're refusing to accept that there's a place in between long-thought decision and complete disregard.

It's very sad if everything we do is so serious. There's got to be a little fun in this, or we would all stop doing it.



And the saddest part of all this is that you seem to expect to change the minds of others without ever accepting the fact that just maybe your mind might need to be changed.

7,150 Points
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Mark Twain 100
  • Megathread 100
Breaking info concerning one of the examples above:

Source: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.composition/msg/6c3699f30a22dc08?pli=1

Wrede in a candid moment discussing her choice said the following:

"The *plan* is for it to be a
"settling the frontier" book, only without Indians (because I really hate
both the older Indians-as-savages viewpoint that was common in that sort of
book, *and* the modern Indians-as-gentle-ecologists viewpoint that seems to
be so popular lately, and this seems the best way of eliminating the
problem, plus it'll let me play with all sorts of cool megafauna)"


So yeah. X group has been portrayed in Racists Way A and Racist Way B and rather than even attempt to portray them in a nonracist way, I'm gonna just axe their existence so that I can play in my sandbox and not have to think about it.

This is lazy writing and racist writing. Not because Wrede is an evil or hateful person, but because she has unconsciously and from a place of privilege not been a mindful one. And THAT'S What's problematic.

Liberal Member

3,450 Points
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Person of Interest 200
Black Gabriel
And the majority of readers want to read something enjoyable, far more than they want to be preached to about the issues.


Because who cares who you step on, as long as you get your squee in. Must be nice to be so privileged that you don't have to read fiction and just maybe HOPE you're included.

If privilege was water you'd be a goldfish.

Quote:
And the saddest part of all this is that you seem to expect to change the minds of others without ever accepting the fact that just maybe your mind might need to be changed.


...really? People should stop having to face that society is racist? Again, must be nice not to have to spend a day-to-day existance being excluded.

O.G. Elder

Moniquill
Breaking info concerning one of the examples above:

Source: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.composition/msg/6c3699f30a22dc08?pli=1

Wrede in a candid moment discussing her choice said the following:

"The *plan* is for it to be a
"settling the frontier" book, only without Indians (because I really hate
both the older Indians-as-savages viewpoint that was common in that sort of
book, *and* the modern Indians-as-gentle-ecologists viewpoint that seems to
be so popular lately, and this seems the best way of eliminating the
problem, plus it'll let me play with all sorts of cool megafauna)"


So yeah. X group has been portrayed in Racists Way A and Racist Way B and rather than even attempt to portray them in a nonracist way, I'm gonna just axe their existence so that I can play in my sandbox and not have to think about it.

This is lazy writing and racist writing. Not because Wrede is an evil or hateful person, but because she has unconsciously and from a place of privilege not been a mindful one. And THAT'S What's problematic.


And I read that entirely differently than you did, and got an entirely different impression. =/
I see where you get your interpretation --
I simply don't agree with it.

The way I read it is that the Indians present a special problem, and the best way to deal with it is to change the history of settlement for a way that better fits her work. She didn't like either of the most prevalent options, so she took another, while admittedly easy, option that hasn't been used quite as much.

But y'know, sometimes just because an option is easy, doesn't mean it's the worst option.

I haven't read the book, and I assume that you have (if you haven't then this conversation needs to be over, because nothing pisses me off more than people talking s**t on books they haven't even taken the time to read,) but would a presentation of Indians enhance the story she wanted to tell?
Or is a wild frontier with giant animals a perfectly good setting?

Because I can't think of a single reason it wouldn't be, aside from a real cop-out answer like "It's North America, there were indians so there has to be indians!"

Liberal Member

3,450 Points
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Person of Interest 200
Black Gabriel
(if you haven't then this conversation needs to be over, because nothing pisses me off more than people talking s**t on books they haven't even taken the time to read,)


I don't have to read all of the Left Behind Books to hate the premise, and the idea that I have to read something before throwing it in the fireplace is stupid.

O.G. Elder

Nethilia
Black Gabriel
And the majority of readers want to read something enjoyable, far more than they want to be preached to about the issues.


Because who cares who you step on, as long as you get your squee in. Must be nice to be so privileged that you don't have to read fiction and just maybe HOPE you're included.

If privilege was water you'd be a goldfish.


Can you please clarify what the hell you just said so that we keep this conversation intelligent?

Because, y'know I still don't see how just not writing about issues is hurting anyone. Because this is what this is about, simply -not- talking about things.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum