Welcome to Fantasy Friday, dear readers. It’s once again time to Blog For A Beer! (Rules, as always, are here.) This week is International Blog Against Racism Week, an annual event where bloggers talk about their experience with racism, eliminating racism, and promote education and activism. It seemed appropriate to devote this week’s Blog For A Beer to IBARW and the discussion of racism within SF/F publishing. To that end, we posted a very thoughtful essay by J. T. Glover, which you can read in full here. He ends the piece by asking:
…for those who would prefer a different SF: what do you want, and how are you going to get it? My frustration with Mr. Banker’s post was exceeded only by my curiosity. What sustainable alternative exists, now or in future, and how will it come about? Can it be created without alienating most of SF, and if not, does that matter? Even as the writer in me is most concerned with writing well and getting published, the reader in me wants both literary challenges and comfort food. The librarian in me believes that we must make room for everyone, whoever they are and whatever they believe, else we abandon the promise of speculative fiction.
Let’s discuss these questions and the other issues raised by the essay in the comments below. As always, the participant who engages, interests, or entertains us the most gets the prize.
One important thing to note: This week’s comments will be moderated more than usual due to the nature of the discussion. All opinions are welcome, disagreement is welcome, ad hominem attacks, bigoted language, and flamewars are not welcome. If you’re unsure how to participate in a discussion of this nature, this guide is very handy in illustrating what not to do.
Clint – Indeed. And really, I can’t even imagine what...
1 • Paul Jessup said:
August 8th, 2008 at 10:01 am, permalink
“it’s usually unhelpful to direct her to Samuel Delany,”
Says who? Sure, you don’t want to send them to Hogg or Dahlgren, but what about Nova? Or Babel-17/Empire Star? Or Jewels of Aptor? All are complex but subtle, and easy for non-literary readers to get into, but could also be a sort of gateway to other things.
That’s not say I agree with Ashtok- I don’t. Oddly enough he posted just recently on my website, in a completely unrelated post, making the same American bashing comments. It’s strange because what he said on my blog had nothing to do with my original post. I’m wondering if he’s going to spam other writer’s blogs in the same attempt.
I think he’s just trying to get a rise out of people and create a sort of infamous personality online, in order to gather readers for his own works (which I’ve heard sold poorly in America…)
2 • Paul Jessup said:
August 8th, 2008 at 10:03 am, permalink
I realize that “Says who” might come off as aggressive- it wasn’t meant to be. It’s hard to get tone across online- that was meant to be jocular
3 • Paul Jessup said:
August 8th, 2008 at 10:11 am, permalink
On the topic of change- I think it’s happening now. Slowly, slowly. Evolution of genre itself, remixing, creating something new. The main way to do it is to bring in more readers who enjoy this sort of thing. This is happening now. The current generation is paving the way, has had the way paved. Ten years from now, twenty, who knows what genre will look like?
I bet it will be multicultural and more gender neutral. But it will be a long, hard struggle with the old guard of writers, and the generation who supposedly supports them, and want to keep it white male and colonial. Their numbers are shrinking, and they know it.
4 • J. T. Glover said:
August 8th, 2008 at 10:23 am, permalink
While I would personally recommend Delany to a Farland reader, as a librarian I would want to know more about the patron and his/her taste before doing so. Some patrons are hardy and regularly do jump all over the place, but others are skittish, or are new/tentative readers, or etc. Some of ‘em we gotta reel in carefully…
5 • Paul Jessup said:
August 8th, 2008 at 10:29 am, permalink
Well, I’m not sure- I’ve never read Farland. But then again, I do think Nova is infinitely accessible, and would suggest to a Heinlein reader, or a Star Wars fan, or whatever
6 • Nick Mamatas said:
August 8th, 2008 at 11:00 am, permalink
While publishers can take measured risks on new voices and non-mainstream authors, and should do so for the vitality of SF, they are money-making entities providing product to a market, not democratically elected groups with an obligation to a constituency.
So?
The mistake, and it is a doozy based on paying, well, ZERO attention to what is going on in publishing, is to conclude that any set of SF lists at point n are a meaningful reflection of what the readers want.
Publishers generally have no idea what the readers want. It’s a set of guesses and hunches based on primitive sources of information such as prior sales of this or that book.
Or, more to the point, walking into a bookstore in 1998 you would not see two of the largest sections that exist in 2008:
“urban” fiction
manga
It took the publishing industry YEARS to get behind urban fiction, even after dozens of authors self-published their books and sold tens of thousands of copies out of car trunks and through networks of black bookstores, street vendors, and book clubs. Now publishers cannot start urban lines and pump out material fast enough.
Manga was much the same; publishing ignored the obvious interest in magna — what were once start-up firms now dominate the trade and only lately are both “mainstream” publishers and comic book publishers getting in on the action.
Not so incidentally for a post concerning race, both urban fiction and manga are heavily race-signified. (For an example of yet another genre that is powerful today thanks to actions taking place outside the mainstream of the publishing industry, check out the rise of “romantica” in both its fantastic and more realistic iterations).
It’s just foolish to think that publishers know what readers want. If they did, for one thing, the margins on the business would be much higher.
7 • Sherwood Smith said:
August 8th, 2008 at 12:20 pm, permalink
Nearly twenty years ago, my writing partner and I published a space opera called Exordium, which was the fictional version of a TV show we came close to selling back in 1980–just before the big strike hit. This is not a plug for the books, which went right out of print and are almost impossible to find, so much as a context. Our supposition was that in the far future, the races would have mixed together so much that everyone would be more or less brown. White skin wouldn’t be prized by the those at the top of the social heap–if anything it would be regarded as atavistic, with its tendency to burn in UV, and the ugliness of veins visible, etc. (This also went for gender diversity.)
Some readers liked this aspect to our worldbuilding, but others slammed us for not showing respect for ethnic distinction. In other words, we should have been depicting ethnic custom, speech patterns, etc, as they exist now, implying that they would be cherished through the centuries as important and valuable, without ever diluting with the predominant culture. This left us with the sense that nothing is going to please all readers, especially when you come to a hot topic in contemporary society. Supposing anyone actually unearths a copy of Exordium in 100 years–200 years–will our supposition be invisible, or will we be written off as hopelessly quaint and bigoted for our lack of acknowledgment of ethnic distinction?
I was born in the fifties, during the time when we were earnestly told that we were “all Americans equally” and the USA was a giant melting pot, but in actuality, bigoted jokes and remarks, “back of the bus” social expectations were all around one, certainly on TV. When one had friends from those minority groups, it became painful to see the impact of this stuff in their eyes, even when (especially when) they said nothing. What could they do when all the adults seemed to feel the same? It’s been good to see that change, albeit slowly, good to see ethnic explorations in entertainment without implication of hierarchy–and it’s been really good, at least to me, to see ethnic mixing, with due appreciation for both cultures.
What I like to see in my reading is a celebration of human diversity. Others will probably feel differently.
8 • J. T. Glover said:
August 8th, 2008 at 12:27 pm, permalink
Never having worked in publishing, I can’t claim that I know everything about what’s popular, what isn’t, what The Readers want, etc. Sure, the success of new genres/sections reflects publishers’ success at tapping into markets of which they weren’t previously aware. Likewise with phenomenon authors — nobody in 1985 could have predicted (?) Harry Potter, but quite clearly there was an unmet demand.
At the same time, I also don’t know how many people out there do want a new SF. I mean that literally — aside from the relatively small segment of SF I follow online, I don’t know what percentage of readers are satisfied vs. those who aren’t. It’d be great to hear some editors or publishers chime in about what they hear from readers.
Nick, what did you hear from readers when you were at Clarkesworld? What about at your new position (if I can ask)? Do you think there’s a huge audience out there for more diverse literary SF? Does it dwarf the audience for the current overall makeup of SF?
I know those crazy kids are all about the manga these days, as reflected at ALA conferences. Can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a manga panel. Still, do you think the fans of manga would be willing to associate themselves with a field best known for thick-thewed white guys who conquer dark people? I’ve seen occasional comments among readers of color to the effect that there is some bias against SF (not “black enough,” e.g.).
9 • JS Bangs said:
August 8th, 2008 at 12:48 pm, permalink
My question when this comes up, is to what degree the fan is responsible for his tastes. A lot of people want to read stories in which the handsome, intelligent Marty Stu defeats the aliens and gets the girl. And the publishing industry wants to meet that demand. Leave aside for now the question of whether they overestimate the demand for this kind of story, or if they underestimate the demand for other kinds (though I suspect that both of those things are true). Are the fans that want these wish-fulfillment stories to be morally censured? Do they have an obligation to eat their peas and read more stories starring people who aren’t white or aren’t male?
I have a hard time saying that they do. I think it would be good for them to read more broadly, but people have every right to read for comfort and familiarity, if that’s what they want to do.
Conversely, I tentatively suggest that authors have a right to write comfortable, familiar stories to meet that demand. But I need to think on that some more… in the meantime I’m curious what others have to say.
10 • Paul Jessup said:
August 8th, 2008 at 12:55 pm, permalink
JS Bangs-
I doubt it. I bet, if you took good old Marty Stu and made him a different color, people would still buy it and read it and devour it and go for more. People reading Marty Stu books read them for the same people read romances- it’s the repetition, the same story repeated with minor changes.
But are these big movers and shakers in the world of publishing? I dunno. But if you look at the Locus top 10 books each month or so, there is more diversification than you would expect.
And everyone is ignoring Neil Gaiman. Did Anansi Boys flop? No. Top seller. bridged gaps between those who like genre and those who won’t read it. And let’s see- what skin color where the characters?
11 • Nora said:
August 8th, 2008 at 12:58 pm, permalink
I think the fallacy in Glover’s article is that it assumes the commercial non-viability of “inclusive SF” (for lack of a better term) from jump — he implies that it simply isn’t possible for SF to become inclusive and still make a buck.
But as Nick has intimated, there’s a huge potential audience out there right now which I believe has actively avoided SF for decades, precisely because it is seen to be so non-diverse. Nick mentions two examples; I’ll toss in another, which is currently making bucketloads of money: blends of romance with SF, with the conscious intention of targeting female and romance readers. “Paranormal romance” is part of this, but not the be-all and end-all; just tossing romantic tropes into traditional SF seems to have a positive impact as well. (I’m thinking of Sandra MacDonald’s THE OUTBACK STARS as an example — space opera by a new author, two parameters that are usually the kiss of death or at least midlist sales, but which was a Locus top 10 bestseller this year, I believe because it prominently features a female protagonist involved in a realistic romance. It’s also really good beyond that, but I’ll admit I wouldn’t've touched it if I hadn’t known it had that kind of content, because I’ve grown to view the space opera genre as one of the worst perpetrators of the “white guy Manifest Destiny” ideology.) The popular (white and male) conception before a few years ago was that women didn’t read SF, but now we see that SF targeting women is making money. This suggests that (duh) the popular (white and male) conception was dead wrong. So why not apply that same logic to PoC, non-Western cultures, etc.?
Frankly, simple demographics should suggest that a change in strategy is necessary: white men are a minority, even in the US, and their percentage of the population is only projected to dwindle in the future. It’s mind-gratingly stupid for people in the industry to speak and act as if commercial success lies in targeting a single demographic niche — a shrinking demographic niche — rather than changing with the times. Forget democracy; we’re talking about simple business sense here. If your market is dying, find new markets. Duh. Why is this so hard?
(I’m not calling Mr. Glover stupid, note. But I do think the myopia that he’s displaying here is common in SF, and I continually do not get how anyone could think this way. It simply doesn’t make sense.)
So to get back to Mr. Glover’s question: here’s what I want and here’s how I plan to get it. I want an SF written by authors who derive from the whole human race, which focuses on issues that concern the whole human race, and/or which features characters who are representative of the whole human race. I plan to get this “inclusive SF” by a) writing some of it myself, and trying to do so well enough to sell it; b) buying books that display the inclusive SF characteristics noted above, and recommending them to everyone I know; c) anti-recommending books that don’t do it, or do it badly, and telling everyone why I think they suck; d) joining organizations which seem to understand that the “non-inclusive SF” strategy is stupid, and are working to change it; e) shunning organizations which adhere to the “non-inclusive SF” strategy, because they’re doomed; and f) continuing to do this over and over until I die.
Oh, and encouraging everyone else who wants inclusive SF to do the same.
12 • Francesca Forrest said:
August 8th, 2008 at 1:43 pm, permalink
Hmm… I liked the article very much and am surprised by some of the comments. J. T. Glover’s perceptions certainly jive with what I’ve experienced, as a woman on the street. I don’t see him as being defeatist.
I love seeing new stuff–new formats, new styles of publishing, new content–and I certainly prefer to read works that don’t denigrate or demean whole groups of people. I’d prefer to avoid Children’s Television Special-style diversity, where the band of protagonists include two white people, two people of color, at least one woman, and someone in a wheelchair, and the plot covers a social issue du jour, because the earnestness tends to make the story rough going–BUT! A cool story drawing on the history of the Mahapajit kingdom of Java–I’m there. Or a story from inside the head of someone with autism–awesome. These expand our world and enrich our imagination, and I’d love more.
13 • Randy Henderson said:
August 8th, 2008 at 1:43 pm, permalink
Wow. Seriously? Criticism of Tolkien as being racist?
They are really reaching on that one, given that Tolkien’s expressed intention of his work was to invent a mythology for ancient England.
And there are complaints about Tolkien’s elves being Aryan?
Hello! The elf mythology is Germanic! Of course Tolkien made them Aryan. Just as his dwarves are based on Norse mythology, and thus were white as well.
Now, if he were inventing a mythology for ancient Persia, then instead of elves he may have used jinns, and they may well have been Arabic. But then, Persia has plenty of mythology and history as is.
Having said that, yes, absolutely, most SF and Fantasy has a majority (if not entirely) white cast. But I think it is important to clarify that where racism does exist, it is mostly passive, not intentional.
The majority of traditional fantasy, for example, continues to be based heavily on European and Scandinavian mythology and cultures, particularly medieval western Europe. To most people, that means white folk in shiny armor. Part of this is, as Glover suggests, a building on what has come before. We read and love Tolkien, and are inspired to write Fantasy. And what we’ve read that we can define as “fantasy” is medieval western Europe, with magic.
This is not to say people of color should not be included in the story. But if you were to do so, particularly in a culture traditionally viewed as white, shouldn’t it be for a reason?
For example, how much would be added to the Arthurian legend by making Lancelot black? Well, if your purpose was to tell the Arthurian legend, then not much would be added, really, and the decision comes off as arbitrary.
But if you wanted to devote a portion of your story (or the entire story) to the ways in which Lancelot’s differing race or ethnicity affected his relationship and status with the other knights, and with Guenevere, and how it complicated his rise to his position as Arthur’s best knight, then it might make sense, and can reflect the issues of race in our own society.
So while the racism in traditional fantasy is passive, it will require conscious effort and awareness to eliminate. Just as passive racism in real life requires self-examination, societal examination, and effort to eliminate.
14 • Nora said:
August 8th, 2008 at 2:06 pm, permalink
Sherwood,
(This also went for gender diversity.)
I’m curious as to what you mean by this. Do you mean that men and women had melded into a single hermaphroditic gender? Thus far I’ve only seen a handful of SF works apply the “melting pot” theory to gender.
I’d be very interested to see these books if so, and will hunt them down on ABE or elsewhere. =)
15 • Randy Henderson said:
August 8th, 2008 at 2:14 pm, permalink
Changing a character’s skin color just to make your fantasy world racially balanced doesn’t really add much to the story in and of itself, and it is the story that people buy the book for.
But by changing the color of a character’s skin, you suddenly have to ask a lot of questions, questions that can make your world more believable, and make that story deeper, richer, and more interesting without being overtly political or polemic.
What is the character’s race?
Where is this race from, and how did members of this race arrive in your story location? Brought as slaves? Traders? Invaders? Refugees? What’s the history of integration?
Is this race capable of the special abilities (i.e. magic, telepathy, etc.) you allow in your world, and if so, how are members of this race who have the abilities treated differently than those of other races? How are they treated differently than mundane members of their own race?
What religions does this race practice? Does that create conflicts or open up opportunities for them with other races?
What stereotypes are associated with this race?
Are there specific jobs traditionally associated to this race?
Is there a clear economic stratification between the races? Why?
Is this race especially prone (or resistant) to any diseases? How does that affect their place in society or their habits?
Are there special laws that apply only to this race?
What are the societal views on interracial relationships? How are interracial offspring treated?
How has this race influenced the music, art, technology, etcetera of the area?
Etcetera and so forth.
By asking these kinds of questions and including them in your world building, and by making one or more key characters be of this race, you open up all kinds of new opportunities for character conflict and growth.
And by engaging the reader emotionally in the story and allowing the reader to experience the character’s struggles, you will do more to raise racial awareness and identification in the reader than a hundred essays on racism.
16 • Randy Henderson said:
August 8th, 2008 at 2:18 pm, permalink
Or you could just base your world on a non-European culture
17 • Randy Henderson said:
August 8th, 2008 at 2:29 pm, permalink
Also, fantasy and sci-fi does frequently explore issues of racism, disability, addiction, etcetera, but through analogies, metaphors or substitutes. A story about a half-elf who feels as though she’s not fully accepted by either humans or elves can convey similar feelings as a literary novel about a pale-skinned mulatto struggling with being accepted by black or white cultures in the 1950’s, etcetera.
Not saying this excuses the lack of racial diversity in fantasy, but rather that it is an additional tool that can be used to further the awareness of racial issues.
18 • Nora said:
August 8th, 2008 at 2:37 pm, permalink
Randy,
Wow. Seriously? Criticism of Tolkien as being racist?
Yes, especially in the lit-crit realm. The critics point out, among other things, that Tolkien depicted thinly-veiled Africans and Asians as the “Southrons and Easterlings” — human races who collaborated with the evil Sauron, and therefore weren’t included in the “races of men” who were fighting on the side of goodness and right. It’s worth noting that while Tolkien was published and lived most of his life in England, he was born in Apartheid South Africa and may have been inculcated with the values of white South Africans by his parents. This makes his depictions of various things — such as his implication that pure-blooded and/or “fair” (Noldorin) elves are better than dark-complected and/or mixed-race (Sindarin) elves — suspect, when viewed in the context of racism. Ditto his insistence that mixed-race elves must choose one or the other heritage (human or elven), and can’t just exist as mixed.
There’s been a lot of discussion about this in various spheres, especially since the movies came out. Just Google “Tolkien” and “racism” sometime.
This is not to say people of color should not be included in the story. But if you were to do so, particularly in a culture traditionally viewed as white, shouldn’t it be for a reason?
I agree. And one reason should probably include the fact that medieval Western Europe was nowhere near as all-white as “traditional” fantasy would have it seem. The Moors ruled huge swaths of Europe for centuries, even integrating with several European royal families (e.g., the Medicis); the Chinese silk road brought traders back and forth between Europe and Asian countries; and so on. The failure to depict the actual diversity that existed in medieval Europe, and fantasies based on medieval Europe, is one of the great flaws of fantasy, which — despite its supposedly medieval European mythological roots — is still framed by modern/post-colonial and largely American perceptions of race.
So here’s the “reason” people of color should be included in fantasy: because they have been excluded up to now. It may not have been intentional, but really, intention is irrelevant. The exclusion has occurred.
And I won’t even get into the question of why so much modern fantasy ignores the fact that all people, not just medieval Europeans, have mythology worth exploring.
19 • Nora said:
August 8th, 2008 at 2:41 pm, permalink
Oh. More Randy:
Also, fantasy and sci-fi does frequently explore issues of racism, disability, addiction, etcetera, but through analogies, metaphors or substitutes. A story about a half-elf who feels as though she’s not fully accepted by either humans or elves can convey similar feelings as a literary novel about a pale-skinned mulatto struggling with being accepted by black or white cultures in the 1950’s, etcetera.
No, it can’t.
Not saying this excuses the lack of racial diversity in fantasy, but rather that it is an additional tool that can be used to further the awareness of racial issues.
No, it isn’t. At least, it hasn’t been so far.
20 • JS Bangs said:
August 8th, 2008 at 3:01 pm, permalink
Accusations of racism in Tolkien are such an old hat by now that I’m surprised that anyone is surprised by them.
Anyway, I think that the criticism of Tolkien is overdone. If you read the conflicts between elves and dwarves as conflicts between races (which I think is correct), then the racial messages become much more complicated and much more conciliatory. Additionally, the gripes against Tolkien’s “Aryan Elves” miss Tolkien’s own criticisms of the Elves, which aren’t far beneath the surface in LOTR.
@Nora: care to support your assertions?
I would argue that a lot of mono-racial sff, even old-timey rockets and ray guns sff, does address issues of otherness. It just does it with sf-nal kinds of alienation (like actual aliens).
21 • K. Tempest Bradford said:
August 8th, 2008 at 3:17 pm, permalink
Allegory is great and has opened up a lot of minds, no doubt. But there comes a point when allegory is not enough, that these issues must be addressed in terms closer to their real-world counterparts. and that time is right now. why? because allegory did some of the work for us back in the day and we’ve moved past it, somewhat. Now it’s no longer dangerous for a TV to tackle real racial issues in an SF setting — well, dangerous in the sense that it might get someone killed or, for a less extreme example, not have stations in the South refusing to show your program.
The thing is, once you get to the point where allegory isn’t necessary to get people to think about these issues AT ALL, it then becomes an enabler of not thinking about the issues at all. It allows people to avoid doing the real work of exploring racism by saying “well, this story is about elves and dwarfs and I expect people to apply any two groups that don’t get along to elves and dwarfs.” Allegory can become a cop-out. Allegory is used to prop up McEurope, too. Because no two groups have strife between them for the exact same reasons. The strife comes not just from differences in skin color, but differences in culture, religion, custom, or imbalance of power.
Sure, not every story or novel is going to deal with these things. not all should. But Allegory is not an excuse for not including some non-white people and non-American or non-McEurope cultures in your work.
22 • JS Bangs said:
August 8th, 2008 at 3:21 pm, permalink
@KTB: Good point, and well-stated. I completely agree. (And I hate McEurope in all of its forms.)
23 • Pat Reynolds (muuranker) said:
August 8th, 2008 at 3:21 pm, permalink
This is very much a British-perspective comment.
I’d like to say a word for Phillip Pullman, because he has a very largely sympathetic portrayal of Gypsies. Racism is very often understood to mean ‘about Black people’, which makes anti-Gypsy (Roma/Sinti/Pavee/etc) racism very hard to acknowledge, much less work against.
In the UK, anti-Traveller racism remains acceptable among people who would be horrified if you suggested they were racist. Indeed, in answer to the question ‘how not to alienate’, I’d say ‘but who would be alienated by works that challenge the well-known racisms?’.
And in many indices, from educational attainment to health out comes, the effects are demonstrated: the graphs showing difference are pretty disturbing … until you add in Gypsies, and the result is that attainment/outcomes among other ethnic groups look like pretty much a level line. And don’t get me started about what’s happening in Italy …
My guess is that 99% of non-European readers are unaware of this context. So perhaps this is one way to create non-alienating SF? Get the statistics on educational achievement of Gypsies put into the back of Pullman’s books.
The ‘fantasy’ appearance of ethnic groups is a difficult topic, partly because the ‘fantasy’ nature of the group is not readily apparent – Tolkien’s racism is a nice demonstration of this – I have been convinced by arguments that he was talking about one, very specific, ethnic group (the Huns, a traditional enemy – hence the widespread use of ‘Hun’ to mean German). This is not to say This is OK Then, but to say, it’s all a lot more Difficult and Deserving of Thought, than simply talking about ‘racism’ as if we all understood what one another were talking about might suggest.
24 • Pat Reynolds (muuranker) said:
August 8th, 2008 at 3:22 pm, permalink
eeek! I should have said, I don’t drink beer! Only cider!
25 • Nora said:
August 8th, 2008 at 3:23 pm, permalink
JT Bangs,
@Nora: care to support your assertions?
Sure. Which ones?
I would argue that a lot of mono-racial sff, even old-timey rockets and ray guns sff, does address issues of otherness.
I don’t disagree with this. But what Randy said was that this addresses racial issues, and racial issues go far beyond issues of otherness.
26 • Nora said:
August 8th, 2008 at 3:44 pm, permalink
K. Tempest @21:
Darn you for being so articulate! What you said. =)
27 • Maggie Brinkley said:
August 8th, 2008 at 3:56 pm, permalink
Actually, I think SF, even space opera, is far more diverse than fantasy. I have just read Elizabeth Moon’s ‘Vatta’ series and saw the main character as black, because I registered clues such as that the place she comes from is like the Caribbean – I don’t know what an African American or Black British woman would have seen, though.
Vatta’s skin colour is not the most important thing about the books, though, because like any space opera it’s about the action and the spaceships. I don’t think it’s a bad thing that the culture of the books is typical space opera – but I wish there was more SF published which used a different culture than 21st Century America as its baseline. There ought to be a wide, wide variety so that non-white characters and non-WASP cultures are common.
There are very, very few fantasy books that have non-white characters. There are still too few that have believable women, too, though things are far better than when I first read fantasy in the late 60s. But why is almost everyone white? And not just white but Northern European white. Where are the black Elves? (‘Elfquest’ had dark-skinned Elves decades ago!) Apart from anything else, these white characters and cod-mediaeval settings are boring!
28 • Randy Henderson said:
August 8th, 2008 at 3:58 pm, permalink
Nora,
I feel as though you are taking a hard line on the issue, and that we are in violent agreement rather than truly at odds on this topic.
I did not say that using substitutes such as Elven integration issues to represent African American integration issues is a perfect and exact parallel, but rather that it can be used to convey similar feelings and experiences.
For example, I can write an essay on the disparities between powder cocaine laws and crack cocaine laws, and the conviction rates and prison terms for African American males versus white males for drug crimes in America. I could even write a story about an African American family that struggles to make ends meet after the father/husband in imprisoned for years on a lame drug charge. But what if I wanted to transfer this issue to my fantasy novel, a novel I hope to be read by the legions of readers who are looking for their next epic fantasy fix after burning through Tolkien, Jordan, etcetera?
I could create a parallel African race and history of slavery, integration, and social prejudice, and tell my tale. That could be a great book, and one worth writing. However, as an epic fantasy writer, my target audience did not buy my book looking for commentary on modern racial issues. They bought it looking for the comfortable and familiar tropes of epic fantasy. So perhaps I can instead tell the tale of how the elves in my world were enslaved, then integrated, and have a higher-than-normal addicted to rum. Even though the elves are supposedly now considered “equal” members of society and laws singling out elves are supposedly things of the past, there are laws against the use and sale of rum, and drunken or disorderly behavior while drunk on rum, that are harsh and far in excess of any laws against other forms of alcohol, etc. And one of the main characters of my story has been shaped by such prejudiced laws and attitudes, etcetera. (Okay, pretty lame, but I’m working off the top of my head here).
Anyway, point is, while this does not directly demonstrate prejudice against an African American character, it does demonstrate how a society’s laws and legal system can be inherently prejudiced towards a particular group, etcetera. It lays the framework in the reader’s mind that will allow them to better recognize and understand such prejudices and disparities in the real world.
Racism, especially passive racism, is not something that is switched on or off in the brain. It is the accumulation of generations of assumptions, stereotypes, social customs and laws, the influence of family and friends and media, etcetera. It is subtle, and much of it is unconscious. So everything that can create a countervailing influence can’t be bad. It all adds up, it all helps.
As for the racial diversity of Europe, I am aware of it. But ask the general person to imagine a Medieval France or England, and again, they see white men in shiny armor, or white men with bows, or grubby white men and women living in daub-and-wattle huts. Is that entirely accurate? No. Is it fair? Nope. But again, writers of fantasy often build on what has come before, and also work with their readers expectations and assumptions. For one, it requires less exposition, less world building and explanation, and you can focus more on the story arc and action. So I imagine that unless promoting racial equality and issue awareness is an agenda of the author, the extra work to do so seems unnecessary. The readers who enjoyed the last epic fantasy with mostly white characters, elves and dwarves won’t blink an eye if the next epic fantasy series they read has mostly white characters, elves and dwarves. They are not reading it for racial diversity education. They are reading it to see knights cut down monsters and mages cast cool spells. I’m not saying I approve, just that I can see the reasons. But I agree it would be great if more authors took the time and effort to break free of these traditions, expectations and habits and created more diverse worlds.
And yes, while Tolkien’s “bad guys” were non-white, I suspect, again, he was pulling more from historical invasions by Moors, Persians, etcetera than by any conscious, overt attempt to display all white men as good and all colored races as evil. This is not to say he wasn’t shaped by the attitudes and beliefs common to his society at the time, but again, he was writing a mythological history of his western European country, not Mein Kampf, and I think this explains away most perceived imbalances. However, discussions like this are valuable in raising awareness of issues such as people of color being too-often cast as the bad guys, and thus in preventing arguably unintentional imbalances such as those found in Tolkien’s work from being absorbed and added unchallenged to the collective perception and attitudes of the readers.
And stuff.
And again, I agree wholeheartedly that it would be awesome to see more works based on non-Western mythologies.
29 • JS Bangs said:
August 8th, 2008 at 4:03 pm, permalink
@Nora, I was referring to comment 19. But I think that K. Tempest covered you pretty well.
30 • Nora said:
August 8th, 2008 at 4:04 pm, permalink
Pat Reynolds:
The UK non-whites I’ve spoken with have pretty much said that their experience of racism isn’t that different from mine in the US. The historical roots are slightly different (e.g., colonialist exploitation vs. slavery — still pretty sucky either way), but the current manifestation is pretty much the same. Most of them understand quite clearly that “racism” refers to more than black people, for example; I suspect that anyone who’s experienced racism understands that, though admittedly it’s natural for people to focus on themselves and thine.
And I can’t speak for other non-European readers, but I’m very aware of how the Roma have been, and still are being, treated in Europe. The latest incidents have been discussed on several “PoC interest” blogs and mailing lists I’m on.
I’m not sure that putting real-world statistics into the back of a fantasy novel would work. As Francesca named it (so perfectly!), I think this would have the feel of Children’s Television Workshop-style diversity — heavy-handed, simplistic, and probably offputting to anyone over the age of five. Just my opinion. =)
I think what might be more effective is what Pullman did, by your description (I haven’t read the books) — it sounds like he actually acknowledged the existence of the Roma and their unfair treatment. This seems to have had a positive impact on you and your perception of them, hasn’t it? =) Ditto Jacqueline Carey, who actually depicted Romalike people (and Jewishlike people, and other ethnicities traditionally excluded from fantasy) as real, well-rounded characters in her created world. Such depictions occur so rarely that they really stand out when they’re done well (or at least, they stand out to me). So really, I don’t think it takes that much to work in PoC.
31 • Randy Henderson said:
August 8th, 2008 at 4:08 pm, permalink
K. Tempest @ 21
I agree. I’m not making an either/or argument. I’m making a “the more the better” argument.
We definitely need more racial diversity in all forms of fiction, from spec fic literature to comics to movies.
As I tried to express in post 15, I think such inclusions don’t have to be arbitrary, or detract from the traditional fantasy expectations, but rather can add quite a bit to the story, not only in terms of plot but also in terms of the world being believable and rich.
Heck, including racial diversity might even reduce writer’s block.
32 • Constance said:
August 8th, 2008 at 4:21 pm, permalink
Re racism and Tolkien: the most serious criticism leveled against his work concerning this issue is anti-semitic depictions of the dwarves.
Alas, it is true, if you look prequel tales of his world, particularly in the more recently published The Children of Húrin. The description of the wicked dwarf, Mim. He’s the very stereotype of the money loving, miserly Jew.
It was an actual shock to my system to encounter his character in Hurí, the stereotyping was so blatant.
From Wiki (coz I don’t have time to write this in my own words):
Love, C.
33 • Randy Henderson said:
August 8th, 2008 at 4:25 pm, permalink
Randy @ 28
Geez Randy. If you’re going to go through that much effort to analogize the African American experience with elves, why not just do it with humans of color?
Ummm… good point Randy. But mostly, I’d expect such info to be background info in an epic fantasy, not main plot points. And thus I’ve just created some good detail around my elven culture in this fantasy world.
But ideally, you’d consider such racial issues and influences when world building your fantasy races (to make them rich and believable) AND include non-white human races with well-thought-out histories and issues as well.
34 • Nora said:
August 8th, 2008 at 5:01 pm, permalink
Randy,
I feel as though you are taking a hard line on the issue
A hard line? Asking that fantasy not focus on a single culture or demographic group to the exclusion of all others?
Anyway, point is, while this does not directly demonstrate prejudice against an African American character, it does demonstrate how a society’s laws and legal system can be inherently prejudiced towards a particular group, etcetera. It lays the framework in the reader’s mind that will allow them to better recognize and understand such prejudices and disparities in the real world.
I take your point. However, this very kind of allegory has been done for literal generations in American SF and F, and it hasn’t made much of a real difference. We’re still seeing aliens and elves used instead of actual brown human beings. We’re still seeing fantasy readers insist that you have to have a reason to include brown people in a fantastic world (while in the real world, brown people make up the vast majority of humankind!). The attitude seems to be that we can ditch the brown people, since we’ve got all these handy aliens and elves. (And can I just point out the inherent creepiness of allegorically depicting human beings as non-human?)
So my point is that when real people are still being hurt (yes, exclusion is hurt), and the allegory is what’s being used to hurt them (in part), then the allegory is doing more harm than good.
Racism, especially passive racism, is not something that is switched on or off in the brain. It is the accumulation of generations of assumptions, stereotypes, social customs and laws, the influence of family and friends and media, etcetera. It is subtle, and much of it is unconscious. So everything that can create a countervailing influence can’t be bad. It all adds up, it all helps.
It helps if it helps. But my argument is that subtle, allegorical depictions which do nothing to directly challenge those internalized, long-held prejudices are essentially useless. Worse than useless, really, because they allow people to feel good about being open-minded, without actually being open-minded.
Star Trek is an example — the original series was arguably the first of the early SF shows to use both allegory and tokenism to depict racial diversity. Most ST fans consider themselves non-racist and welcoming of diversity. Yet when the Voyager team decided to depict actual, real diversity — Tuvok the black Vulcan — it was the long-term fans of the show I heard howling loudest about it. Literal decades of allegory had done nothing to make them consider the fact that maybe Vulcans come in different colors too, and maybe it’s a good idea to give some of them speaking roles. In fact, seeing racial issues depicted in allegorical form made them resistant to seeing actual people of different races. How on earth is this a good thing?
As for the racial diversity of Europe, I am aware of it. But ask the general person to imagine a Medieval France or England, and again, they see white men in shiny armor, or white men with bows, or grubby white men and women living in daub-and-wattle huts. Is that entirely accurate? No. Is it fair? Nope. But again, writers of fantasy often build on what has come before, and also work with their readers expectations and assumptions.
You’re saying “work with their assumptions”. I’m reading “enable their racism.”
You’re pointing out the core problem here yourself: the average fantasy reader’s perception of medieval Europe has been completely and falsely skewed thanks to generations of racism. You acknowledge that this is a problem. Yet you seem to be suggesting that the solution to this problem is to continue this racist bias — consciously, deliberately — rather than challenge it.
Is that what you’re saying? Because if so, I have a serious problem with that.
And yes, while Tolkien’s “bad guys” were non-white, I suspect, again, he was pulling more from historical invasions by Moors, Persians, etcetera than by any conscious, overt attempt to display all white men as good and all colored races as evil.
Whether it was conscious and overt really doesn’t matter, though. I think the worst bigotry is that which is perpetuated unintentionally, through sheer laziness and/or the failure to question one’s assumptions and prejudices. Of course people who engage in unintentional racism aren’t evil or monsters; I understand that. But the fact that their bigotry is “passive” does little to change the fact that it does real, active harm.
35 • J. T. Glover said:
August 8th, 2008 at 5:21 pm, permalink
@Nora
But I do think the myopia that he’s displaying here is common in SF, and I continually do not get how anyone could think this way. It simply doesn’t make sense.
First, I was glad to read what you had to say about what you want out of SF. Second, thanks for bringing in the romance blend — I was hoping someone would bring up paranormal romance, urban fantasy, or the like.
As a reader (as I said), I want all of what can be made available. I get tired of reading the stuff that’s supposedly marketed to me and enjoy variety. Believe me when I say that I want a variegated SF. I’m happy when publishers take risks and open the field to new voices.
The view from behind my “librarian goggles” is necessarily tailored to what patrons tell me they want. You (and Nick) are both very right about new genres popping up, and there’s all sorts of reasons why it can take a long time for publishers to get behind something new. We librarians try to keep up with what’s hot, as much as we can within budgetary constraints, but we have to look at what gets used when we make purchases. It’s good to take chances and try new things, see if they’ll interest patrons, but we do have a responsibility to buy what we know people like and want.
I can’t, without some sort of indication from my patrons, blow my budget on something completely different from what they’ve historically said they want. Sure, we push into new areas, get grants to start new collections (graphic novels, e.g., where there haven’t been any before), but this complements a steady diet of what patrons are going to use.
36 • Randy Henderson said:
August 8th, 2008 at 5:47 pm, permalink
Nora,
Again, violent agreement
However, this very kind of allegory has been done for literal generations in American SF and F, and it hasn’t made much of a real difference. We’re still seeing aliens and elves used instead of actual brown human beings.
You argue that allegory and analogy hasn’t made a difference, evidenced by the continued racial homogony of SF literature. I would say those two things should be considered separately. Has it made a difference in the larger sense? I don’t think anybody can say. I’d hope it has. I’d like to think our genre has had a positive influence on the way people think, again, on a subtle, unconscious level at least, which may have added in some small way to the larger (if still inadequate) shifts in societal views and attitudes.
The reason why those shifts in view have not then fed back into the literature which may have helped generate them is, again, at least in part a matter of genre traditions, ala McEurope, etcetera.
But regardless, I am not saying Allegory and analogy are THE answer. I’m saying they can be part of the answer. Obviously, the bigger part of the answer would be including actual people of color.
Yet you seem to be suggesting that the solution to this problem is to continue this racist bias — consciously, deliberately — rather than challenge it.
Heck no. I neither approve nor encourage the lack of racial diversity in any forms of media. I was merely pointing out the reasons it has occurred to date, not justifying its continuation.
Again, we must acknowledge that we’re working against decades of reader, genre, agent and publisher expectation and assumptions, not to mention the not-to-be-underestimated power of laziness and convenience on the writer’s part, as well as well-documented psychological factors that makes us tend to surround ourselves with that which is familiar, as well as the writer’s own pool of characters that he/she will naturally draw from (friends, family, co-workers, and characters they’ve read), etcetera and so forth.
So let’s talk solutions.
The first and most obvious solution is to write best selling fantasy and sci-fi yourself that includes racial diversity. And not just racial diversity for the sake of a multi-racial book cover, but meaningful racial diversity, where the differing races and cultures actually add something to the story.
Failing that (or in addition to that), participate in genre convention panels and programs and push for forum topics such as How Racial Diversity Improves Fantasy and Sci-Fi, or McEurope: Chocolate, Strawberry AND Vanilla, Please. Spread awareness among readers, and among your current and future writers.
Post to blogs on the topic in cool places like Fantasy Magazine.
Go to the websites of authors and encourage them or dare them to include more humans of color, and not just say “do so” but give examples of how it would improve their work and their sales.
Write editorials and book reviews for newspapers, magazines, and online zines that discuss this issue.
And finally, a stealth tactic: If you are a person of color, befriend writers, share your stories, experiences, and views with them, and gift them books that feature persons of color. Again, writers write what they know. The characters they create are based on who they’ve met, who they’ve seen, and who they’ve read about. So give them some fresh material.
37 • Randy Henderson said:
August 8th, 2008 at 5:52 pm, permalink
Oh yeah, and of course, purchase and spread the word on books that do include racial diversity, to demonstrate the monetary reasons to publish such works.
And to loop this all around, encourage your local library to carry such works
38 • Nora said:
August 8th, 2008 at 5:56 pm, permalink
JT,
Thanks for your reply.
You’re right in pointing out that librarians, buyers for the big chain stores, publishers, etc., must be driven by commercial considerations. I agree. That’s why my suggestions were not aimed at the “gatekeeper” level, but instead at the consumer. This is not a change that can be driven from the top down, IMO. Frankly, top-down approaches are probably doomed to failure at this point because the top — power, money — is where racism comes from; any solutions proposed by the very same people who benefit from the system are likely to be regarded as suspect (at least by PoC). So the gatekeepers can do as you’ve done, and ask questions, and maybe raise awareness. But ultimately the only people who can create a more inclusive SF are the SF fans.
And they are changing. There are many, many more writers of color in the genre these days, myself included. This is because, IMO, the genre can now support a larger population of us. This is a good sign. I know there are many more PoC readers; I’ve watched participation in this genre by PoC grow by leaps and bounds over the course of my life (a measly 35 years). There are also a lot more white readers who are aware of these issues, and offended by the bias, and demanding change. I’ve seen an increasing amount of attention paid to the issue of inclusion in print and online venues, and to the issue of good inclusion versus harmful inclusion (e.g., via allegorical aliens/elves, tokenism, stereotypes, etc.). Movements like IBARW are, IMO, doing a great deal to change minds and send the message — from the consumer level up — that there are a lot of us out here who want variety.
But it will take time, and it will be hard. Which is why I said, in my “what I’m going to do about it” statement, that I would keep doing this over and over until I die. Persistence pays, whether in writing or in combatting racism. You simply have to push, and push, and keep pushing. And then push some more.
39 • Sherwood Smith said:
August 8th, 2008 at 6:48 pm, permalink
Nora:
We did not depict humanity having become unisex (I saw that done in the seventies, and wasn’t convinced it would work) but we did do genmods of all kinds, plus variations in relationships, etc.
40 • Mary said:
August 8th, 2008 at 9:08 pm, permalink
For example, how much would be added to the Arthurian legend by making Lancelot black? Well, if your purpose was to tell the Arthurian legend, then not much would be added, really, and the decision comes off as arbitrary.
But if you wanted to devote a portion of your story (or the entire story) to the ways in which Lancelot’s differing race or ethnicity affected his relationship and status with the other knights, and with Guenevere, and how it complicated his rise to his position as Arthur’s best knight, then it might make sense, and can reflect the issues of race in our own society.
And if you resort to either technique, I’m going to throw your book against the wall. Hard.
And then I will shriek, “Doesn’t this twit realize that the US does not cover all of space and time?” Loudly.
If you want to talk about people of color, what on earth is wrong with the Saracens you can find in Arthurian romances and many other medieval romances? You might even be able to swing making some of them black.
Well, what is wrong besides the obvious problem that they didn’t suffer from racial discrimination. There were issues with religious differences. And sometimes there were class issues. But then, frequently the romances settled the first one with a baptism and didn’t allow the second to arise, and then you can see that there really were no racial issues.
Of course, that would not be a good allegory of US racial relations. On the other hand, it would demonstrate that the US does not cover all of space and time. I think the second lesson is rather more needed.
41 • Mary said:
August 8th, 2008 at 9:13 pm, permalink
Changing a character’s skin color just to make your fantasy world racially balanced doesn’t really add much to the story in and of itself, and it is the story that people buy the book for.
Speaking of all of space and time. . . .
You don’t have to change their skin color. Change their hair color. Change their nose. Change their height. And then show that the characters use different racial distinctions than we do.
Bear in mind that judges in the US have in the past refused to naturalize Irish because the Irish do not qualify as white.
42 • Mary said:
August 8th, 2008 at 9:21 pm, permalink
The failure to depict the actual diversity that existed in medieval Europe, and fantasies based on medieval Europe, is one of the great flaws of fantasy,
You know, I find it rather odd that no one has questioned the assumption that Europe is the proper setting of fantasy.
Why aren’t there more monolithically racial fantasies, set in Africa? Or the Americas? Or Asia?
43 • Randy Henderson said:
August 8th, 2008 at 9:31 pm, permalink
wow. It’s funny how we all try to say the same thing, express the same feelings, yet get nitpicked for doing so. As with any example, I could have used a different one. I could have said what if Lancelot were Jewish. Rather than skin color I could have said different hair color.All true. Bit if I include every variation and possibility my posts would be even longer than they already are. And who would want that?
44 • Nora said:
August 8th, 2008 at 10:17 pm, permalink
Sherwood,
We did not depict humanity having become unisex (I saw that done in the seventies, and wasn’t convinced it would work) but we did do genmods of all kinds, plus variations in relationships, etc.
Oh, that’s a shame. I loved Storm Constantine’s Wraeththu novels, which I think handled the hermaphroditism idea well; was hoping to see more of it.
Backing up (meant to address this earlier and forgot)… I’ve always been wary of the SFnal idea that all races will blend into a uniform beige in the future, mostly because the writers who do this so often perceive race itself or human variation as the cause of racism, rather than behavior or morality. So they wipe out the variation without addressing the behavior, and what is probably intended as a utopian ideal ends up sounding instead like a statement against diversity. The writers rarely intend for the “unirace” idea to be read this way, but given the historical context of racism, I’m not sure there’s any other way for it to be read.
But I don’t know. Maybe it’s possible to do the uniracial thing without simultaneously making it a statement against diversity. Maybe your books even did this. I’ve seen the unirace thing done before in a lot of SF, particularly SF of the Sixties and Seventies, and it never reads well to me. I’m open to the idea, though. (Maybe I’ll try it myself. Though it’s likely to be a very dark and unpleasant story, and I’m not sure I feel like writing that right now.)
45 • Nora said:
August 8th, 2008 at 10:30 pm, permalink
Mary,
I’m not sure it scans that racial discrimination did not exist in Arthurian “times”. Given the human tendency to react badly to those who are “different” in whatever way, I think that if Lancelot were visibly of some different ethnicity — not necessarily a different color, but maybe from a culture that dressed differently, had different eating habits, a different language, whatever — then I think it would’ve made an impact on the story. (Maybe Arthur wouldn’t've been so quick to let this guy near his wife, for one thing =P)
But I agree with you; racial variations existed in those times, and can and should be depicted — though how those variations are treated would of course differ from modern color-centric racism.
As for fantasies set in non-European cultures — they do exist. I’ve seen quite a few of them reviewed and recommended in the articles right here at Fantasy. Not all of them are monoracial, though.
46 • Mary said:
August 8th, 2008 at 10:35 pm, permalink
Apparently I did not express myself with sufficient vigor.
Any story idea that is intrinsically dependant on the notion that the US covers all of space and time is rotten to the core.
And making Lancelot Jewish is intrinsically dependant on that notion. Albeit for slightly different reasons that making him black.
47 • Mary said:
August 8th, 2008 at 10:41 pm, permalink
To clarify: religiously Jewish.
Ethnically Jewish might work. Provided, of course, the writer considered it carefully in light of how the Arthurian legends treated Christian Saracens, and did not just assume that he can project his own time into them.
48 • Brown Dog said:
August 8th, 2008 at 10:46 pm, permalink
Excellent post. Most of the relevant comments have been made already so I’ll just briefly state my point: My intention in my article was not to revolutionize American SFF, it was to point that American SFF is already irrelevant. It’s quite evident that the genre has been superceded and abrogated by so-called ‘mainstream’ SFF which is indeed multicultural, or other-cultural, and international, and such books are outselling genre-labelled SFF in the USA. That’s where the future lies–for writers of colour to ignore genre and genre publishers and to simply write great fiction. In a sense, even publishers have started to realize this, as you can see with authors like Nalo Hopkinson, who herself proudly embraces the label of SF, being published as general fiction by her publishers. Or Neil Gaiman, Michael Chabon, Audrey Niffeneger, Margaret Atwood, Salman Rushdie…it’s a long list and growing daily.
SFF in America has always been ghettoized by the critics. It’s now being ghettoized by its own practitioners. To insist that SFF is the only genre label worth claiming is itself parochial and limiting. Readers are finding good fiction with speculative elements wherever they can, and there are many more such readers today with buying power than readers who want typical whitebread conquest-fantasy SF.
Thank you also for addressing my observations and article rather than attacking me personally. I’ve received some three dozen-odd attacks online in the wake of my article, all of them from people clearly attached to the SFF field in the USA. Almost all of them, with two exceptions, were content to dismiss me out of hand either because (a)I’m not American and therefore, must be ignorant of what’s happening in America; (b)I didn’t agree 100% with their own views, and that of course is a crime unforgivable in their eyes; (c)I’m not white, Christian, educated, etc.
The most endearing one simply called me “asshole” and “brown nigger” and I wear those badges proudly now. Five of those name-callers are in the commentators above this comment. All of them are either known bloggers or editors/authors in the field. All of them, without exception, were hugely angry with me for expressing my opinion. None of them even attempted to intelligently look at my concerns or consider the points I’d raised. Two of them apologized after the fact, but insisted that I had better not speak out on issues “not concerning” me. I think the “or else” was implied.
I think that’s a pretty fair example of bias, racism, and cultural insensitivity in SFF in America, and the reason why the genre is falling out of favour with mainstream media, readers, critics, booksellers, etc, around the world.
And for what it’s worth, I’m still a fan–of great SF. And will remain one forever.
Ashok
49 • Brown Dog said:
August 8th, 2008 at 11:06 pm, permalink
This is Ashok Banker here, and the comment above is also by me, “brown dog”.
ls fnd t ntrstng tht whl K. Tmpst Brdfrd hs pstd svrl cmmnts hr, n hr wn blg, vn thgh sh hs mr thn n blg pst dscssng m nd m ss, sh rfss t pprv m cmmnts. Svrl f m cmmnts n hr blg hv bn blckd b hr, vn thgh ‘v llwd hr t pst ll hr cmmnts n m blg wtht n cnsrshp. Clrl, Tmpst s nscr nd nbl t stmch vwpnts tht dsgr wth hr wn. Wrs, hr tttd s nt, cnnt b rflctn f thr SFF ppl f clr n mrc, r f th gnr n gnrl. f t s, nd hr knd f n-sdd vwpnt, bsd tlk, cltrl bs, nd hv hndd cnsrshp, wll snr r ltr crt vn grtr rfts n th gnr n th S.
My point in mentioning these things is that the divisions in American SFF are not merely along lines of race and colour bias, or sexism, they’re also along cultural divides. Many SFF practioners, or wannabe practitioners in the USA, mistakenly believe that an US v/s Them attitude is the only way to go. Another SFF author insulted me on his blog when I commented, called me names, then apologized via email later, but deleted all my comments and refused to allow me to comment again.
I think I’m tending towards calling SFF in America fascist as well now, after these experiences. I’m actually surprised and pleased that this site at least encourages and permits open discussion. To shut me out simply because I’m not American or you don’t like my views is in itself an admission of bias, people! You prove my argument by indulging in such petty tactics. Be more mature than that, and look beyond the superficial differences to the real issues we’re discussing here.
Thanks again for allowing me to speak my piece. And for reading this far.
And I still think American SFF rocks!
Best regards,
Ashok Banker
50 • Mary said:
August 8th, 2008 at 11:17 pm, permalink
It’s quite evident that the genre has been superceded and abrogated by so-called ‘mainstream’ SFF which is indeed multicultural, or other-cultural, and international, and such books are outselling genre-labelled SFF in the USA.
Please be more specific here.
51 • Mary said:
August 8th, 2008 at 11:21 pm, permalink
I’m not sure it scans that racial discrimination did not exist in Arthurian “times”.
Considering they exist only in fiction, you could certainly establish it one way or the other by reading the works involved.
52 • Mary said:
August 8th, 2008 at 11:22 pm, permalink
And my great objection is to those who try to use them as a parable of modern times.
53 • Randy Henderson said:
August 8th, 2008 at 11:23 pm, permalink
Randy @ 43 in response to Mary @ 40, 41, 42
My Apology
Okay. This is why it is a bad idea for me to blog sometimes. I let my feelings get hurt too easily. And being called a twit for the way I express my support for the inclusion of people of color in genre fiction, well, kind of hurt my feelings. And next thing you know, I’m sitting in a theatre lobby blasting off a blog response from my iPhone (see 43 above) rather than stepping back and considering why someone would so misread (or ignore) my core intent/message and focus on these tiny details — and then call me a twit to boot.
So yes, I can see where, taken together, my posts may have come across as too focused on the U.S. history and relationship with African Americans. Part of that is the “write what you know” issue, and part of that was a need to give an example here and there to support my point, and as I said, examples tend to be limited and specific, not all inclusive.
I apologize for not choosing my words more clearly to express a clear desire to see racial and ethnic diversity included in many various ways in many various settings in many various forms of media. Honestly. My only intent here was to support the point that fiction needs more persons of color (and, for that matter, more ethnicities, more gender balance, more disabilities, etcetera, just so I don’t get dinged for singling out color), and to offer some thoughts on how to make that happen (and how to avoid doing it badly).
Having said all that, it almost felt like you were deliberately trying to miss my point in order to rant against US arrogance
You reference my paragraph:
But if you wanted to devote a portion of your story (or the entire story) to the ways in which Lancelot’s differing race or ethnicity affected his relationship and status with the other knights, and with Guenevere, and how it complicated his rise to his position as Arthur’s best knight, then it might make sense, and can reflect the issues of race in our own society.
And say you wouldn’t want to see any of that. And that it somehow indicates I think the US covers all space and time.
Frankly, I don’t see how.
First of all, I say “Lancelot’s differing race or ethnicity” – this would include the possibility that he is Saracen, or Irish for that matter.
Second, what in that paragraph is US-centric? Are you telling me that nobody outside the US has had to deal with how their race or ethnicity affected their relationships with coworkers, or faced challenges in advancing in their profession, or had complications in their love life because of their race or ethnicity? Heck, even if you were to make him black (i.e. from an African culture), are you saying persons of African descent have only been discriminated against in the US?
And if you don’t want to see a character’s race or ethnicity in any way affect his/her relationship to other characters or to the society around him/her, then what exactly do you want to see? Honest question. Because a world where every race and ethnicity is exactly equal, and treated exactly the same, and such distinctions are invisible to the characters, I’m not sure that would make for great or compelling fiction, or interesting characters, and certainly wouldn’t raise the readers’ awareness of any issues.
As for your criticism of my focus on skin color, I actually mention both racial AND ethnic diversity, but yes, in that particular example, I mentioned skin color. Does that mean I think it applies to all space and time? No. However, again, I could have included some examples of non-color oriented racial and ethnic diversity. I guess I got caught up in the persons of color terminology. But I don’t think anyone is actually saying that skin color is the only important factor. I’m sure we’re all with you on that.
However, there is plenty of Celtic fiction out there, for example, that doesn’t feature a single person of color, so even there, some effort could be made.
Finally, regarding your disbelief that nobody had mentioned non-European mythologies and cultures – we have. Multiple times. I think everyone who has posted agrees it would be great to see more fantasy set in non-European settings, and/or including non-European mythologies and cultures. Again, we’re all on the same side on that one.
In conclusion, I haven’t seen anyone on this blog who is actually advocating for LESS diversity in fiction, or even anyone advocating maintaining the status quo. We’re all pushing for the same thing here. And although, yes, I am a minor god with a robot army ready to crush the world, I am also a pretty easy going dude, so if you think I have erred semantically in my post, please consider that my overall message and intent is clearly more in agreement with your points than against, and offer me some friendly advice on how to express my point more clearly, rather than calling me a US-pimping twit.
54 • Randy Henderson said:
August 8th, 2008 at 11:42 pm, permalink
Mary @46 and 47
I still don’t understand how just practicing Judaism would have made Lancelot’s story US-centric. The Jews were in Rome and in Medieval Europe, so wherever you place your Arthurian legend, they were there, and they were converting some non-Jewish Christians to Judaism, including for marriage purposes.
Not saying you’re wrong, I just don’t understand your argument. Can you explain a little more why you feel the simple existence of certain races or religions would make a story US-centric? Other than something like Mormonism, which I could arguably agree with you on.
This is, of course, a bit off topic since it focuses on religion not race. On the other hand, you could certainly make the argument that the major religion in too much fantasy tends to look a lot like Catholicism. We could probably use more diversity there, as well. And that, in turn, might be seen as an extension of the limited racial diversity (but to a lesser degree since religion crosses racial boundaries). Still, a religion based more on African, or Asian, or Native American (oops — there I go being US-centric again
cultures, etcetera, wouldn’t hurt. And yes, I know I failed to mention some cultures that have fine religions, and no slight was intended, nor did I mean to imply that those I mentioned are in any way superior choices. And now, I’m rambling, so I’ll hit Post Comment 
55 • Nora said:
August 8th, 2008 at 11:43 pm, permalink
Mary @ 51:
Yes, I know it’s fiction, which is why I put quotation marks around “times”.
And given that I have read several variations of the works involved, my point remains valid: there’s no evidence that racial/ethnic discrimination didn’t exist in the created Arthurian culture (which, really, just reflected medieval Britain of the time). Indeed, you point out an example proving that discrimination did exist (the Saracens). So again, the notion that race wouldn’t have mattered in this created world doesn’t scan.
How it mattered is certainly up for grabs, though. Race being a socially-created construct, I’m sure the distinctions of race have been reinvented many times before our (meaning Western society) current system.
56 • K. Tempest Bradford said:
August 8th, 2008 at 11:45 pm, permalink
Uh, Ashok, is it at all possible for you to comment anywhere and not make it a personal pity party? No one here cares whether or not you can’t make a comment to my blog. You want to discuss that with me? You know where my website is and there’s a contact form right there. Otherwise, it really doesn’t have much place in this discussion.
Furthermore, if you’re going to accuse people of hurling a racial slur at you, then I think you need to actually name names instead of vaguely waving your hand in some general direction.
When you’re in this space, address the issues at hand as everyone else is doing.
57 • Mary said:
August 8th, 2008 at 11:49 pm, permalink
First of all, I say “Lancelot’s differing race or ethnicity” – this would include the possibility that he is Saracen, or Irish for that matter.
Permit me to give you the context of your words:
For example, how much would be added to the Arthurian legend by making Lancelot black? Well, if your purpose was to tell the Arthurian legend, then not much would be added, really, and the decision comes off as arbitrary.
But if you wanted to devote a portion of your story (or the entire story) to the ways in which Lancelot’s differing race or ethnicity affected his relationship and status with the other knights, and with Guenevere, and how it complicated his rise to his position as Arthur’s best knight, then it might make sense, and can reflect the issues of race in our own society.
You did not speak of, generally, making him of a different race or ethnicity. You spoke of making him black.
And you explicitly said that this was to reflect current racial issues.
(Not to mention that there were Irish as well as Saracens in the original romances, so there is no need to introduce them.)
58 • Mary said:
August 8th, 2008 at 11:53 pm, permalink
Indeed, you point out an example proving that discrimination did exist (the Saracens).
How does explicitly saying they did not suffer racial discrimination prove that it did?
Class differences are not racial discrimination. Religious issues are not racial discrimination. And since when this particular issues are not present, there is not discrimination, there is not discrimination.
59 • Mary said:
August 8th, 2008 at 11:58 pm, permalink
I still don’t understand how just practicing Judaism would have made Lancelot’s story US-centric. The Jews were in Rome and in Medieval Europe, so wherever you place your Arthurian legend, they were there, and they were converting some non-Jewish Christians to Judaism, including for marriage purposes.
And how many of them were knights?
60 • Mary said:
August 9th, 2008 at 12:05 am, permalink
I have been very specific in fact, in my earlier comment (the one you quoted from was a follow-up) when I mentioned mainstream authors like Neil Gaiman, Michael Chabon, Audrey Hiffeneger, Margaret Atwood, Salman Rushdie, even Nalo Hopkinson…please refer to my first comment (#48) and read more thoroughly before responding.
I have seen where many of those writers get filed in the bookstore. Calling them all mainstream doesn’t make them so.
61 • Brown Dog said:
August 9th, 2008 at 12:10 am, permalink
On the issue of discrimination in past times as portrayed in contemporary (or near-contemprary/modern) SFF, be it Tolkien’s work, or Golden Age SF authors, or present-day authors, I agree with Mary and others that it’s a great mistake to impose the morality of the present upon the history of the past. Yes, we can question the attitudes of those ages, even condemn them, but there’s really no point sanitizing them or pretending that these problems (be it anti-Semitism, or colour bias, or ethnic prejudice) didn’t exist then and that those were idyllic ages.
Some of my work has been centered on Arya culture and history. And one of the problems I’ve had to wrestle with is the way some readers react to the very idea of ‘Arya’ civilization. In fact, Arya personalities like ‘Rama’ and ‘Krishna’ are dark-skinned, black-haired, black-eyed, and these two names mean the exact same thing as ‘Kali’ another Hindu/Arya deity of that age, which is simply ‘Black skinned’. The notion that Aryas (or Aryans as they were mispronounced by the Nazis) were fair of skin, Nordic, blue-haired and blonde-eyed (oops, was it the other way around) is not only absurd, it’s a complete fantasy. What the Nazis did in their misguided appropriation of ancient Arya culture as alleged racial characteristics was stupid, wrong, and completely inaccurate.
Ashok Banker
62 • Nora said:
August 9th, 2008 at 12:16 am, permalink
Ashok,
Glad to see you here. You closed comments in your own journal before I had a chance to read and respond to your post.
I’m very surprised to hear that you’ve been attacked about that article by people within the SF/F field. When I posted on this topic myself some time ago, the only attacks I got were from the usual racist types; the SF/F personalities were generally courteous and willing to listen (even if they disagreed with me). In light of the HELIX affair, if I may ask — please consider naming which editors/authors made these racist attacks on you, and sharing the nature of their attacks. (Especially the name-calling.) I think it’s important that these people be called on their behavior, even if it’s in private, so that those who intend to fight for a more inclusive SF can have a better sense of who their allies and enemies are (and avoid/confront the enemies). Silence is what allows the racism in SF to perpetuate itself.
That said, there are a number of statements you’ve made that I disagree with. (And some on which I agree.)
My intention in my article was not to revolutionize American SFF, it was to point that American SFF is already irrelevant. It’s quite evident that the genre has been superceded and abrogated by so-called ‘mainstream’ SFF which is indeed multicultural, or other-cultural, and international, and such books are outselling genre-labelled SFF in the USA. That’s where the future lies–for writers of colour to ignore genre and genre publishers and to simply write great fiction. In a sense, even publishers have started to realize this, as you can see with authors like Nalo Hopkinson, who herself proudly embraces the label of SF, being published as general fiction by her publishers. Or Neil Gaiman, Michael Chabon, Audrey Niffeneger, Margaret Atwood, Salman Rushdie…it’s a long list and growing daily.
I highly doubt that publishers are marketing the above-mentioned authors as mainstream fiction because they think SF is irrelevant. I think publishers will market fiction as whatever they think will make it the most money. It’s telling that several of the authors you’ve mentioned above have been marketed in multiple categories, including SF, sometimes even for the same book. There’s no social commentary to it, IMO; it’s all about the money.
SFF in America has always been ghettoized by the critics. It’s now being ghettoized by its own practitioners. To insist that SFF is the only genre label worth claiming is itself parochial and limiting. Readers are finding good fiction with speculative elements wherever they can, and there are many more such readers today with buying power than readers who want typical whitebread conquest-fantasy SF.
I agree with this. I don’t think it’s being ghettoized by its own practitioners, I think it’s already ghettoized.
However, I still believe there’s time for SF to save itself from this by adopting the trappings of these other genres (and mainstream lit, which is really just another genre). This includes multiculturalism.
I also find it interesting that while K. Tempest Bradford has posted several comments here, on her own blog, even though she has more than one blog post discussing me and my essay, she refuses to approve my comments. Several of my comments on her blog have been blocked by her, even though I’ve allowed her to post all her comments on my blog without any censorship. Clearly, Tempest is insecure and unable to stomach viewpoints that disagree with her own. Worse, her attitude is not, cannot be a reflection of either SFF people of colour in America, or of the genre in general. If it is, and her kind of one-sided viewpoint, biased outlook, cultural bias, and heavy handed censorship, will sooner or later create even greater rifts in the genre in the USA.
This, however, I can’t agree with. I’ll preface my comments on this by saying that Tempest is a friend and colleague; I’m definitely not able to be objective on this. And for that reason I don’t believe she would block your comments to her blog unless she perceived them to be abusive and/or outside the boundaries of civilized debate. I’ve worked with this woman before, on the ABW blog and in other hinky, uncomfortable race discussions — not that there are ever fuzzy, comfortable ones — and I have never seen her shut down another person for mere disagreement. Nor have I seen her dismiss the opinions of people from other countries solely because they weren’t American. So it’s very hard for me to believe that she’s done that in this case.
The fact that you’re making an ad hominem attack on her right here isn’t doing much for your credibility, either. I can’t speak to your other assertions — in part because some of them weren’t clear to me (please clarify your Us vs. Them comment, for example) — but I’ll be blunt: if you acted like this in my blog, I’d shut you down too.
63 • Brown Dog said:
August 9th, 2008 at 12:17 am, permalink
Mary, well, if we’re talking about “calling them mainstream” then in that case, you need to take up that issue with all those international publishers, not with me. As long as they’re published as general fiction or literary fiction, and not as SFF, that itself proves my point–that their publishers are not seeking genre readerships for them, but much wider readerships. Regardless of where they get filed in a bookstore, that doesn’t make them squeeze into those limited categories either. I’ve seen Asimov and Clarke filed under Science as well as Non-fiction here in India, does that make them so? The point is SFF has gone mainstream today, in the truest sense. The reason for using a limited category label like Science Fiction, as was the case in the past, to appeal to genre readers, is fast losing its relevance. Just as many readers of supernatural romance and urban fantasy are not the typical SFF reader of past years, in the same way a great deal of fiction, film, TV today contains SFF elements without being categorized as such, or accepted by such by the majority of publishers, producers, channels, viewers, readers, etc. SFF can insist that such and such a work is genre till it’s hoarse in the face, that doesn’t make it so. SFF is out of the genre ghetto and part of the larger world today, and instead of being happy and celebrating that fact, why are SFF pros in America resenting it? SFF doesn’t just belong to one caucus, it belongs to everyone. That’s my whole argument, that American SFF itself has become irrelevant. The world is taking over and in a way already has done so. Vive le difference!
Ashok Banker
64 • Brown Dog said:
August 9th, 2008 at 12:24 am, permalink
Nora,
Your points are quite interesting, and I do wish you had seen fit to leave them on my blog. You’re quite mistaken that I shut down comments on my blog. They’re very much open and always have been. I simply asked readers to leave them on the general Readerswrite page instead of on individual posts, that’s all. You can find Tempest’s comments there, with my responses (which she saw fit to censor on her blog) as well as a couple of others by other SFF pros like Amy Sterling Cassil. There’s always been a vigorous and enjoyable debate on my Facebook page on the same topic.
As for shutting me down, well, that’s why I haven’t left comments on your blog. Because there’s clearly a double standard at work here: I can be called a brown nigger and an asshole by people, but if I protest at being called such names, then in turn I’m the one who is threatened with censorship or called a racist. It’s okay, I’m getting used to threats, and one from you is just added to the long list from American SFF pros. As for Tempest being a friend, well, what does that have to do with being right or wrong?
Will I be ’shut down’ here too? Go ahead, please. Prove my point yet again.
Ashok Banker
65 • Nora said:
August 9th, 2008 at 12:31 am, permalink
Mary,
How does explicitly saying they did not suffer racial discrimination prove that it did?
Class differences are not racial discrimination. Religious issues are not racial discrimination. And since when this particular issues are not present, there is not discrimination, there is not discrimination.
I said discrimination, not racial discrimination.
And you seem to be suggesting that racial discrimination exists in a skin-color-only vacuum, absolute and unchangeable from its modern (assumably American) definition, with no links whatsoever to class, ethnicity, culture, etc. You further seem to be suggesting that racial discrimination is solely a modern American issue, never existing before oh some 200 years ago, and not affecting anyone outside of modern American black people. And maybe Jewish people. (Frankly, I can’t tell what you mean with that one.)
At least, that’s what it sounds like you’re saying. If that is what you’re suggesting, then I respectfully, vehemently disagree.
66 • K. Tempest Bradford said:
August 9th, 2008 at 12:36 am, permalink
Actually, any moderation of comments here would be done by me, not Nora, as Nora does not work for Fantasy. And I’m going to moderate you right now for two reasons.
1. Challenging me to moderate you and “prove you right” is no protection against being moderated. As stated in the post, ad hominem attacks will not be allowed in this discussion. By making them, you broke the rules. therefore, moderation.
2. You can be the smartest person in the world about these issues, but that is no protection from being called on your actions. I’m not surprised people called you an asshole because you’re certainly not acting like a non-asshole. Just because you’re not American, not white, or not Christian, you don’t get a pass on jerky behavior any more than an American White Christian does. If you cry racism every time someone calls you on your behavior, then you’re not going to get anywhere fast.
Do what you want on your own blog. But here? There are rules. You broke them.
If you’d like to continue a discussion of why I’m a horrible person, you can email me privately.
Everyone else: carry on.
67 • Nora said:
August 9th, 2008 at 1:19 am, permalink
Ashok,
Your points are quite interesting, and I do wish you had seen fit to leave them on my blog. You’re quite mistaken that I shut down comments on my blog. They’re very much open and always have been. I simply asked readers to leave them on the general Readerswrite page instead of on individual posts, that’s all.
Hmm. I saw the “comments closed” on the blog post that you PM’ed me about, and at that point assumed you didn’t want to talk about it. I really couldn’t figure out why you would write a blog post and then direct people to comment about it somewhere else entirely (it still sounded to me like you didn’t want people to comment on that specific post), and like I said I didn’t have much time, so maybe I misunderstood. Sorry about that.
You can find Tempest’s comments there, with my responses (which she saw fit to censor on her blog)
On her blog she’s saying that you censored her first. Though that’s neither here nor there.
as well as a couple of others by other SFF pros like Amy Sterling Cassil. There’s always been a vigorous and enjoyable debate on my Facebook page on the same topic.
I don’t use Facebook outside of work, sorry. Anyway, I’ll go look at the comments on your general comment page.
As for shutting me down, well, that’s why I haven’t left comments on your blog. Because there’s clearly a double standard at work here: I can be called a brown nigger and an asshole by people, but if I protest at being called such names, then in turn I’m the one who is threatened with censorship or called a racist.
No.
If you were simply protesting being attacked, I would be 100% in your corner. I’d be leading your personal tar-and-feather brigade. But that isn’t what you’ve done here. Indeed, what’s curious is that you didn’t call out the person who called you a brown nigger, and in fact seem to be protecting that person’s identity. Instead you’ve attacked someone I know didn’t call you any variety of nigger, and who has in fact spent years, her own money, and a hell of a lot of time fighting the kinds of racists that for some unfathomable reason you’re protecting. (While simultaneously labeling them fascists. This makes no sense.) More importantly, you’re doing a very good job of derailing a conversation that I think is both necessary and (mostly) enjoyable, changing it from “what SF needs” to “all about Ashok”. And when others ask you to return to topic, you snipe at them. What the hell?
There are ways to protest abuse without in turn becoming abusive yourself.
It’s okay, I’m getting used to threats, and one from you is just added to the long list from American SFF pros.
Please explain how anything I’ve said is a threat.
As for Tempest being a friend, well, what does that have to do with being right or wrong?
It doesn’t. I simply noted it so you could have full disclosure, in the spirit of open debate.
Will I be ’shut down’ here too? Go ahead, please. Prove my point yet again.
I have no power to shut you down here. I was speaking of my own blog only.
However, if I may point out, if you do get shut down here, it won’t be because you’re not American, but because you’re engaging in ad hominem attacks, throwing out straw men and outright fallacies, and (deliberately?) misrepresenting others. That kind of behavior isn’t acceptable on most blogs, because it makes it very difficult to have a coherent conversation. Plus it’s just rude.
68 • Nora said:
August 9th, 2008 at 1:22 am, permalink
::gargh:: Just saw your last post, Tempest. Sorry, didn’t refresh my browser. Please remove my last comment; I didn’t mean to continue past the moderator’s flag. -_-
69 • Randy Henderson said:
August 9th, 2008 at 2:09 am, permalink
Ashok,
I was not previously familiar with you or your work.
I went ahead and read your essay so that I could make an informed decision about your posts above. If your interest is to promote either your work or your views, I’m afraid to say you have failed where I am concerned. This is not a personal attack, this is a criticism of your arguments and writing style.
But as I may have misread you, let me give specific examples so that you can perhaps explain yourself. I will start with your essay, and then cover your posts above.
Your Essay
Today’s Science Fiction and Fantasy field, while possibly bearing some strands of DNA from other countries and cultures intermingled in its genetic makeup, is undeniably dominated by American authors, particularly in America.
And a sizable majority of those American SFF authors are white. Virtually all of them are American.
Okay, first, the obvious goof. Virtually all American authors are American? Well, uh, yeah, you’ve got us there.
That the majority are white is true, but slowly changing, and not any big news. Nor is it something Americans proudly and defiantly support in the face of international multi-culturalism or anything like that. There are a wide variety of general and deeply rooted social issues that lead to racial and gender disparities in the majority of professional fields in America (and other countries), not just in genre fiction writing. Not to mention genre-specific participant issues. Have you ever been to a Sci Fi convention in America? Racial diversity is there, but you are still mostly looking at a specific slice of American “geek” culture (of which I include myself), and mostly white persons.
Also, you start off by saying that the genre is dominated by American writers. Then you say in your posts above, ” American SFF is already irrelevant. It’s quite evident that the genre has been superceded and abrogated by so-called ‘mainstream’ SFF…”
So which is it? Is it dominating the field, or is it irrelevant and superseded?
Why is a genre that’s always so proud of its ability to explore worlds unable to integrate the world into its fold?
I think you can read the above posts and get some ideas of why, and that there is a real awareness of it and movement to change it within America, by American authors and readers. Including Tempest. And it is not only American authors that produce fantasy novels with predominately McEuropean worlds. In fact, such authors as Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Piers Anthony, et al helped to establish the “traditional” fantasy setting as much or more than anyone.
Other American SF writers like K. Tempest Bradford have admitted that such bias exists, and have spoken out against it. Although their rants are invariably tempered with mention of the two or three SF editors they know and are working with who are definitely not racist or biased, because, how could they be, if they’re working with them? Punches are pulled, no doubt about it.
I like how someone else speaking out against this bias is “ranting,” whereas I assume you view yourself as educating us.
And if one author, such as Tempest, names other authors who are not racist or biased, why do you have to imply that such mention is somehow invalid just because the author knows the persons whom they name? I’d trust such a statement about someone the author knows more than about someone the author doesn’t know, since, well, they know the person of whom they speak, so would better know if that person is racist or biased. I can only assume, then, that since your argument is about how racist and biased American authors are, you need some reason to try and dismiss all proof to the contrary.
And of course, not all white Christian American SFF editors, agents, publishers, authors, etc, are bigots, sexist, racist, etc. But certainly, there can’t be just one racist in the whole field! That’s as absurd as saying they’re all saints with haloes and lovely white wings.
Well, it’s a good thing that nobody is saying that.
If anything, the very imbalance in the racial and cultural composition of the field in America itself points to a deep malaise.
The recent attempts by some editors to claim that they’re open to multicultural writing, that they welcome submissions from women writers, that they look forward to international writer submitting work, is itself an admission that these were failings of the field until now.
Sure. And the news is?
So is American SFF racist? And sexist, bigotted, culturally insensitive, etc?
Well, I suspect a great number of professionals in the field might be. Since they’re all hardly likely to hold a rally proudly proclaiming their bias, or to march in a parade proclaiming Racist Pride in American SFF anytime soon, or even to wear white sheets and stick burning crosses in front of the houses of non-American, non-white, non-Christian people seeking a toehold in the field, it’s impossible to ever identify all of them, or even most of them.
It would also be unfair to tar the whole field with the racist brush (or sexist, bigotted, etc) without knowing the full extent of the bias in the genre. And there are a few notable instances of SFF publishing pros who do speak out openly on the issue, thereby at least acknowledging that the malaise exists, which is the first step to rooting it out.
Here is where you completely lose me. Yep, so many fantasy and sci-fi authors are bigoted racist sexist jerks, and the only reason you haven’t caught them is because you didn’t know about the huge Klan march after the last Sci-Fi convention.
OR … perhaps most of these authors write what they know, and are inspired by and emulate what has come before. This is not intentional bias or racism, it is simply that it didn’t occur to them to write anything different. Is that good? No. Is it desirable? No. But it isn’t intentional evil, and is something that we can address through promoting and educating on the issue. Perhaps, instead of calling them closet racists, you should reach out to these authors, and offer examples of how you feel inclusion of greater diversity would improve their world building, the originality of their work, and potentially the breadth of their audience, etcetera.
This much is true and beyond dispute: The proportion of PoC in American SFF is far lower than its representation in the American population at large. There are fewer books and stories by non-American, non-Christian, non-white authors being published in American SFF than in mainstream American publishing. Still worse, there are fewer bestsellers in the genre than in mainstream fiction: How many Kite Runners or A Thousand Suns do you see in the SFF genre? None.
Well, yeah. And a biography of Mohatma Ghandi might sell even fewer copies than a fantasy novel. That is not about racism or bigotry within the genre. It is about how many readers are looking for that particular type of book. And Harry Potter, a book about a bunch of white kids at a European boarding school for magically inclined folks, sold gang-busters. Whereas fantasy or sci-fi novels based on non-European cultures do not necessarily sell any better than those that are. Your argument does not make sense.
Then again, to ask for American SFF to do away with its own all-American home-grown racism, as well as bigotry, sexism and even (gasp) cultural bias, might be asking for too much. After all there are clearly rifts even within the groups of PoC working within the SFF publishing field, with many American professionals being PoC but still either innocently naive and uninformed about other cultures, or too immersed in their own American identity to understand and appreciate the work of other cultures.
And once again you take a Tempest quote to try and prove your point. But the real point is that nobody knows everything. I am quite certain there are a large number of cultures you know nothing about. Does that make you racist, sexist, and naïve? No, it simply means that we all are continually learning new things. What matters is how you use what you know, and how open you are to new knowledge, especially knowledge that may contradict what you already believe.
All that Tempest did was to admit she was not infallible and omniscient. How naïve.
I’m not claiming to know any inside truths. Merely asking hard questions. Questions that I don’t think any American author, editor, agent, publisher, blogger, or even reader, dares to ask, or wants to ask.
I see. And blogs like this one on Fantasy, or the numerous reviews and articles on racism and sexism in genre fiction that appear here, are …?
And I’m looking for answers and solutions.
Not solutions like segregation, which at least one editor apparently thinks is a good thing when she groups all her international writers into a ’special’ issue, completely failing to realize that international writing needs to be integrated into the body of American SFF rather than detached and made into a sub-sub-genre within it.
Not an apology. Not recompensation. Not reparations. Because, let’s face it, hell will freeze over before they ever come.
And yet, you offer no real answers or solutions. Just poorly supported criticism.
And because I have personally been a victim of such racist abuse, bias, and cultural insensitivity more times than I can count.
And because I read and love American SFF and care about it. And want to see it change. For the better.
I have no doubt you may have been the victim of these things, yet by showing how poorly you’ve interpreted the writings of such authors as Tempest, and the general roots of racism and bias in American genre fiction, undermines your claim by making me question how much of this is in your imagination, or at least exaggerated.
As for your love of American SFF, again, well that is clear, in your labeling of it as irrelevant and fascist.
Your Posts
My intention in my article was not to revolutionize American SFF, it was to point that American SFF is already irrelevant. It’s quite evident that the genre has been superceded and abrogated by so-called ‘mainstream’ SFF
Odd. I see plenty of good American SFF fiction.
SFF in America has always been ghettoized by the critics. It’s now being ghettoized by its own practitioners. To insist that SFF is the only genre label worth claiming is itself parochial and limiting.
And who ever claimed that? You are creating straw man arguments.
I think that’s a pretty fair example of bias, racism, and cultural insensitivity in SFF in America, and the reason why the genre is falling out of favour with mainstream media, readers, critics, booksellers, etc, around the world.
Again, I think this is a core problem with your arguments. You focus on American literature, as if that is the only place such biases exist. Further, you keep talking about how on one hand American SFF represents the majority of SFF (especially in America), and yet on the other hand how it is somehow out of favor, losing audience, etcetera, painting it as some old outdated thing that has crawled into the corner to die due to its inability to accept change.
Clearly, Tempest is insecure and unable to stomach viewpoints that disagree with her own. Worse, her attitude is not, cannot be a reflection of either SFF people of colour in America, or of the genre in general. If it is, and her kind of one-sided viewpoint, biased outlook, cultural bias, and heavy handed censorship, will sooner or later create even greater rifts in the genre in the USA.
Clearly? How so? And given the wide variety of socially conscious subjects that Tempest has posted and promoted on this site, not to mention her obviously active interest in promoting persons of color both as artists, and as subjects of art, I think your post reflects more on your own problems with someone who disagrees with you. And given the way you’ve misrepresented her quotes on your site and used them to support invalid claims about American racism, bias and naivete’, I can’t say as I blame her for blocking your posts.
Many SFF practioners, or wannabe practitioners in the USA, mistakenly believe that an US v/s Them attitude is the only way to go. Another SFF author insulted me on his blog when I commented, called me names, then apologized via email later, but deleted all my comments and refused to allow me to comment again.
Again, given the examples you’ve given on this blog, and in your essay, I can’t say as I blame anyone from blocking your comments. Censorship of a valid, opposing opinion would be one thing, and I could see where you would be right to be upset if that were what was happening to you. But not wanting to deal with someone who uses your quotes against you to support invalid, ill-informed and insulting accusations is another matter, and I am guessing, based on what I’ve read of your posts, that that is what has occurred in your case.
I think I’m tending towards calling SFF in America fascist as well now, after these experiences. I’m actually surprised and pleased that this site at least encourages and permits open discussion. To shut me out simply because I’m not American or you don’t like my views is in itself an admission of bias, people! You prove my argument by indulging in such petty tactics. Be more mature than that, and look beyond the superficial differences to the real issues we’re discussing here.
Unfortunately, given the quality of your posts, I don’t think anyone will really care who you call fascist. You’ve undermined your credibility with such posts as these, at least where I am concerned.
I am not insulting you personally, or questioning your character. I am simply telling you that what you write, and the way you write it, is not going to get you the kind of constructive debate that you claim to desire.
And if I might add, it seems to me that the majority of constructive, congenial debates on this blog have come from American authors, and the rudest, least constructive posts have come from non-Americans. In fact, the only “Us vs. Them” attitude, as you put it, seems to have come from the non-Americans. Which kind of seems to be undermining the anti-American trend of your arguments. And believe me, I’m no nationalist, so I’m not reflexively defending America or Americans here.
Finally, I just want to say that my normal mode of blog posting is humor and sarcasm. I took great pains to fight that urge in this response, because I really want you to believe me when I say that my disagreement with your posts are based solely on the content of those posts, not due to any personal dislike or bias.
70 • Randy Henderson said:
August 9th, 2008 at 2:22 am, permalink
And before you ding me on it – Mahatma. You know how when you go to say two words at the same time and mix them up. Like, Hi, and Hello, and you say Hilo. My brain wanted to write Mohandas (his name) and Mahatma at the same time, and apparently hiccupped when I typed. I certainly hope you won’t try to use my brain hiccup as some proof that I’m somehow racist and culturally ignorant and therefore none of my arguments are valid, although sadly that would not be inconsistent with the way this blog seems to have been going. Sigh.
71 • Randy Henderson said:
August 9th, 2008 at 3:03 am, permalink
Mary,
Okay, I have to say I feel like you are working really hard to deliberately miss my point. Or just feeling argumentative.
So let’s say we make Lancelot black, as in African, as in his parents were slaves sold to Rome via Egypt, and then his father served in the Legions at the fall of Rome, and eventually he found his way to where Arthur was attempting to re-establish order or some such thing. Not important. In short, he’s black.
And then let’s replace “our society” with “U.S. society.”
Okay, there you go. And your point is? How does introducing even current U.S. racial issues make it a U.S.-centric book? Because issues of prejudice and discrimination that blacks experience in the U.S. ONLY happen in the U.S., and ONLY happen in the modern era? Before that, everyone loved the Africans? In Europe, everyone loves the Africans? They have perfect equality everywhere and everywhen else?
So Lancelot would not suffer any additional challenges in being accepted by the other knights as an equal (or as a better)? It would pose no additional issues for him and Guenevere? Really? Okeedokee.
And really, I’m sorry I even used Lancelot. It was a top of the head, quick example never meant to sustain an entire debate. I probably wouldn’t want to read it either, but that’s only because Arthur’s been done to death, and because many people hold it sacred. I’d rather have such racial issues worked subtly and well into some original fiction.
And lord knows, the few people who bothered to read the Mists of Avalon threw it against the wall and railed against the imposition of “U.S.” feminism on the Arthurian legend. Man, was MZB a “twit,” huh? She’ll be lucky if that book sells a dozen copies, yeah?
72 • Randy Henderson said:
August 9th, 2008 at 3:26 am, permalink
Mary,
PS – all to say, I think I understand where you are coming from. But you seem to be getting there in a very nitpicky and argumentative way. Or maybe it’s just my perception of things.
I think what you are saying is that the imposition of what we consider social issues today onto a fantasy or SF story often feels arbitrary, forced, out of place, and unnecessary.
And this can be true. Certainly, not every story or book needs to raise major issues of racial bigotry and prejudice. And there may indeed be certain issues that are very specific to certain eras or cultures that do not translate well into a fantasy setting. Nuclear proliferation, perhaps (sure, you could have mega-magic bombs or something, but it would be pretty hard not to be obvious and hamfisted with that issue, and it would feel pretty forced I should think).
But stories more should, and could, include a wider variety of races and ethnicities, and the natural interracial and intercultural conflicts and issues that that brings. These issues are as old as civilization, and not U.S. centric.
And if done properly, including such issues does in fact enhance the story by:
First, creating a more believable world (after all, in our world racial, religious and cultural conflicts have always been a part of our civilizations, and to enter a fantasy or sci fi world where they don’t exist feels a little false).
And second, creating additional sources of conflict (internal and external) and opportunities for growth in the characters that can make them more engaging and real, etcetera.
73 • J. T. Glover said:
August 9th, 2008 at 7:09 am, permalink
@Sherwood:
I really appreciated your response about Exordium. It’s so hard to know what people will and won’t like in times to come. Who knows what’s going to be a problem tomorrow? Historical bias against tattoos once we’ve all started having them from birth onward? Historical tendencies toward eating meat?
It’s a shame the book & series never came to fruition. I’d like to think there is rhyme and reason to what makes it out into the world, but I know a lot of it is just happenstance. Editors’ or publishers’ whims, strikes, or the wrong code entered into a computer database. Thank you for sharing this story, and for your perseverance in telling stories in the face of occasional reversals.
@Ashok:
Thank you for stopping by to respond. It’s my impression that you are trying to write for a worldwide audience, certainly not for an American one, so I understand the point of relevance there. Within American SF, however, I think there is quite a lot of cross-talk, and that our debates remain relevant to each other. As a nation we’ve been grappling with some big questions lately, from oil dependence to internal surveillance, and I hope that SF will, if nothing else, help us to think about these questions, in addition to the basic questions of being human.
Please know that my use of “Aryan” in the essay title was not in any way directed at you or at the historical Aryans — it was of course directed at subsequent myths about Aryans & Aryanism. While I might disagree with you about some issues, I would not knowingly use any sort of ethnic slur against you or anyone, and I’m sorry to hear (if not surprised) about some of the language directed at you.
74 • Constance said:
August 9th, 2008 at 2:06 pm, permalink
I have a bit of a different take on this.
Lancelot was French, or at least a Briton (not a Brit). He came to> Arthur’s court from overseas. It was the French Romance writers who invented the Arthur-Guinevere-Lancelot triangle, which itself reflected the social, religious and manners concerns of the Occitan creators of Courtly Love concepts, initially, if I’m recalling my courses in the History of Romance correctly.
Think of all the changes of meaning and signficance of Lancelot would bring to the Matter of Britain, if he were Jewish. He is the father of the Hero who is the only one pure enough to actually see the Grail and ascends with the Grail to Heaven from this polluted earth. That’s just one thing to consider. There are good literary compositional reasons why the people are who they are in these Cycles. The writer needs to understand these very well to make changes that are equal to the significance and stature they already have accrued.
Then there is this: My Swedish friends find the U.K. and U.S.A. Fantasy writers’ obsession with
Arthur and the Celts / elves ridiculous, and feel that the portrayal of Scands and Germans to be unfairly prejudiced in these Celtic Twilight fantasies — all brutish, primitive, hulking killers all the time, and wonder why that is.
Just saying, you know!
There are lots of ways of coming at these deep concerns.
Myself, since 1993, all my fantasies are African, African-Caribbean, and African American pre the Civil War. None of the foreground characters are white.
Mostly I do history now!
Love, C.
75 • Randy Henderson said:
August 9th, 2008 at 3:37 pm, permalink
Constance,
You offer some great thought-provoking details.
I’m not sure your take is so different, however. Again, I was just throwing Lancelot out there because it was the first thing that popped into my head. I didn’t realize that that one example was going to have to sustain the underlying point through multiple arguments. My own fault for not taking the time to think of a better example.
Again, obviously, not every race or ethnicity or culture makes equal sense to inject into every tale, nor does every tale need to include serious racial issues.
The overall point was just that by breaking free of the homogeneous, stereotypical or traditional racial and ethnic casting, you can add interesting additional conflict and opportunities for character growth into a story.
And yeah, Scands/ Vikings aren’t given nearly enough credit for the depth and impact of their culture (thanks in part to the prevalence of historical accounts being from the Christians who the Vikings were sacking), and likewise for the early Germanic tribes who we know of mostly through the lens of Roman perceptions.
But along those lines (and no, I’m not defending, just thinking out loud), I think it would be good for books that are written from, say, a Gaul/ Celt viewpoint to show the Germanic tribes being perceived as brutes by many of the characters – after all, these are the tribes that invade their lands, rape and pillage, take their sons as hostages, etcetera. They aren’t going to think very fondly of them, or have a fine appreciation of their culture. BUT then balance that out by showing the opposing viewpoint. That way the reader sees how the perceptions of the opposing cultures do not always accurately and truly reflect the full scope or nature of those cultures.
76 • Randy Henderson said:
August 9th, 2008 at 4:14 pm, permalink
And PS – we are talking fiction here, folks. To argue that Lancelot couldn’t be African or Jewish or even Atlantean because of X reason is kind of ridiculous. You could transfer the entire Arthurian legend to Africa. You could transfer it to the year 2525 on Mars. You could have Lancelot be an elf. Heck, I could write a story with Lancelot as a black elf from Mars if I wanted to, as long as I put enough thought into it to suspend disbelief. And, to Constance’s point, depending on how closely you stick to the original tales you’d want to put real thought on how your changes affect the original themes etcetera of the story.
Would such a change be absolutely true to either the original story or the Romantic reworkings of the Arthurian legend? No. Would it be true to the “historical” accuracy of Arthur’s time? Uh, maybe not, assuming you can nail down exactly when that was, of course. But so what? Hello! Were ladies really lobbing swords out of lakes at kings? Were magicians really living their lives backwards? I think there’s a little wriggle room here for creative license. Just sayin.
Besides, Arthur’s been done to death. If you WERE going to write a version of the tale, I would actually HOPE you were going to do something fresh and original with it.
Okay. Moving on
77 • Randy Henderson said:
August 9th, 2008 at 4:21 pm, permalink
PPS – But perhaps instead of Lancelot, I should have said “what if the knights who say “Nee” were black?”
78 • Randy Henderson said:
August 9th, 2008 at 4:24 pm, permalink
PPPS – And honestly, which would you rather see — David “As you Like It” Oyelowo as Lancelot, or Richard “First Knight” Gere?
79 • Randy Henderson said:
August 9th, 2008 at 5:40 pm, permalink
PPPPS – And who would you rather see as the lead in the movie “Merlin” — Laurence Fishburn, or Sam Neil?
I mean, seriously, why do they keep picking these actors with the emotional range of wet cardboard to portray the leads in these Arthurian movies?
But I digress …
80 • Randy Henderson said:
August 9th, 2008 at 5:41 pm, permalink
PPPPPPS — Okay, I got nothing. I just wanted to write PPPPPPS.
81 • K. Tempest Bradford said:
August 10th, 2008 at 10:34 am, permalink
It’s morning in America. Blog for a Beer is now over, but the discussion is not. I’m opening up comments on the original post so we can continue the discussion there (if we want).
There were many excellent contributions to this discussion. Nora provided some great perspectives on the topic and I was glad to see Sherwood talk about some of her own experiments in imagining race in the future. I’m also glad Pat Reynolds brought up Roma and Phillip Pullman — the last time we had a major discussion about race in this magazine it centered around that very issue. However, the $10 prize goes to J S Bangs @ #9, for bringing in a very thought-provoking angle:
“My question when this comes up, is to what degree the fan is responsible for his tastes.”
Congrats! And thanks for the great discussion, everyone. To continue it, head over to the comment section on the original post.
82 • Saaaay. Why AREN’T there brown elves? at Epiphany 2.0 said:
August 13th, 2008 at 5:45 pm, permalink
[...] to this article, written by the ever-thought-provoking “coffeeandink”, though quoting another gentleman: Also, fantasy and sci-fi does frequently explore issues of racism, disability, addiction, [...]
83 • Andrew said:
August 27th, 2008 at 2:09 am, permalink
What gives Ashok the right to complain about American SFF? He lives in India, so he doesn’t have to read our stuff.
84 • Fantasy Magazine » Guest Column: Saaaay… Why AREN’T There Brown Elves? said:
August 27th, 2008 at 1:00 pm, permalink
[...] Wednesday, August 27th, 2008permalink, jump to commentsA few weeks ago during Fantasy’s Blog For A Beer on racism in the genre, we talked about using fantastic or SFnal elements as allegories to explore prejudice [...]