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.
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.
And my great objection is to those who try to use them as a parable of modern times.
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.
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 
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
::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. -_-
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.
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.
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?
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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
PPS – But perhaps instead of Lancelot, I should have said “what if the knights who say “Nee” were black?”
PPPS – And honestly, which would you rather see — David “As you Like It” Oyelowo as Lancelot, or Richard “First Knight” Gere?
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 …
PPPPPPS — Okay, I got nothing. I just wanted to write PPPPPPS.
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.
What gives Ashok the right to complain about American SFF? He lives in India, so he doesn’t have to read our stuff.