SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

Maybe someone didn't like your story, or a character or found what they perceive as a plot hole. More relevantly these days, maybe they found a portrayal of a gender, race, religion, ethnicity, disability or other protected class/immutable characteristic false or stereotypical.

There's a growing chorus of "cancel culture" and "identity politics" and "political correctness" that seems to be aimed at protecting the author from criticism, and I'm just not convinced as an author, moderator, reader or human that we ever get that path. Ain't never gonna make everyone happy, and we sure as heck aren't going to convince folks not to have opinions, feelings, or personal experiences that differ from ours.

So, what do you do? What are your takeaways? Which critiques do you take to heart, which do you ignore and what do you do when it really stings? Readers, what do you WISH authors would do? What do you expect, what can you forgive, and what is intolerable?

I've been asked to take this over here: it was in reply to an author expressing fear of being accused of appropriation if they wrote more diverse characters, and also asked why nobody talks about diverse authors writing straight white men:

In terms of accusations of cultural appropriation for authors who write diverse characters even when that is done well: There will always be a few angry unfair 1-star reviews, no matter how good the book is. E.g. I've always thought a particular far future SF series had a wonderfully diverse cast, and yet I've met someone who absolutely *hates* it for including mixed-race characters without making the entire story about them being mixed-race. Instead, those characters are worrying about how to save the world. The majority of readers likes that, it's very successful, but you can never please everyone, and that's okay.

Those few critical voices will remain outliers the general reading public won't agree with, as long as the author does diversity well. It's not hard to give people a call, or if you don't know anyone from a particular demographic, just ask around for volunteers on twitter so you can talk about a character from this demographic with them (I've often seen authors do this), have diverse beta readers or - if you can afford it - hire a sensitivity reader, do research, if you have foreign words, ask a native speaker to check them, etc. I've heard Writing the Other explains it well.

And if an author tries to be diverse but fails to make it convincing: they can just say sorry, I tried but failed, I'll do it better next time, and people forgive them. Project Hail Mary is a no. 1 bestseller even though many people thought Artemis didn't do diversity very well. People worry too much. Most white male authors with diverse casts of characters get tons of compliments, appreciation and goodwill for being inclusive.

And re: diverse or female authors writing straight American white men: the research necessary for this already comes naturally and for free with our everyday culture and our literary canon. I mean, obviously, if a female author were to write a man with prostrate cancer, or from Jersey instead of her native Trinidad, she'd have to do some research, or talk to people with the right experience. But we all grow up intimately familiar with and attuned to "the default" already. Just imagine if 99% of the movies and tv series you watched and books you read had at least one (usually several) elderly Jamaican women in them. You'd be so familiar with that demographic's lives, dreams, fears, indiosyncracies, habits, backgrounds, differences, and so on.

I'd love to contribute to the topic but, because the world at large doesn't know about my book, I have no experience with this.
Given my personality and the fact I grew thick skin during childhood, I think I'd be able to deal with any form of constructive feedback, no matter how unpleasant. And I'd probably not find a damn to give about obvious trolls.

As for minorities and such... as I write story that happens in my own setting, this isn't something that would apply much to me - not in the exactly same scope as the situation those complainers are blaring out.

There really isn't anything you can do except ignore it. Some people will retaliate because you had the audacity to not like the same thing they like or even wrote. I've even seen people create Goodreads accounts just to destroy one book or library of books from a particular author. However, this isn't the stories we write. Despite being told time and again that a passionate speech will make the Grinch's heart grow three times, most responses from an author will only begin a spiral of increasingly nasty comments and depression. That leaves the only option of letting it go. Use the negative as more fuel to write better and remind yourself that when you do MAKE IT, you can look back at those early trolls and laugh, on your yacht, as your helicopter lands with take out from Paris.

I do nothing. It's the only choice which leaves you sane. If someone buys my book, they can say whatever they want about it. After thousands of reviews, I've suffered criticism ranging from mild dislike to outright rage. And no small number of personal attacks.
For my part: Let them scream. Let them shout. They bought my book. I have their money. I think I came out on the better end of the exchange.

Haha the best vengeance is a life well lived indeed!

"Most white male authors with diverse casts of characters get tons of compliments, appreciation and goodwill for being inclusive."

The strikes me as very much the same type of credit that fathers get for being out in public with their child(ren) without mom. They are just doing what they should be doing but because the default is for them NOT to be the one to do it, people (often women) overcompensate and offer far more credit & kudos than they should receive for it.

As far as the original question (to readers) goes... My kneejerk reaction is that I much prefer authors to write what they know, and do it well, than to try to force in token aspects - race, gender, LGBTQ+, etc issues.

That being said, if they do include them, they need to feel appropriate, for the book and the characters, and the story being told. And, if there are characters who are against or play an antagonistic role regarding race, gender, LGBTQ+, etc, THEY have to make sense to the story as well. It's realistic (unfortunately) to have people rail against modern ideas of identity that go against the traditional roles and norms... But if it ever feels like it's just the author's voice being projected through the character or pages, or their hand directing things (IE: it feels forced or contrived), that's a no-go for me.

I do appreciate when authors try to write diverse characters, and stories about social issues, but I have seen some do it VERY BADLY (cough cough SLEEPING BEAUTIES), and I wish they just wouldn't. I'm ok with authors writing what they know, and progress being made around them, rather than having what used to be a favorite author turn me sour on them by writing garbage they clearly didn't think through. >_<

Determine whether the criticism is true. Did you write something without dong the research? If you did, then do the research and write a better second edition. If you didn't then find out why the individual thought you did. Too often the narratives of marginalized voices are shaped by people who do not look like us. When we watch television and see films and the way we are depicted by a media machine that clearly knows very little about us, we're stunned and sometimes incensed. It feels better to think it's just the reader's bias. Sometimes it is. But none of us gets better if we don't consider the opinion of an individual who took the time out of their life to read our work.

I basically ignore such negative comments but I did get a few in the past, for a variety of reasons. Most prominent was the politically-based criticism. In one book that basically described a social system and benefits which were similar to those presently found in Canada, one reader accused me of supporting communism and also accused me of doing 'a full-fledged attack on the Christian Church'. When I did a series of alternate history books featuring mainly German submariners in WW2, I noticed a marked drop in the ratings given to them by the readers, presumably because my main characters were German/Nazis (these MCs were actually apolitical, like most of the German submariners in WW2). Ironically, one old reader who had served in the British merchant fleet told me he had loved the books and had found them very realistic.

Sadly, we will continue to bump against readers with intolerant views, but engaging them seems to only make them more negative, so I ignore them. Happily, the reader who had branded me as a 'communist' was taken to task in reviews by two other readers who came to my defense. Thankfully, there are still plenty of decent, tolerant people around this World.

Michel, just playing devil's advocate here, but I wonder if suspicious intention is at play in the drop in reviews you saw. What I mean, particularly around your alt-history book, is that as readers, it's sometimes really hard to gauge what the author's intentions are when writing something controversial, or when looking at a different perspective or outcome from major events... Especially if the side of the villains become the protagonists.

I know that I would question it, and hesitate to pick it up if I thought that it might be pro-Nazi in any way. Especially now.

Anyway, just offering a perspective on that one. We can't always know WHY someone writes what they do, and I wonder if that might factor in.

.Becky wrote: "Michel, just playing devil's advocate here, but I wonder if suspicious intention is at play in the drop in reviews you saw. What I mean, particularly around your alt-history book, is that as reader..."

Well, I can assure you that there was definitely no pro-Nazi arguments in my alternate history books on U-Boats, Becky. I simply narrated them in the perspective of Germans fighting for their country in a world war. My main 'Hero' actually existed and was known to be a chivalrous, principled man who was no Nazi stooge. On the story of Otto Kretschmer, please refer to The Golden Horseshoe: The Wartime Career of Otto Kretschmer, U-Boat Ace . The only thing Kretschmer could have been accused of is to have been patriotic. After the war, he served in the new German Navy and attained the rank of rear admiral.

Firstly, I’m crossing my fingers this thread remains a civil discourse on the subject matter. Feelings on this can run exceptionally strong, thus leading to dust-ups or worse thereby prompting @Allison to have to take administrative action. Hopefully it won’t come to that.

Secondly, and as a SFF reader, I land in the camp of a) being heartened by having a growing and more broadly diversifying set of published SFF authors to read from, while at the same time, b) seeing more inclusion and diversity being introduced into SFF stories across the spectrum of writers. I find overall expansion of both dimensions encouraging and hope to see it continue.

Thirdly, SFF has baggage given its historical roots. What I applaud in my second point is, in part, ongoing attempts for it evolving beyond that baggage. Such change doesn’t come easy, happens in fits and starts, has the potential to miss the mark at times, and, let’s face it, can disenfranchise some readers along the way. All these points of friction have the potential to lead to backlash, one manifestation of which is a negative review.

Finally, worldviews, attitudes, opinions, beliefs … everything we see happening across society today … can show up within reactions to SFF stories as an extension of an agenda or cause, right or wrong. It’s the world we live in. It, too, is changing. And change most certainly is not always to everyone’s benefit.

As @Allison and @Eva noted, negative reactions are going to happen. In the face of those, I would hope an SFF writer is not deterred from pursuing their work or improving upon it to the best of their abilities. And as I noted, I hope this includes, when they have the opportunity and inspiration, a thoughtful and informed broadening and diversification of their work in the process. It’s what I’m attempting to do.

/s Political correctness is very strange, e.g. if you have any Germans in your stories, no matter what time it is set in, you need to make 99.99% of them psychopathic. It is okay to have one little German child who's okay, but the rest absolutely need to be scary psychopaths, otherwise you're a Nazi, because obviously all Germans have been and always will be Nazis throughout all of history.

(Sorry, this is a bit of a pet peeve of mine because I'm a second generation immigrant living in Germany surrounded by wonderful, sweet people, and it bugs me that every single one of my female friends and relatives above the age of 13 has had experiences of sexual assault or rape in foreign countries for being "nazi bitches". My personal opinion is that maybe raping the descendants of people who lived under a totalitarian regime is okay and understandable for the first 50 or 60 years, but by the time 70 or more years have passed, innocent young girls should be able to travel safely again? /s)

or just...never! It's never okay! UGH!!!

Eva wrote: "/s Political correctness is very strange, e.g. if you have any Germans in your stories, no matter what time it is set in, you need to make 99.99% of them psychopathic. It is okay to have one little..."

That's awful. I had no idea. Rape is never, ever ok.

I do think in the US that we like to use Nazi Germany as a scapegoat. Hitler was definitely evil and terrible, but the way we use his name here in the US for the ultimate evil...like, yes...he was evil. But Hitler was hardly the only evil ever in the world. I think it is an easy go to for people. No one is going to disagree that genocide is anything but evil. But meanwhile in the US at the same time we were quietly lynching Black people and locking up Japanese people in internment camps. Germans aren't the only bad guys, you know?

Thank you, guys, it means a lot to hear that.

But even the reply demonstrates a bit what I mean: you say "Germans aren't the only bad guys" as if German and Nazi were synonyms, even though Germany existed for over a thousand years before that regime took over, and has since existed as a new country for the past 75 years - none of those years were they "the bad guys", and yet the xenophobic stereotype is so strong that all Germans ever are equated with one group who was in power for a particular duration. It's also a completely different state with a different constitution, territory, population, government, etc.

E.g. you can equate it to e.g. Florida who was on the bad guys side during the Civil War, but would you still say about modern people living in Miami today that they aren't the only bad guys?

Eva wrote: "Thank you, guys, it means a lot to hear that.

But even the reply demonstrates a bit what I mean: you say "Germans aren't the only bad guys" as if German and Nazi were synonyms, even though Germany..."

I'm sorry, Eva. That was clumsy wording on my part. I don't think I or any US Americans I know think of Germans as bad guys. I should have used the term Nazi because that is what I meant. I'm surprised by your experience in Europe because I feel like US Americans don't actually think less of Germans at all. My ancestry is half German and I have never felt an ounce of shame about that.

Point taken, but Florida is a wild exception to most of the rules lol.

I think all of this shows how reliant we are on our own contexts to the point that even being sensitive and caring we can fail to be what the "in group" would expect. And I think that's gonna happen, which isn't to say we don't try, but we just keep trying to do *better*. My personal motto is progress, not perfection, and I think that helps sort of set up a mentality for inevitable future times I'll stick my foot in my own mouth.

Allison wrote: "I think all of this shows how reliant we are on our own contexts to the point that even being sensitive and caring we can fail to be what the "in group" would expect. And I think that's gonna happen, which isn't to say we don't try, but we just keep trying to do *better*. My personal motto is progress, not perfection, and I think that helps sort of set up a mentality for inevitable future times I'll stick my foot in my own mouth.."


Yes, exactly. The original comment that it is impossible to be sensitive and not appropriate cultures no matter how hard you try.... Like, that is just defeatist. You have to try and work to learn and do better. And you have to accept that you are going to make mistakes and be willing to apologize and learn.

Michel wrote: "Well, I can assure you that there was definitely no pro-Nazi arguments in my alternate history books on U-Boats, Becky. I simply narrated them in the perspective of Germans fighting for their country in a world war. "

I don't doubt that, Michel, but that's exactly my point. Readers don't necessarily know what that means, or what it means to you, or how you (or any author) will portray it in the book.

Unless German history and war is a specific interest of the reader's, I think that many are unlikely to see "German fighting for their country in a world war" and NOT think of the Nazis. So that may make them hesitate.

My point was not to cast aspersions on your book. I don't even know what it is - my comments have been specifically based on yours in this thread just to offer a different perspective. :)

Allison wrote: "or just...never! It's never okay! UGH!!!"

THIS. ^^^

Kristenelle wrote: "But meanwhile in the US at the same time we were quietly lynching Black people and locking up Japanese people in internment camps. Germans aren't the only bad guys, you know?"

SO true. I'm no fan of Nazis, (and actually have read quite a lot about them) but they are not the end-all-be-all of evil. I learned recently that some of the policies they adopted were modeled after Jim Crow policies here, and that even they thought the US's "one drop" rule was too extreme.

Anyway - that's a whole different topic for another thread.

Back to the one at hand, I definitely agree with Michel's policy of just ignoring the negative reviews/ratings etc.. At least as far as responding goes. (I'm fully in favor of taking the criticism and learning/adjusting/etc as Penelope said.)

I had an author recently passive-aggressively comment on an update I made about his book, and it turned me right off, and I just DNF'd it at that point. Not only because it meant that he was stalking updates and reviews, but that he felt like he needed to address and defend them. No bueno.

I understand perfectly well, Becky. Suspicion and hostility towards any book featuring Germans in WW2 are nearly a standard for most people today. The same could be said about books featuring Japanese men who fought in WW2, with the added element of racism too often mixed in. I could mention the example of Saburo Sakai, a WW2 Japanese fighter pilot who ended being one of the top Japanese aces of the war but eventually vowed to himself to never kill again, even insects. History has featured all kinds of persons, good, bad or indifferent, from all kinds of nationalities/cultures/time periods. Even the USA has its fair share of evil/despicable people down its history (Senator Joseph McCarthy, the KKK, to name only a few). That wild diversity is what fascinates me most about history.

Agreed, Michel. I'm fascinated and interested in the same kind of stuff, but usually just stick to nonfiction for it over fiction. (Says the moderator of a historical fiction group. LOL Go figure.)

I'm going to add something that I have found countless times in books. It's not just race and/or gender, but religion. Holy cow that's prevalent. It's become particularly fashionable to malign Roman Catholicism. Priests are always evil and/or pedophiles, etc. As a Roman Catholic, I find this deeply offensive. But it's not just my religion! Jewish, Muslim, et al people are portrayed in a stereotypical and negative light. I am always astounded how often I come across these prejudicial viewpoints! Don't authors realize that they are deliberately alienating a segment of society? Like @Eva's sensitivity to the demonization of Germany, or the gender, POC, or political biases.

Michelle wrote: "I'm going to add something that I have found countless times in books. It's not just race and/or gender, but religion. Holy cow that's prevalent. It's become particularly fashionable to malign Roma..."

Excuse me, but I have found that it is more often the case that some religiously-orthodox/zealot readers are criticizing or targetting those they deem to be against religion than the contrary. First, those negative comments about religion you may read about largely complain about specific, demonstrated examples of abuse, intolerance or discrimination made by some members of religious clergy, like in the case of child and women abuse in Irish Catholic orphanages or residences for girls and women. Yet, too many fundamentalist Christians refuse to acknowledge those wrongs and continue to insist that we obey their Bible word for word. In my opinion, the intolerance is shown by religious followers, not by those who highlighted the wrongs committed by the Church. Second, the reason those wrong acts from religious leaders/believers are publicized and criticized so often is because they still keep happening and because old lies are being unmasked. I lived the experience of going to a school run by Christian Brothers and those bullies and sadists fully deserve to be exposed for what they truly are. Let them start to show some true christian charity if the Church wants the bad press to stop.

So many conversations in place...interesting though.

As for negative comments in reviews? I never respond. Never. No matter how ignorant, polarised, didactic or even willfully inaccurate I suspect some of them to be.

That said, I've not received many negative comments, which is surprising in a way because my work is always challenging. My most recent is a crime thriller which is also a satire on Australian refugee policy. I was expecting to get some very negative responses based on the politics - but not one. There have been a couple of other complaints but nothing in respect of the main theme. Again, no comment from me.

Mind you, I only rarely respond to positive comments - usually the ones I regard as very thoughtful from people who've clearly engaged deeply with the work. But even then I worry that I might come across as a creepy stalker so I keep the "thank you"s brief.

On the issue of diversity as discussed in the other thread, being a straight white dude is something I can't help, and feeling a profound compulsion to write is also something I can't help. One rule I always follow is that any character who gets a name must have an impact on the plot, so men and women regardless of any of their other characteristics equally kick the plot along.

I've also been experimenting with writing from the perspective of people whose characteristics/qualities I do not share - which for me is both interesting and challenging, but also fraught with danger because you will be howled down if you get the sensitivities wrong. Fortunately, I have a very diverse range of friends / beta readers who already enjoy my work so won't judge me for getting it wrong.

One thing I've not done yet - but I will - is to write a novel with a female first person narrator. I've done lots of deep 3rd person from female characters but not 1st. That remains a challenge for the future but I need to come up with the right vehicle for it.

Michelle wrote It's not just race and/or gender, but religion. Holy cow that's prevalent

That is interesting Michelle, I was thinking that the point of lots of writing was to generate a bit of controversy. To do that, you have to alienate someone, CEO's, middle managers, cops, rich people, poor people, etc.

Obviously the vast majority of people who practice religion are not evil but to put Michel's comment in a slightly tamer way, I think enough mis-deeds have been done in the name of (pick your religion) that it deserves to be a target for writers.

Honestly as a writer, if you are doing your job well enough, you should be offending someone.

Hank wrote: "Michelle wrote It's not just race and/or gender, but religion. Holy cow that's prevalent

That is interesting Michelle, I was thinking that the point of lots of writing was to generate a bit of con..."

You've got a point, Hank! I've got to say that I wouldn't want to be an author in this day and age.

Michel wrote: "Michelle wrote: "I'm going to add something that I have found countless times in books. It's not just race and/or gender, but religion. Holy cow that's prevalent. It's become particularly fashionab..."

I apologize if I have offended you, Michel, and I also am sorry for bringing up bad memories for you. I guess my point is that lumping all Christians in the same intolerant, evil, judgmental, etc category is similar to classifying any given group of society into a specific stereotype. For example, men. Since I was abused by a man in every way possible for twelve years when I was younger, does that mean all men are abusive? Of course not. I'm not going to lie and say that I didn't feel that way about men for many years after I was able to finally escape him, but I was able to overcome this fear. Any group can be marginalized. I hope I have clarified my intention in my original post, and I thank you for your reply! I will respectfully drop the subject and we can all breathe a sigh of relief.

Whoa, sorry I missed this!

Hey y'all, using one brush to paint a whole group is bigotry, pure and simple, and I expect better of you. We are not denigrating anyone here for their identity! Come on! Take that shit to Twitter or wherever, we're here to talk about how we handle these call outs as professionals. I sure as hell hope "scolding people until they run away" isn't a tactic we approve of. So let's not use that here, either.

There's a lot of hurt and our personal hurts are valid, but let's do please try not to use that hurt to attack someone who wasn't part of it, yeah?

Thanks.

Michelle, I couldn't agree with you more! Writing is not only hard to do, it is hard to manage after the fact.

Thanks for reading my comment in the spirit is was meant which was curiosity and discussion. I read it again and thought it might come across as judgmental when I really agreed with your point.

Allison wrote: "Readers, what do you WISH authors would do? What do you expect, what can you forgive, and what is intolerable?"

In answer to the question I'd wish authors would see criticism of their book to not be parsed as an attack on themselves, an attempt at undermining their livelihood, etc. That they'd not perceive every negative criticism of their book as being disingenuous and in bad faith.

To maybe take that criticism on board and see what they might do differently next time? Especially if the reader is expressing that their demo is being stereotyped, infantilized, villainized, sexualized in a gross way, etc.

That if they really want to vent their emotions about a negative review, to maybe throw out a subtweet. Or anything that doesn't call out the reviewer specifically, and that focuses solely on the content of the review.

To recognize that we readers are entitled to our opinions, no matter how off-base they might be vs what the author intended when writing the book. It might seem like outscale power for reviewers for us to get away scot free for our bad opinions, but we're not the ones making careers of our writing. We're the ones supporting THEIR careers, spending significant unpaid time between reading and writing.

That support is sometimes indirect, not obvious. Even a negative review can make sales for you. As a huge fan of the "reverse recommendation," you can trust me on that. :)

Beth wrote: "To recognize that we readers are entitled to our opinions, no matter how off-base they might be vs what the author intended when writing the book. It might seem like outscale power for reviewers for us to get away scot free for our bad opinions, but we're not the ones making careers of our writing. We're the ones supporting THEIR careers, spending significant unpaid time between reading and writing."

This is the main reason why I never respond to bad reviews and rarely respond to good. Once a book is published it takes on a life of its own independent of the author and circulates through the community having different impacts wherever it goes. Taste and perspective differ widely so what are the chances you'll please everyone? Very small indeed.

In this context, love and hate are purely statistical. I find it helps to remember that.

I guess the other side of that coin is that I come onto GR more as a reader than a writer and very much enjoy reviewing books - and I have to say I get as much pleasure from bagging the bad as praising the good. There are a few airport/blockbuster writers who'd probably love to spend ten minutes with me and a pointed stick.

Adrian wrote: "... I worry that I might come across as a creepy stalker so I keep the "thank you"s brief. ..."

That is probably best. I'm not an author, except of "reviews" here. I've had authors occasionally thank me for a nice word about their work, and that is nice. But it does come close to feeling like a stalker. I've also had one negative comment from an author who didn't like my tepid 3-star review. I prefer to refrain from responding to either positive or negative feedback from an author.

Allison wrote: "Whoa, sorry I missed this!

Hey y'all, using one brush to paint a whole group is bigotry, pure and simple, ..."

Well, I still feel, on all these threads, that 'straight white males' are being lumped together as not able to provide diverse viewpoints. And that is, indeed, bigotry, not to mention inaccurate.

I do believe that publishers are hearing pleas for diversity of authors. Finally. And that is a good thing.

[In fact, at least in the kinds of children's books that are marketed to libraries, it seems that they are actively seeking out books by and about families of different cultures, with different abilities, gender identities, etc. (Though, yes, religion is coming along more slowly.)]

Diversity of content? Of ideas? I dunno if that is dependent on what minority "group(s)" an author belongs to. I don't think it is.

Iow, to answer the original question, I will not tolerate stories that are dependent on tropes and memes, especially in SFF. I want diverse authors and characters because I want diverse and creative speculations.

But of course all the characters need to be people first; only then they can be diverse for different reasons. For example, I think it's reasonable to credit a certain character's neuro-diversity with (his) ability to, say, navigate through hyper-space. But the author doesn't have to be autistic... they just needed to do the research.

Other characters can just happen to be fair or dark, or maybe their roots have a certain influence on them but not one that interferes with their primary talents (think Uhuru's musicianship, or Sulu's swordsmanship). But I will not tolerate what Baen did to the very dark Heris Serrano or, for a more recent example, at which point we should all know better, the transformation of the sturdy and dark hero of The Best of All Possible Worlds.

Ok, I'm getting rambly. Rather than go on, I'll repeat my main point:

I want diverse authors and characters because I want diverse and creative speculations.

I'm going to push back, Cheryl, on the idea that this is saying that straight white men can't embrace or join in the "diversity of ideas." I think it's been said here and in all threads where this comes up, it's not about the content of the story, it's about the author behind it, because merit is not a racial or sex-linked trait.

It is not bigotry to say that in the United States, straight people and white people literally constitute the majority of the population and leadership roles (though this is beginning to change!) And while women are actually numerically greater in number, men occupy to this day more of the decision making roles and positions of power, making women the less empowered of the binary genders. So I think you are possibly conflating acceptance and goodness of the individual author, which is not up for debate and would be entirely shut down if it was, and the equity in the market/on our shelf, which is what we're discussing in the other thread.

But I do agree, the more viewpoints we have, the more viewpoints we get to see in books! Good points on the characters being real people.

Wow. Cool thread. There are several things I want to comment on:

AMG said, "See a negative review as an opportunity to learn, and, if there's nothing to be learned, just let it go." I couldn't agree more, but I will shamefacedly admit that, as a self-published author, it takes time to mature and gain confidence in yourself.

Allison said, "the more viewpoints we have, the more viewpoints we get to see in books!" I'm starting to see authors trying almost too hard to make their characters more diverse to be inclusive of all ethnicities, gender identities, religious views, etc. to the point where even these "diverse" characters are starting to feel forced and stereotypical.

Which leads me to my question: are some stereotypical characters in a story that bad? I see this criticized on GR and Amazon all the time but certain genres lend themselves to it, like Action/Adventure or Romance. If you pick up a Dean Koontz book you pretty much know what the main characters are going to be like. But is that necessarily a bad thing? And if there wasn't some truth to the stereotypes then they wouldn't be stereotypes in the first place. Thoughts? Comments, both good and bad?

Tropey characters, yes. Stereotypes are generally negative or reductive qualities that the majority rely on to demonstrate inferiority of someone. So I am going to assume you mean tropes or cliches rather than stereotypes, because I can't think of a time that would be good to rely on!

Cliches and tropes can be entertaining, easy, or fun, depending on how they're done, I think, but if they rely on assumed cultural norms of other people, you've gone from "you can't please everyone" to "I'm actively going to piss off a quantifiable audience." So I think if nothing else, it's bad business. And if all of your [insert any group here] are tropes while other groups are distinct and fleshed out, you're starting to blur the lines between authorial choice and authorial bias, which is a much harder hole to climb back out of.

I think just about any topic, POV and mash up of ideas can work in a book if the author has thought it through, made deliberate choices and received feedback on how it reads to someone else, but I think it's probably smart to avoid cultural touchstones unless you're confident in the tightrope you're walking.

As far as over or misuse of inclusive story choices, it's always a pendulum of taking a good idea too far. it doesn't matter who the author or characters are, you're either doing a good, poor or indifferent job with the materials before you. You see these trends all over the place--a couple years ago the "in" thing was vampires, before that psy powers etc. This is the new It thing and if it helps remove barriers to different voices and stories, I'm willing to see where it takes us. I'd rather have folks try it, fail and show people how to do better than just proclaim it's too hard, pack up my blocks and go home.

I began thinking about this more last summer after the protests on George Floyd. I'm a white male author, and while I have always tried to include diverse characters and avoid stereotypes, I acknowledge I can always do better and that learning process and work will continue. So I welcome constructive criticism about how I can do this better.

I once thought that a good approach is to not label characters by race and let the reader imagine them how they wish, but I've come to realize that is much like saying you are color blind and is really a way to avoid the issue. It's important to acknowledge that diversity exists and that different people have different backgrounds and experiences.

I recommend that writers check out books about anti-racism because I think there are a lot of helpful takeaways on how to be better allies. Here are a couple I've checked out:

Me and White Supremacy: Combat Racism, Change the World, and Become a Good Ancestor

The Antiracist: How to Start the Conversation about Race and Take Action

Adam wrote: "I once thought that a good approach is to not label characters by race and let the reader imagine them how they wish, but I've come to realize that is much like saying you are color blind and is really a way to avoid the issue."

I support avoiding as much as possible. Let the reader cast the characters. Obviously last names and countries of origins will give strong hints, but what does it matter where a character comes from while flying the Death Star trench run? Unless needed for the story (e.g. 12 Years A Slave: True story of an African-American who was kidnapped in New York and sold into slavery - with bonus material: Uncle Tom's Cabin, by Harriet Beecher Stowe or The Jungle Book. On film, it matters more, but on the written page, I say less is more.

One of my favorite literary moments is at the end of Starship Troopers (view spoiler)[ When you find out Rico is Filipino. (hide spoiler)]

What I also like is when the character's perspective is considered in what they will notice and point out and what they see as irrelevant, default, or regular-looking. E.g. I liked that in the Stormlight Archive, white people are so extremely rare that the close 3rd person narration never bothers mentioning brown skin or epicanthic folds (because they're just "what everyone looks like" to the POV characters), whereas the only white character in the story is described as weirdly light-skinned, with unusually-shaped large eyes. This then lead to some funny fan art by a couple of fans who didn't get that their default was not the characters's default in this fantasy world.

Phillip wrote: "I support avoiding as much as possible. Let the reader cast the characters. Obviously last names and countries of origins will give strong hints, but what does it matter where a character comes from while flying the Death Star trench run? Unless needed for the story (e.g. 12 Years A Slave: True story of an African-American who was kidnapped in New York and sold into slavery - with bonus material: Uncle Tom's Cabin, by Harriet Beecher Stowe or The Jungle Book. On film, it matters more, but on the written page, I say less is more."

I mean, 12 Years A Slave is an autobiography, so, yeah, I'd agree it matters a bit there, lol. ;)

But I would also say that it matters even when it's not immediately relevant to the exact topic of the story or the main character's storyline etc. An example of this is a family of characters from a (cough cough) "woke" fantasy story by a highly successful white guy and his son. This family was not described at all, IE: topic avoided for much of the book. It turns out they were Black.

I, as a white person who has read just about everything this author has written, and used to this particular author either writing other white people, or very clearly describing when people are not white, automatically pictured them as white. There was literally nothing to imply otherwise until past the halfway point.

The problem with this though, is that these characters lived in a very small, rural, West Virginia town, and so their experiences would be VERY different from white people's experiences. And that matters to their motivations, their decisions, their aspirations... it matters to the core of who they are, and how they exist in this fantasy situation, and EVERY situation. It matters to how others treat them, and how they see them or value them (or not), etc.

That kind of lack, that avoidance, hurt this story quite a bit (in my opinion), because Black people and POCs are not just white people with various shades of non-white skin and should not be tokenized or used as convenient plot points (as these characters ABSOLUTELY were). Their lived experiences would have affected them and changed who they were, but that was completely absent.

Anyway - sorry for yet another derailment, but I would rather authors NOT just avoid POC descriptions. If you aren't willing to really commit to the character they SHOULD be, then don't write them. Just my two cents.

Good writing is rare, great writing extremely rare. Great writers often begin as bad writers. I need good writers to produce content because it pleases me. I'm not sure creative writer types are going produce their best quality work or young writers develop in a timely fashion if they are afraid to offend, make a mistake or take risks. The cultural appropriation attack as I've seen it used is 90% crap, deployed anonymously and often poorly by folks with unknown agendas. That being said, a writers best friend is a candid, honest editor. You writers out there continue to keep up the good work. George Martin... if I don't get the next installment of fire and ice by the end of the year, there will be consequences!!! A strongly worded letter at the least.

I am very curious what the alternative is to being critiqued for something. How do I get to the place where no one's opinions can cause a kerfuffle if I say or do something that is against today's social mores? In what period of time can I get away with doubling down instead of apologizing and expect to keep my audience?

In the 90s queer baiting and portrayal of women was the thing. In the 80s it was politicians, in the 60s/70s it was war, in the 50s it was socialism, in the 40s it was war again...like...when have authors been free from feedback, and was that a net positive?

They've never been free from feedback, what's new is just the huge power fans can now have e.g. by organizing online twitter mobs. If you disagreed with an author and threw their book against a wall in the 80s and 90s, you'd just complain to your immediate friend circle and maybe write an angry letter to the author at most, and nobody else would ever know you didn't like it or why. Now the whole world might know instantly, you can easily network with others far away who happen to share your opinion, you can organize review bombings, create sockpuppet accounts to spread rumors and agree with yourself, get their agent to drop them instantly in order not to be caught in the crossfire, etc.

The difference is that people used to be afraid of authority figures such as politicians, critics, religious authorities, and professors hating your book, now they're afraid of teenagers halfway across the world hating their book. This has both good sides (yay for giving people a voice) and bad sides (not everyone is the most fair and discerning reader/reviewer).

Right! Four score years ago they could SEND YOU TO THEIR EQUIVALENT OF GITMO. And today it's like...a week of people yelling at you on Twitter. Which isn't to say some of that doesn't go too far, but I'm always surprised that people think they can interact with the public to universal appreciation, and face no consequences for any mistakes. That sounds like a terrible land a la 1984, where no one *alive* is sanctioned, and anyone else just gets removed. No thanks! Give me the oopsies and the takebacks any day.

Literary Circles finally gone Gangster Yo!!!

This is very much an attempt at shutting the barn door after the horse has gone loose, but white people using "cancel" and "woke" so freely, and often derisively, is ironic at best in conversations like this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifest...

Interesting Article Beth