Letters to Life: For the Sake of Diversity!

Dear People of Everywhere:

There's a thing in psychology. A big question. It circles pretty much everything people-related: is it nature or nurture?

I like this question. It's a good question to ask about things. Are you doing this because you are born with it in your veins, or are you doing it because you were raised with it? I don't really see other ways to the why behind any question. After all, nurture is there every time in your life; it's not a question of childhood, it's a question of environment.

For example: I'm a Baptist Christian. Happy to be one, actually. And I would guess that it might have something to do with the fact that the preschool I attended once upon a time also happens to double as my church today. Some of my earliest memories took place there: laughing and running around the playground outside, the stained glass windows of the sanctuary, the Sunday school/preschool classroom on the ground floor with its rug with the alphabet on it... happy times.

As I believe it, God gave us free will, which is why religion can be a nurture question, and not a nature question.

What does this have to do with anything? I assume that you don't visit this blog to listen to my religious views. (Really, though, it's about all my views. Including my religious views.) This example is just a lead-up to my main point.

Which, I suppose, goes along the lines of: why judge people on a matter of nature, when there are things to disagree with about nurture?

Not that I'm advocating prejudice of any kind. But I realize that wariness over differences can almost be counted as nature nowadays. We are nurtured from such a young age over trivial things, that it really can seem like nature. (See toy advertising words and gendered culture.)

When I say "trivial things," I mean by my perspective. The broad things, like gender and sexual orientation and skin color. That prejudice is taught from a very early age indeed. (I mean, have you ever walked down a children's toys aisle? All pink down one side, all blue down the other. It's disturbing. I preferred the gender-neutral libraries as a kid.) Not to say they are trivial to everyone, just that they are not the small, everyday things like how someone's voice is pitched at just that most annoying pitch, and that song that you hate is that person's favorite song. I pay attention to those smaller things. (I don't talk to people often, so really, by "trivial", I mean the things I don't keep an opinion on when I meet you. I keep an opinion only on whether you've annoyed me by interrupting my reading for a reason I don't care about.)

In books, you see things pretty clearly. How many times do we rip on Bella for being a weak, clingy, obsessive girl? And then think that perhaps the story would've been better if it was Edward's. (Or at least, that's what I do. I'm ashamed to say, sexist culture sneaks into my brain sometimes, too.)

I can think of many instances. One time, I was at B&N with my mom (who pays for the books I buy), and she refused to let me buy one about a boy who was gay-bashed. The MC wasn't even the gay boy; it was a female friend of the gay boy. (Of course, that was awhile ago and I can't remember its title or price; but my mother is of the "love the sinner, hate the sin" camp. I do imagine that sexual orientation was a factor.)

Now, gender, sexual orientation, skin color -- these are nature things. Not nurture. The only "nurture" thing about it is the way you look at it. I would hope I am such a tolerant, open-minded person because I have read all sorts of books since kindergarten. I would suspect people who are misogynistic are that way because either: a.) they have been actively taught that; or b.) because they honestly think society is already equal, and therefore misogyny can't exist. 

These things should not matter. It's just the way we're born. It's us who have made this matter.

Keep in mind I'm a teenager and not exactly an expert, but do I have to be? Even toddlers can tell the difference between nature and nurture. How ridiculous would it sound if someone told you that you chose the wrong skin color? (Don't get me started on tanning booths, whitewashing on YA covers, or any other such hogwash.)

So, why is so hard to find these natural things in books? It's not so bad, I gather, here in 2013. I will actively seek out books with a different culture, a woman protagonist, or a LGBTQ protag (I'm pretty sure there are more letters in there somewhere...), so I couldn't tell you about a dearth of them. But I know that the quality of them can be gosh-awful, a lot more than books about straight white guys might be. Particularly when it comes to sex.

Or perhaps it's not bad writing, per se, just harsher judgement from the reader. I don't know. But, as the title of this post implies, I would imagine it's the former, there being some need nowadays to toss in diversity, but seemingly no reason to write it well. Any subtle sexism or racism can be blamed on the character in question -- "It's not that she's a girl, it's her character." Which is a terrible argument, considering that an author (while character's character seems like an imaginary friend who chooses their own personality) does have a small ounce of control over how s/he expresses that character.

Well, so... readers' harsher judgment might be part of that. We will point out anything perceived as weak. Not all of us, not with every character. But it's there.

If the world were up to me, there would be an easy solution: focus on and develop such diverse characters as you do the straight white guy characters. Readers would then love them, because they are good characters. Unfortunately, the world is not up to me, and people will believe whatever they want to about a certain character -- or not believe at all, as the case may be.

Thankfully, there are diverse characters we can all love and hope for a better literary future because of: Hermione Granger, Holly Short (who does happen to be a POC, even if she's whitewashed in the graphic novels), Eona... (I'm having trouble coming up with LGBTQ characters. I avoid romance on principle, and I somehow think that LGBTQ ended a rather small niche in mainstream genre fiction, anyways, thanks to culture.)

I am one author. Not even published yet. But I know, quite deeply, that I will never consciously add a character in just for the sake of diversity. And, considering the fact I write epic YA fantasy, I have a feeling that most of my main characters will be diverse, and complex because of their diversity. I strongly believe that differences unite us all the more.

This one author here, will do her best to help diverse characters become real. I can only hope others will follow suit; and that maybe, just maybe -- in some distant future -- my words and worlds will help a change for the better for diversity,without making diversity seem like a cheap character trick that needs to tossed in due to social movements.

Sincerely,
JDM -- daydreamer, fantasy writer, avid reader.
      

Letters to Life: On Female Characters

Dear SFF readers, writers, publishing peoples, and all-around decent folk --

I've recently been reading internet articles, as is my wont, on the representation of females in fiction.

Now, I'm a teenager who reads mostly YA. Don't kid yourselves, if you think this is an expert opinion. In fact, I hope you point out any flaws in my arguments in the comments section, or tell me what you think are the strong points. That is how people learn and grow.

But there is lots of talk about "strong female characters." (From my vantage point, which isn't exactly temporal. Namely, these articles could've been written anytime from last week to years ago.)

Now, why would I take part in such a discussion? Why should I? I am no expert, not even in logic or argument-making. In fact, I am the sort of person who doesn't even think logic rules the world -- I tend to think logic and argument are only one aspect of life, just as music and emotion and image and language are all just another part. And it's your choice to think which is more important. But I need to say something, and have a conversation about it, instead of letting it fester in my soul.

That being said, logic and argument do amount to something. It has weight behind it, like every other human force. And there is a certain logic that defines literature, just as there is emotion in music and structure in art and language in argument. Do you know what that logic is?

That there is no one personality type; there are as many types of people in fiction (and nonfiction) as there is in real life. And that means that yes, there are your typical Strong Female Characters in real life, and yes, there are some in literature. But that doesn't mean your definition should make up the majority.

It's the age-old trope that makes these female characters just that - a trope. You can bring them to life all you want, and people will complain that you're just submitting to a trope. That they are nothing but a stock character. (Remember that term from English class?) And I'm sick of seeing and reading it. But I want them in here, just the same.

Let's examine the typical traits of a Strong Female Character, shall we? Silent, strong, usually career-oriented and usually one of the few women in their field (and, of course, usually a military, scientific, or otherwise male-dominated field). Not weepy, or emotional, or terribly simple-minded. And of course, complex, internally-struggling, angry and happy and world-weary at the same time...

What was that? That last sentence doesn't ring true? Well, it should. Because that's my main point here: the "Strong Female Character" should be more than her typical definition. She should be as real-life as, well, real life.

I mean, what other type of female is there? Everyone is strong in their own way, pardoning my abrupt train of thought. (And jump in argument; bear with me, please.) What I mean is, what is the definition of weakness, when you think of a Strong Female Character? Emotional? Because everyone has emotion. Guys, especially, are prone to anger in fiction. That's an emotion, right? Anger? That hasn't suddenly morphed into a separate category, some extension of thought? Guys can be prone to theatrical heroism. Being melodramatic is a mix of thought and emotion, true, but it's how we exaggerate and how we show emotion. I mean, the typical guy trope -- the hero who has to save the world, and he does it his own way.

Emotion isn't a weakness. Guys, real life and in fiction, can have it. It's not a weakness, for them; in fact, it's usually portrayed in media as an abusive man controlling his wife or family; it's portrayed as the lust and "love" for the forces of good and for, again, their family. Batman is allowed to become a hero after his parents die, out of grief and a want for revenge. All of those crime shows, following childhood trauma to abusive present. (Or to a present of seeking out such dangerous relationships, but that's usually portrayed a "woman" thing.)

So why can't Strong Females have it? Emotions are not exclusively female or "weak." So... what else? Do you mean physical weakness? That's a characteristic of Strong Females and males alike. The whole "Look at me, I can shoot a gun, I can kick your sorry butt to kingdom come, I catch you doing something misogynistic and I will show you how manlike my reflexes are?" No one I know of can manage it, but in Sci-fi/fantasy, go ahead! (Really. No sarcasm. I come from a place where people have inane conversations and do chores, not kick butt.)

Um... do you mean the whole being-the-only-one-of-my-gender-in-this-field? Because... well, that doesn't look strong. Actually, that doesn't even reflect on the character in my opinion -- it just makes a whole system look weak. I mean, no one wants a field where both genders aren't at play. It takes two to make a family, and it takes two to make bombs. Ingenuity comes to both genders, and it's stupid to refuse an entire gender's ingenuity based solely on their gender. I'm all for subjectivity, but that's not a good subjectivity to go by. Go by something like, "They don't like biology, so they can't work in our medical facilities." That's a much more decent subjective measure than "Oh, she's a girl."

So... what is weak? What is the opposite, or indeed anything other than, this Strong Female Character? Which brings me back to my first point -- why are you making this a stock character/trope?

I would guess you mean "as opposed to the lack of other female characters in the novel, this one token girl is a Strong Person, because we don't have any others but vague mentions." I've heard of a few novels like that. I don't read many, thankfully. It's not really a good thing, this trope. There are plenty of strong characters who are not this mental image of military-and-rebellious.

Now, did I write this just to be whiny? No, I have an Easy Positive Solution.    

Perhaps we should take a leaf from my favorite age group's notebook: write many, many books from the POV of girls/women. Adult fiction, you heard me. And I don't mean, simple, flat characters written for the Sake of Diversity. (More on that particular rant some other day.) I mean, real-life characters. The sort of characters we always strive to write about, because no one likes flat, simple-minded "weak" characters. The same ones you seem intent to avoid with the trope in the first place.

In fact, here's an Easy Test to administer and pass -- the Bechdel Test. The questions are simple.
1. Are there at least two women in it?
2. Do they talk to each other?
3. Do they talk about something other than men?
Guys, this isn't a hard test to pass. It's not even asking to make them major or main characters, just that you include them. It does wonders for that audience you're actively pushing away. (Namely, me. Though people like me are included, as well.)

In YA, a lot of novels are published by women, for girls. Predominantly. And there's a reason I prefer that age group -- because, while I hate the romance, I can identify with strong characters who happen to be female. Because, they can't be anything but strong.

Sincerely,
JDM -- a dreamer of impossibly diverse dreams, a thinker of more than logic, and a Girl Who Loves Strength (But Knows There's More than One Type)

P.S. This Lorde quote was originally intended for real-life racism. I kind of consider fictional people to be their own human race, only they inhabit a different world. But all the same, I don't mean this quote to look out-of-context and mean. Diversity, as I said, is a whole 'nother blog post, as is For the Sake of Diversity.

Letters to life: Independence Day

Dear world:

Today's the day America started her revolution. Through years of suffering, of a sort of Stockholm Syndrome: can you imagine the cries? "We can't go to war against Britain! They're so much more powerful. And anyways, it's where we CAME from. We can't fight our birth country!"

Assuming, of course, that it was a former Englishman speaking, since in that period of time, Englishmen were the most common. Of course there were PLENTY of other immigrants, but a lot of them (the majority?) came over from England, or their ancestors did.

What do I want to talk about? Fireworks? Some rant on how corrupt America has gotten since that glorious, morally audacious revolution some centuries ago? Perhaps even give you a "little" history lecture?

No. But I do want to mention something else: some days, when the world seems like a horrible place every day, you just need to celebrate even a seemingly small or distant thing like a war that happened centuries ago. That's sort of why we have holidays -- so we can focus on the good things, even when the world seems like a terrible, awful, nightmarish place.

Sure, I've got the number of stripes wrong and there are no stars...
But we don't need to focus on those wrong, trivial things!

I mean, I could goon about society's gender inequality... the obsessive consumerism... the financial burdens... But I don't need to, on a day like this. I can focus on how the Rev War must've seemed to a simple little Englishman who came over to be a farmer. (See improvised dialogue above.)

That is what we're about, right? As Americans, as human beings... we can focus on one little human's struggles and triumphs, than on a world of trouble. That's why we have story, right? In every corner of the globe. Because of days when we make distant, trivial things a thing close, personal, and worth celebrating.

So that little Englishman -- dead for three centuries, forgotten or maybe even purely hypothetical -- can Rest-In-Peace, because we created a day for people like him, where we can toss gunpowder at the sky and watch it explode as we imagine the cannon-fire to some battle we forgot the name of. AND where we can imagine impossible, highly-modernized people of that era being scared of their very lives.

Have a blessed day! (Even if, or maybe especially if, you are not American -- in which case, you can read this post like I'm from your country, and conveniently ignore trivial things like the flag picture and immigration patterns in the 1700s.)

Sincerely,
JDM -- a decently proud American, a human being, and a lover of good stories.

P.S. I haven't actually been reading a Revolutionary War novel that would prompt such an unusual imagining. I'm just like that. Hypothetical Englishman is actually just another voice to my growing repertoire of character's voices (not that he'll be part of a historical novel anytime soon; though maybe a fantasy novel set vaguely in a Rev War-type setting).

Letters to Life: On the Topic of Romance

Dear readers, writers, publishers, agents, editors, etc --
(or, To Whom it May Concern)

I walked into my local Barnes&Noble the other day, and I walked out without buying any books.

Do you know what that means to me? It means that I can't find anything that would interest me. It means that the YA section I normally browse is chock full of nothing-that-would-interest-me. It means that that open-mindedness that I've had since kindergarten finally starts to crumble.

To be fair, it's not a one-time thing. My world didn't rock off its hinges just from one unfruitful trip to the  bookstore. Rather, it's a culmination of years of trips to several different libraries and two different B&Ns that ended with a general sense of disappointment.

And what am I disappointed about? I apologize for not stating it first, but here it is: there feels to be too much romance in YA, and I feel shunted out of my favorite (and technical) age group.

Romance is good for people. The world's better with love and love stories, I truly believe it is. But it's slowly eating away at my beliefs. I am not a romance person; I don't like reading other people's hormones, and as I've never wanted a boyfriend or girlfriend, I don't really want to read about other people's desire to have one. I mean, I already knew I was different from other people; I read books to escape it. And when I can't turn to new books for new escapes, then I'm sad and frustrated and I leave bookstores with nothing in hand.

"Owl" be watching for more fantasy without romance!
( A pic of the owl outside our home) 

Aren't there people out there who want something different? The YA paranormal romance section of my local B&N takes up a decent amount more space than the YA fantasy/adventure section, and the fantasy also comes with romance. And that's the B&N that stands as its own store, and not my other "local" B&N, which is in a mall half an hour's drive from my home.

Is it too much to ask to come up with books where the female protagonist is not there to fall in love? That instead of finding a guy, the girl can save the world, and then live happy ever after on her own? Or even just more guys saving the world. Because, you know, love kinda has to come second to something like that.

YA and Adult, I know, "have" to have sex or love. Teenagers are exploring their first times and all that, and adults are basically teenagers who're allowed to get drunk and party, except they also have to pay for it at an eight-hour-a-day jobs, and adults' love lives don't just stop after their first attempt.

But... love isn't everything. It isn't life. We don't need to only write about the first time we kissed, or fell in love, or had sex. Can't we write about the first time we found out our parents lied about Santa Claus? Or the first time we truly felt like our own person, and not the person our parents wanted us to be? Or the first time we told our parents that we aren't the person they wanted us to be? Kinda like Middle Grade, except with themes of being ourselves and not of finding out what we like and our place in society.

It's come to my attention, also, that a lot of people associate romance with "women's" writing, and that that's driving male readers off. All those frilly romantic "girly" covers, something boys wouldn't want to be caught dead with... well, not just boys. Me, too. I think the only time someone catches me reading anything related to romance is if the romance isn't mentioned in the back-cover summary, or if it's a LGBTQ novel. Not that I'm making a comment on boys and reading and the interplay of feminism; that's a whole 'nother post. But it's kind of interesting to note that some other people have this opinion of romanticizing and driving-off-readers, too.  

Now, I'm a writer, you guys. I understand the need to let your characters tell the story, to write what you want and not what some crazy teenager on the Internet tells you to. And as a reader, I know the tendency to not judge a book by its cover romance. And, yes, perhaps I may just sit in a corner and write the fantastical, romance-free books I want to read, and they'll reach those people that agree with me.

But... you guys, not everyone wants to read romance, all the time. A lot of writers like to write romance, and a lot of romance gets published. But it should be at that point where romance is a section of the bookstore, and not all, "Romance" and "YA Paranormal Romance" and "YA Fiction" (which, often enough, ends up being teenage romance set in regular world mode). It should be a romance section, maybe one YA romance section, and then fantasy/adventure, and then mystery or paranormal or whatever else we want. Not several subgenres of romance, and one section of YA fantasy/adventure. And don't get me started on the combined sci-fi/fantasy adult section.

I want to walk in B&N without being overwhelmed by the desire to cry, because my means of escape has now been taken over by the reason I feel different. I want more diverse books published, with more diverse themes than "love conquers all". More than love triangles, or teenagers struggling to save the world and their true love at the same time.

I'm not saying to quit publishing romance, or quit displaying them. I don't want to stop you from writing romance if you really want to write it. I can't tell you not to read the stuff. And truly, it's my opinion that it's being "taken over" by romance -- I'm not a scientist, and I admit, I avoid the adult section oftentimes, so I'm not always varied in my opinions. Maybe I'm wrong. But, guys? Can we at least talk about it? Think about it? Mention it, discuss it, try to make at least this one reader here feel a little less intimidated?

I wrote this post because this blog is for sharing my opinions, and there it is. Is it so much to ask to just read these words, and think about it? When a fellow reader feels alienated, isn't that enough to talk about it? Let me know your kind, thoughtful answers.

Sincerely written by,
JDM -- an avid reader, an aspiring writer, and a shy asexual