I feel like there needs to be some kind of post for MCU fans on How To Write About Africa because I feel like there’s a lot of people out there who want to write about Wakanda and T’Challa but are worried about being problematic and that makes me sad because there’s SO MUCH GREAT meta to be had about T’Challa and Wakanda but at the same time there’s a lot of legitimate concerns about perpetuating racist stereotypes and yeah.
T’Challa and Wakanda could be such a great way to introduce people to amazing sci-fi concepts that people should know
This is SO needed.
It’s so easy to be like ‘just try it!’ but the problem with this website is that people don’t think its okay for people to make mistakes. I’ve gotten messages from people who want to write about T’Challa/Wakanda but are nervous about how their work will be perceived and its so sad.
We really need to gather some people who’d be interested in writing a nice little info post!
also, this post should not be taken as permission to write your white faves having power in Wakada, seducing all the Wakandan charaters because your white faves are just So Irresistibly White, being given free rein in Wakanda, etc.
A couple weeks ago The Mary Sue announced they weren’t going to cover “Game of Thrones” any more after yet another female character being brutally raped. The thread is still being invaded by trolls periodically, and there are more than 12,000 comments on the article, which is a site record and probably an internet record. (12K comments because a single website said “We’re not going to recap or promote this show any more.” Baffling.)
Tons of trolls have thrown out the “but THINGS WERE JUST LIKE THAT BACK THEN!” argument ad nauseum. Which is total bullshit, of course. Now with the season finale of “Outlander” (which, spoiler, also included rape) the trolls are coming back.
I just want to ask, why is it whenever producers/directors/writers want to demonstrate “gritty historic realism” it’s ALWAYS RAPE? It’s always sexual violence toward women/girls.
You know what would be gritty historic realism? Dysentery. GoT has battles and armies marching all over the place. You want to show “what things were like back then”? Why aren’t we seeing 500 guys by the side of a road puking and shitting their guts out from drinking contaminated water while the rest of the army straggles along trying to keep going? Or a village getting wiped out by cholera? Or typhus, polio or plague epidemics?
You want to show what it was like back then for women? Show a woman dying of sepsis from an infection she caught while giving birth. Show a woman coping with ruptured ovarian cysts with nobody know what it is. Breast cancer that the audience will recognize immediately but the characters think is some mark of the devil or some shit.
But no, it’s always rape. And we all know why that is. Because these douchecanoes that do this, though they’ll deny it, think rape is sexy. Because they can’t make a modern set story where women get raped in every god damned episode without being called monsters. So they use “but but historical realism!” to cover their sexism (see “Mad Men”) and misogyny. Then they tell us “That’s just how it was back then!” with the clear implication “Shut the fuck up bitch, because that could be you and you should be thanking me that it’s not.”
Can we propose a rule for “realistic” historical fiction/fantasy? Twelve graphic cases of dysentery for every one graphic rape?
^^ I like this idea.
Maybe if high fantasy writers and creators weren’t all fucking hacks who’ve been riding JRRT’s dick for the last fifty years and insist on making every single god damn fantasy world they create a boring retread of Middle Earth based on the same three hundred year span of time in four countries of Western Europe they wouldn’t all have to rely on the same garbage logic to justify their garbage misogyny.
You know, they could deny that they find rape sexy, and they might even believe their own denials. But the point is that they clearly don’t think of rape as something distasteful enough and disgusting enough to omit.
And you know what, I’m not even gonna insist on the dysentery. Just this: if you’re going to include rape on the basis of historical accuracy, none of your female characters are allowed to have shaved legs or armpits. And all of your characters have to have terrible teeth – yellowed and worn and crooked, because nobody’s getting braces or regular visits to the dentist – with at least a few teeth blackened or missing for every character over the age of thirty.
Of course, if your reaction to blackened teeth and hairy armpits is “ugh, no, sure it might be historically accurate but it’s gross, nobody’s going to want to watch that" and you don’t have the exact same reaction to rape, you might want to think about why that is.
Not to mention that some of the societies portrayed, or inspiring similar fantasy settings, actually had STRONGER protections against and consequences for rape than the ones we live in today.
Accounts from Vikings’ contemporaries recount a lot of raiding, but not a single case of rape. Viking law didn’t treat rape as a property crime, and the penalty for it was outlawry, which was essentially a death sentence. Medieval English law prescribed that rapists be castrated and blinded. And the sagas contain vanishingly few references to rape (and violence against women is usually followed with comeuppance–often death–for the perpetrator).
TL;DR: History wasn’t one giant rape-fest, and in fact, members of the cultures high fantasy is usually based on may have actually been more disapproving of rape than we are today (imagine trying to pass a bill making rape a capital offense today!).
These writers include rape because they like writing about rape, not because history dictates it.
The teeth weren’t really quite as bad as you might think because of less sugar in the diet (except for like the richest and most decadent), though they were a bit more ground down from e.g. the bread containing bits of grit.
Still, to hell with all the rape in fantasy shit, it’s neither accurately historical or interesting.
Trace your logic on why you’re giving a Black woman messy hair. There is an association to afro hair as being “unkempt”, messy, and unprofessional already and you’ll need to tread carefully implying messiness to a Black character’s hair. On that note, what does messy entail with afro hair if indeed she’s natural? Is the character actually neglecting her hair or just isn’t as elaborate with her hair routine as her sister?
In the first case, i’d like to know why she neglects her hair (depressed, overwhelmed with life?) and if being overwhelmed, why she wouldn’t choose a low-maintenance style like braids or extensions which can still look presentable with less time-consuming care.
In the latter case, associating the BW’s hair with messiness at all would be false. Low-maintenance still indeed requires maintenance and natural afro styles should not be associated with messy.
If the sister’s criticism of the other sister’s hair is a general dislike of natural hair, that is a touchy topic best saved for Black people to write, or someone really,really well-researched and who has had their works read over by Black people. Even still, it’ll always be best coming from the group as their commentary on the subject is the most welcome and relevant, not necessarily a topic for non-Black people to dissect.
Now, in the case you do still need a description:
Frizzy is specific, so ask yourself if it’s accurate. It’s not offensive to use in itself, though. Personally when I picture frizzy hair on Black people, it’s straightened hair that is reverting back to its curly texture.
Bedhead is another word that may work, if it applies.
Messy i’m on the fence with, especially not knowing what constitutes as messy in the case of Black hair in this story, so I don’t want to wrongfully condone the usage. Messy can be used in a neutral way, such as a “messy bun” style, but it doesn’t seem to be associated positively here as the character worries her hair won’t be accepted.
Perhaps you could choose words that don’t directly snub the character’s hair but instead compares it as less styled or as elaborately-styled than her sister is used too for whatever reason. This places less blame or negative association on the first sister’s hair.
Words likeunkempt andnappyshould be avoided completely, as they can be insulting and racially-charged.
SeeWords to Describe Hairfor more ideas. You can still describe her hair in positive terms while just noting the sister has a higher standard for styles.
In Summary:
Unless her hair is neglected and in need of major moisture and TLC, I can’t see messy applying for afro hair alone and i’d urge you to avoid drawing Black hair into the conversation in order to show messiness in a character. Unless it’s in a specific style that’s gone undone, afros themselves don’t lay in a specific way, they flow out and up how they want to and should not be associated as messy for being the way it grows.
Everything from a less-than-spotless apartment or bedroom to her manner of dress can show messiness and be a point of judgement for the sister to look down upon. Although in the case the sister is just kinda prissy, it may be her high standards seeing mess where most people would not. More areas of judgement towards the “messy” sister could be her wearing comfortable, casual clothes vs. being extremely stylish ones, or wearing little to no makeup.
These examples don’t lay blame on natural hair as being messy and may be more appropriate, unless you’ve got the experience with the topic as a Black person who has experienced such judgement.
Many authors can relate to the frustrating accusations of their characters and settings simply being the way they are for “diversity points” and writers are often scared of adding diversity out of fear of it being received poorly as a gimmick. Why does this situation exist?
Bad representation and gratuitous diversity are not the same thing and have to be addressed separately. The first one is a legitimate fear; the second one is exaggerated and has the dangerous potential to shut down legitimate representation. There’s so much diversity that you don’t even notice it in real life.
You go shopping in a Korean and Black neighborhood, get directions from some Desi folks, hop on to a bus and sit behind the guy in the wheelchair lift. When you come home to crack open a book (after shopping in that same neighborhood and riding on that same bus), does seeing diverse characters make you or someone you know cry, “WAIT A MINUTE NOW. I AM THE GRAND WIZARD. I SAY THIS IS TOO DIVERSE?“
What is representation that ends up being harmful instead of supporting diversity?
“I need a tough drug dealer ex-boyfriend for my MC to be scared of. I know! I’ll make him Black and/or Latino.”
“My MC is oppressed by her parents who want her to get married, have babies, and not major in anything that would threaten a man’s ego, when she’d rather marry a girl and become a physicist. I know! I’ll make her Muslim, Hindu, or an Orthodox Jew.”
“My MC is very sexually open and adventurous. I know! I’ll make her Latina because that sounds sexy.”
“My MC has an older female boss who yells at him all the time, who he’s scared of. I know! I’ll make her East Asian.”
When choosing a character’s ethnicity, if your logic flows like this – you have to work harder to free yourself from the white supremacist myths that permeate our everyday life.
This is not the same as “gratuitous” diversity.
People have a way of accusing diversity that doesn’t seem plot-relevant of being “gratuitous”, but a character doesn’t need a plot reason to be Muslim, Jewish, Black, Latina, in a wheelchair, trans, or anything else.
If you have a witness in a trial, and she wheels herself into the witness box instead of walking, you don’t have to sit there justifying it. It doesn’t have to mean anything. If you walk into a coffee house and ask directions from a cute barista in a headscarf, you don’t have to work her ethnoreligion into the plot for that to be “allowed.”
Now, if you have actual significant characters who are diverse – and you should! – their identities should be incorporated into their characterization and not feel like they’re wearing a series of nametags. There are plenty of ways you can do this – giving them names common to a group, mentioning a Black character’s specific natural hairstyle, having them endure a microaggression, having a trans character experiment with presentation, having a gay or bi person mention a partner or a celebrity crush. You can also just say “He introduced me to a tall East Asian man wearing a polo shirt” or “the new doctor was a Black woman with her hair in twists and glasses that looked like they could stop a bullet” and just leave it there, since that’s referencing a visible trait; if that looks pasted on or artificial to you, you may have unexamined prejudices, which is normal, but something to work on.
Remember that if you’re not in a group, your meter for determining whether or not diversity is “forced” is going to be unreliable. Don’t assume that other writers whose works are diverse are trying to coast on diversity stats or that the diversity in their books is automatically unrealistic and forced just because it’s more diverse than the media you usually consume. The real world IS diverse and lots of people get erased by the way mainstream fiction is structured, most of all being people who are marginalized in multiple ways at once.
–WWC
Any time I see people complaining about representation and seriously using words like “Pandering” or “Tokenism” or anything remotely like that I just go ahead and safely assume that said person is a bigoted asshole whose opinions are utterly worthless
The real problem is, there’s a lot of people who either a) don’t want to ever have to acknowledge that anyone not like them exists, b) can’t handle a world not built for them exclusively, or c) some combination there of.
This is especially true in comics and sci fi fandom where there’s an unfortunate number of shrill cishet white dudebros who apparently think acknowledging that queer, trans and black people exist is somehow the Worst Thing Ever ._.
I especially support the part that says “a character doesn’t need a plot reason to be Muslim, Jewish, Black, Latina, in a wheelchair, trans, or anything else.” Because the ‘default’ is white, abled, straight cis male, creators often feel like introducing any diverse characters will require an explanation- after all, why would you include anything but the default if you don’t have to? Then you have to be responsible, and aware of consequences and context, and so on. Far easier to be lazy and cowardly and just go with the default white dude. This is a problem I see far more often in film, to be honest. People working on the Transformers movies, for example, stated they decided to leave out female Autobots because then they’d have to explain how their genders work. As opposed to the obviously male-gendered robots already present, which did not make people think about gender because they are the ‘default’. It’s a lot easier to go with the default, but it’s easier because it’s not challenging anything, because it’s not creating new forms of thought in the audience or the creator. We need to encourage the idea that diverse characters can just be in a film, rather than exceptions which must warrant a justification.
SO MUCH THIS
There doesn’t need a “REason” to have queer and trans and POC characters in the story
You can just…HAVE THERE BE QUEER AND TRANS AND POC CHARACTERS
You don’t have to justify it
“Why is that character a black lesbian?”
“I felt like it.”
I dream of a day when there’s a black trans woman who is this doctor or lawyer and they are important to the story. Not because they are black or trans but because they are a doctor or lawyer and they are good at what they do.
I think it’s very important for writers to realize that they HAVE a default, normally a straight white cis male, and challenge it.
Another really good way to challenge the default is to mention the skin tone of all of your characters. Because how many times have you read a book where the only time skin color comes up is when the character isn’t white…
“writers always know exactly where they are going with their work!”
r u sure
“no writer does anything by mistake, it’s all very strategic”
r u sure
“they use symbolism in everything. for example, a simple sentence symbolises directness and-”
R U SURE
The best moments in writing is when you discover you did something absolutely genius by complete accident.
A miscellaneous world-building detail from ten chapters earlier accidentally saved a character’s life once
“Omg this line is genius and the best reference!” “Thank you I did that entirely on purpose!!” *sweats*
READER: “(points out symbolism and foreshadowing and depth)”
AUTHOR:
I once literally flipped a coin to decide which character was going to die in a multi-award-nominated novel.
I was once rereading a manuscript before editing it and discovered that in an early chapter I’d put in a line without any forethought that ended up aligning perfectly the plot and is now my favorite line in the entire book even though when I wrote that sentence I hadn’t even come up with that plot point yet.
In my book series, I have done various things on accident and then, looking back, yelled BRILLIANT and went with it. And, often times, my characters just DECIDE things, like one character was in love with another and I was “WHAT?” but went with it because it was actually a VERY good story and made some of the plot stuff that much more interesting.
If you ever wanted to know my creative process for writing, congratulations, this is it.
Writing a story like
There’s an author’s note in an Isaac Asimov short story collection – Isaac Asimov, mind you – and I can’t for the life of me remember which it was because my mom has a billion of them, but basically he went to a lecture on his books where the teaccher was lecturing on all the symbolism and themes and such and Asimovewent up to him and was just like “Uhhhh…. I didn’t put any of that in? It just…. no? Not really?”
And the lecturer legit looked ISAAC FUCKING ASIMOV straight in the eye and said, “What do you know, sir? You’re just the author.”
And Asimov described it as being a fairly profound moment in his career.
One time when I was a teenager in high school I asked my french teacher if authors always knew when they were writing something profound like the amazing metaphors and stuff we were studying.
She asked me: “What do you think?”
I said: “huh…. no?” (because I sure as fuck didn’t know what I was doing half the time when I was writing, but sometimes I still came up with good stuff.)
She looked at me in a dismissive way and went: “That’s because you’re not an author. They always know what they’re doing. You can’t come up with stuff like that on accident.”
Years later, I’m an actual soon-to-be-published author and I think back to that moment and think lady you didn’t know shit.
I want to write a book that is exploding with symbolism, foreshadowing, and as much literary jazz as I’m capable of. I want to dedicate it to teachers, then at the end apologise to students and give a brief summary of the plot for all those students who have so much homework to do, that they don’t have time to read the book past the first chapter.
Urocyon's Jaunts 2.0 