Writing about heterosexual white men

Write what you want but make an effort to understand the issues so you can make an informed choice.
Everyone likes to talk about how there's lots of different people with different opinions and they'll never all agree. But this is no excuse to just tune out. You just have to sort through everything written and said about the matter and try to figure out what the most well-founded and most important ideas are. You don't need to be an expert; these issues may come up more or less in your story, but very likely not none, and the less you know the harder it will be for you to tell, so you should really have a little perspective under your belt.
You don't write about a historical period, a certain job, or a location you haven't lived in without making sure you understand what you're writing about. Writing reflects and comments on the world. It's good to have a well informed and well-developed perspective to bring accuracy and interest to your work. Many stories are famous and well regarded because of what they have to say, and diversity or identity-related social issues have always been relevant.

And if you take the time and care to develop an understanding of these issues, you might actually be able to talk with people giving such feedback about your approach to these issues and what role they might or might not play in your story. You might be in a better position to come up with solutions sometimes that could appease them that also work for you.

 

I so totally agree with this. I think if agents want to increase diversity, they should be increasing the number of authors who come from different ethnic, cultural and other groups. Not trying to make everybody write the same way. What is more enlightening? Reading some second-hand notion of what it's like to be part of a group, or reading something actually written by a member of that group?

That being said, I think it's a good idea for writers to be aware of the actual setting they are using for stories. If that setting would naturally have diverse characters in it, by all means create that setting in a truthful way. Ignoring genocide or racism that existed in a particular setting isn't quite the same as writing from a perspective you understand. If your characters are all white, living in the south during the civil war, and slavery is never mentioned ...that would seem inauthentic. Ditto writing about somebody living in a multicultural, multiracial environment today and pretending it's not diverse at all. That's also probably not a very enlightened path to take.

I guess it's probably best to strike with awareness of diversity, compatible with your story and setting.

 

What I think a lot of people seem not to understand (or deliberately misunderstand in some cases perhaps), is that what you describe in the second paragraph is exactly the kind of thing most people who advocate for sensitivity and inclusion want.
Few people are saying that you have to, or that it is good to, write every story as being about social justice issues or centring marginalised groups. Including a realistic diversity of people is a perfect example of inclusion. Not ignoring historical racism is a perfect example of sensitivity. That's the kind of thing people are talking about.
And the idea of specifically promoting authors of different identities/backgrounds is very much a part of the discussion. Just look up ownvoices.

 

Always write what you know, there is no shortage of no nothing liberals with twisted ideas that they wish to force on others as normal. Take any advice you get on a writers forum with a grain of salt. The majority here are pretty twisted and far from normal...just read the posts. This is a great place to get some advice, and a great place to ignore other forms of advice, wisdom comes from knowing which to chose from.

 

You mean... you mean... this isn't normal?

 

Ownvoices is one of the most misguided movements I've ever seen. They are so "say one thing and do another" that they're actually against diversity. They have actually harassed authors for not staying in their lane.

They're one of the reasons the young author of "bloodheir" chose not to do her book deal.

True, few are saying you have to write social justice issues, but they will sure make things hard on you if you don't.

 

The more I see this thread pop up in my alerts, the more I'm
reminded of the short Harrison Bergeron by Vonnegut.
It has parallels to the OP in some ways, with how dystopian
the topic is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron

 

In my experience, diversity is better if it's done in a way that the reader can feel rather than having to be told. A lot of authors want to win diversity points by adding "Oh, by the way, [Character] is black/gay/trans/etc" when it doesn't make any difference to the role the character plays, or to the story itself, at all. But if a character has a unique personality, beliefs, opinions, etc, then you don't have to tell the readers that because it'll come across in how they act and talk, and it ultimately benefits the story way more than just throwing a random label at a character ever will.

 

Ownvoices is not a monolith, don't treat it as such.

 

I mean, yes and no. Diversity of other things is good and helps make more substantial and meaningful representation. Token representatives that are bad characters aren't good rep.

Likewise it is generally better to make characteristics feel more present. But I also dislike when people talk about "reasons" why characters are diverse, as if a cishet white male protagonist was ever questioned for what "reason" they are that.

Diversity is cool, yo'. And it is also realistic. The world is not populated exclusively by chalk white American Christians.

 

There is some truth to this, but counterpoint: there is no null option. Straight white cis characters are not the default to which deviations require any kind of justification or purpose. What is true is that every character should be written with their background and identity in mind. Some characters are minor enough that it won't come up at all and some major characters it might matter less than others. I would say that as a rule it's more likely to be important for marginalized groups because of the marginalization in society- the sense to which being straight white and cis are treated as the null position in society is relevant in a way. But there are no special cases to simply being included in stories.

 

Okay, but as other people have already stated, there is no satisfying the kinds of people who make demands like this. You might shut one up, but that just opens the door for another to go "Why did you add a black character but not a gay one? You must hate gay people!" and start the whole cycle over again. Trust me, I've been through this. When I was working on Amber Silverblood, one of my readers asked why the book didn't have any black characters. I figured it wouldn't hurt, added one to the story, and that same person started complaining that I was racist because the black character happened to be one of the minor antagonists when they expected me to make him one of the main heroes.

The only way to win this game is not to play, and the only way not to play is to decide that you are the only person who can decide what does and doesn't need to be in your story.

 

I think the biggest problem with diversity and why I don't like it is because it's not being discussed in a positive, motivating way. When someone comes on and accuses you of being an oppressor and tells you that it's your moral obligation to cater to these groups you're accused of oppressing. First off, they have no right to call you an oppressor just because. That is rotten to accuse anyone of being.

Secondly, you don't have the right to put someone else's burden on the shoulders of others. You don't have the right to put your burden on the shoulder of others. People will choose to take up your burden for a variety of reasons, but because you forced them to isn't one of them. It will become more meaningful if you realize this important truth, knowing they didn't have to. Also, writers may not take on your burden, but they may very well take on someone else's burden. There's no black people in Hellblade but anyone who played the game can state it took on the burden of mental illness, loss, and loneliness. This is why discouraging authors to write, even if your intentions are good, is such a bad idea. We don't want authors to second guess their message because you decided that diversity is the most important thing, when in fact it's only important when it is. When it isn't important, then it's not important and not worth bullying people.

It's equally bad when you create a mantra of "Stay in your lane and write your own story." NO! Here's an example of what one of those who believed whole heartedly in that "write your own story" bull. He said that only women should write about women's suffrage. Makes sense, right? No, it doesn't. Why would I know anything more about women's suffrage than a male expert on the subject? I've never lived in an age where I couldn't vote. I've never studied the movement. Plus, have you ever thought maybe that male historian will be able to explain the importance to other males better than I could... you know, the group you say you want to understand? (Then he got his own book blacklisted by his own group because he tried to write a story that took place in the middle east... I laughed. Then I got worried because that's actually a pretty bad sign...)

This creates a confusing "what do you want?" sort of situation where writers are put off as damned if they do, damned if they don't.

When I started to include diversity in my best written work (that still needs a lot of work) it was because another successful author gave it as an invitation and challenge. So I decided "Okay, let's see what it does." Lo and behold, diversity fixed two very distinct plot holes that I had struggled with to explain. But the book doesn't exactly deal with any thing related to race, because that's inappropriate for a novel that's supposed to be about the perception of guilt based on rumor as opposed to hard evidence.

And if a writer did it "wrong?" Well, rewrite it the way you want to and stop complaining. That's the positive creation. Now we have two good stories instead of one! Or none.

 

So what, no diversity? How about just including diversity because it's natural? Do you need to reminded that women exist in order to include them? Certainly few books have lacked representation of men in particular. In a similar way, racial diversity is only increasingly in western countries and historical western society was not purely white European either.
That's just a fact. It's not political to put it in, except for very unfortunate reasons, and it is much of a demand to represent basic reality.

If that is hard for people, that says more about those people. Not everything needs an equal amount of diversity, mind you, but if you find yourself going for none that's kind of a problem.

 

A lot of areas of it was... it depends on where you were and when.

 

Well of course. Who has said anything different? No-one is asking for all diversity all the time just reasonable degrees and better portrayals.

 

Well it wouldn't necessarily be a breaking point by itself but I do prefer some diversity.
And in terms of specific groups, I do definitely award positive points in my consideration for having mlm content especially among the main characters. Cause you know, it's more appealing to me.

 

That's a hasty generalisation.

Identity-related issues is not the only controversial area where you'll get conflicting or difficult feedback. But people seem particularly flustered by the idea of engaging with this subject in any way. If your only approach to this issue is to simply appease people giving feedback, then yes, it may be quite difficult and frustrating to deal with. That's because what you should be doing is understanding what the complaints are and why they are making it and what the framework you are- or should be- operating under is in terms of how these issues relate to your work.
If you have an understanding of the criticisms you receive, you're in a better place to decide which ones to follow and perhaps more importantly how to implement changes to match that feedback that works for your story.

So?
No, really, so what? That's not an impossible demand, and it's not a crazy one either, even if some people might disagree, that's the nature of feedback, you take in a variety of opinions.

There is a line between bending to the whim of every piece of feedback you receive and ignoring it all, you know.

 

Non zero.
Whether or not people put the book down is also surely not the standard here.

 

There seem to be two opinions on this topic who are usually the loudest about their advocacy for inclusiveness in writing. I’ve encountered both, and I find both concerning:

Those who think people should be proactively inclusive no matter what, and those who think minority characters should only be written by minorities. Both seem to be from the same political leanings, but I think the jury is out on if it’s really one group advocating these contrary points of view (ie being hypocritical) as someone suggested.

I don’t want to say it’s a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” scenario, but it certainly can seem that way.

There are those who seemingly both advocate for inclusiveness but will get upset if you portray a minority character in a certain way, and on the extreme, if you do at all as a non-minority.

With the later group, they have a valid point, in that it’s difficult to write a character you can’t relate to, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t or can’t include that character at all. Instead, one should do their research and talk to people from that group whom you’re trying to portray if you’re having trouble - something I believe these groups would also advocate.

It’s not exactly the same thing, but several months ago many entertainers stepped down or made changes based on a similar issue.

There was a white woman who said she was going to let a black woman take over writing the role for a black character in TV show (or film), and the guy who voiced Cleveland Brown stepped down from his voice acting role to let a black man fill the role. This is a little different, as they are collaborative works, so the changes make some sense; a black woman can write a black character better, and so on. I don’t think there was anything wrong with those white individuals filling those roles before the changes were made; however, I think they are good examples of when making changes like this make sense. Plus, whitewashing in the portrayal of historically ethnic characters in Hollywood is a real problem, so in these situations, I think ensuring accurate portrayals is a good thing.

I recognize it’s almost a different thing entirely due to the collaborative nature of the creative process, but I think it’s work mentioning because it’s a sentiment that comes from the same place. I think it goes too far when it demands writers include certain characters, or when they argue a one can’t write a minority character at all.

Accurately representative stories and inclusion of diversity is a good thing. I believe it’s important, and probably good for society - but it shouldn’t be forced, and it shouldn’t be political. Instead of including diversity for the sake of inclusion, I think it should be done when it improves the writing and makes for a better story.

I think jannert brings up a great point, in that you should be aware of the setting of your story. If your story is non-inclusive in a way that contradicts the setting or time period of your story, that may just be bad writing.

I think this is a fantastic point.

Sometimes race just isn’t relative to the character or story. And that’s okay.

If people want to project a race onto a character based on their stereotypes or their expectation of the writer, that’s on them.

Unless you somehow get canceled, then that’s your problem.

I think it’s much better to have a racially ambiguous character than an insensitive one.

What is a better standard? Moral obligation? Whether it impacts sales?