@raine_d One of the angles I was trying to work with is that Mercedes is a nice person. I know that sounds a little bland, but in today's world, filled with an increasing number of self-centered assholes who only care about themselves, Mercedes tries to be nice and considerate of others, even if the other person isn't. @ChickenFreak That largely stems from me and not always being able to explain things the way I want to. I don't really say much about it in the story one way or the other about. About the only mention of race at all is a passing thought from Mercedes about being picked on when she was younger because of her parents. I don't focus on character appearance when I'm writing, truth is I don't say much about it at all aside from the things a reader needs to know, and I let them fill in the blanks themselves.
...Um...that implication, no doubt completely UN-intended by the original poster, IS what I was concerned about. I'm confident that he means no such thing, but there's a muddling of concepts here that I think would be better off un-muddled. Is clarity such a bad thing?
Edit - I'm sorry I just caught up on the context. Yes, you are right. Anyone who goes in looking for the implication that not white = ugly isn't doing us any favors.
Right. He said nothing of the sort. He is juggling concepts, and two of those concepts are landing in a configuration that he clearly does not intend them to land. I am suggesting rearranging those concepts so that they reflect his actual beliefs. Again, clarity good.
Talking about race is totally, totally fine. Specifically having a non-white character, in a world packed with white characters, is fine. But there are two separate concepts here: - Having flawed characters. - Having characters of color. I'm sure that you don't combine these concepts. I'm suggesting that there's a risk of accidentally appearing to combine these concepts. Apparently my concern was unclear, which is all the more reason to value clarity.
But the implication you're making is that there's no possible way to have both without being insulted. Clarity is good.
Right, exactly. I don't think anyone else managed to read the OP's description and think that she's not gorgeous because she's not white. They read that she's not white and that she's an average girl.
Are you seriously saying no one can write a flawed of character of color? Not attacking you, of course - just seeking clarity.
No, but being a busybody is. If you're confident he meant no such thing, what practical purpose does picking out and criticizing an unintentional near-implication actually do? You're just language policing by trying to get someone to say something in a way that you want it to be said. What really needs to be cleared up? That non-white people can be gorgeous? Groundbreaking.
*takes a deep breath* Ok... Let's try this from another direction - Chicken is your concern that the OP looks accidentally racist because they make a flawed non-white character? Because every character is flawed so that means no-one can write a non-white character?
Of course I'm not, and I have no idea where you got the idea that I was. I'm saying that "including flaws is good" and "including characters of color is good" are two SEPARATE concepts. You can absolutely have both in the same story and applied to the same character. But they remain separate concepts. A conversation about "including flaws is good" tends to be about imperfections and, well, flaws. It can be about forgiving a person for their flaws and liking them despite their flaws. The fact that a character is a person of color is NOT something that should be regarded in the light of imperfection, flaws, forgiveness, and "in spite of". It's not a flaw. They are two separate conversations.
No. That is absolutely not my concern. If my previous post doesn't make my position clear, please do ask again.
It's that that makes people think you are saying that you can't have a flawed non-white character. Seriously. Because you are extremely close to directly saying that. You're getting on his back because he didn't phrase his post sensitively enough, not because you actually have a problem with anything he wrote.
I actually agree with that. I'm clearly not the only one who read what you said that way. As to the bolded part - Who the hell said it was? No one. Until you brought it up by being concerned about it.
See, if I quote the part that sounds to me like it's producing that--again, unintended--linkage, you're going to be furious at me for quoting, right?
If it's unintended and you know it's unintended and you know that it shouldn't be read like that then why scold him for it?
Why would I be furious? I'm interested in understanding where you're getting it. I'd like to discuss it, if possible, because I didn't see that at all.
I'm not scolding him. In my very first post, I made it really really clear that I understood that it did not reflect his beliefs. Really clear. Was it not clear? How could I have made it clearer? I seem to be being scolded FOR my awareness, so it seems that my awareness was clear. But we are not the last and only audience for the ideas behind this book. When ideas are mixed so that there could be an explosive interpretation, it can be useful for the person expressing those ideas to be aware of that, so that they can decide whether they desire greater clarity.
You think that the blurb of his released book is going to read "She's black but she's alright!"? You don't think that maybe him writing six lines of highly condensed text is the cause here? You don't think that maybe the written book might be a tad different in presentation of these self same facts? Especially since you know that's not what he thinks; what possible reason do you have to bring it up out of nowhere? Seriously; explain to me how pointing out something that other people might find offensive is in any way helpful to anything?
See, my problem with this is not that you saw it, it's that you stated your concern for so-called possible explosive interpretations as though it was a given. As though it should be avoided at all costs. And the point I was trying to make was that's just no way to write a story. You can't please everyone and trying is a waste of time. There's no reason to be concerned about a possible interpretation that it appears maybe 1 in 5 will see. That's the reader's problem - not the writer's - especially in this case where it's clearly unintended. To the point of not even existing.
OK, then. In the above, do you see "gorgeous types" and "tall, handsome/gorgeous, and Caucasian"/"Caucasians with powers" as being totally separate, totally unrelated, concepts? And are you confident that no one, no one on the face of the earth, would ever see them as related? Would those sentences be absolutely fine, un-edited, in a query letter? You would never dream of moving a few words in that query letter to avoid the possibility of that interpretation? You wouldn't say one word to the author?
For example, changing "gorgeous types" to "conventional superhero types" would, IMO, completely and totally eliminate the issue. Would that really be a bad thing?
Yes, I actually do see them as separate concepts when I read the post. And, no I'm not confident that no one will ever see them as related. I'm confident that people see ponies as zebras all the damned time. Another thing I'm confident in is that writing the story is what's important and people will be offended no matter how perfectly politically correct your story is. Where the hell was he asking about query letters? No, I really wouldn't suggest changing it because I believe in reading what's written instead of trying to read between the lines.
I'd wait and see the book. And if he wrote it in a query letter I'd ask him why he's talking about race at all in the query letter. Because if he see's black as a selling point then I'd want to have words with him. But in the context of a post called "A different female MC" where he goes to pains to point out that he's trying to representative and that his character won't be white... Are you seriously telling me that the efforts he took to say that he wants to be representative were just not damn good enough? Oh wait; not not good enough for you. You don't have a problem with it, right? You just think other people might have a problem. You think there might be explosive interactions, right? Sounds really close to saying "Nice book you have here; wouldn't it be a shame if a Black Lives Matter protest showed up and ruined your career..."
