Those don't necessarily apply to a fantasy world, and I use the word "necessarily" because they might apply if the author creates her world in a certain way, but they don't have to apply. They arise out of conflating the real world with the fantasy world. In my world, there aren't really any stereotypes or privilege issues relating to race per se (at least not among the human population) that I have to deal with. The only way a reader is going to see issues along those lines is if they assume that my world aligns with the real world in terms of the effect of race on status, privilege, and the like.
Because I've read this thread, I'd know you put him in because you think there is some sort of quota. In normal circumstances, it wouldn't even cross my mind that he was there to make the author look more PC. I live and work with Hindus. They make up 15% of my community. Similarly, visually impaired people are hardly rare. He wouldn't stick out to me as a 'minority', just another character. None of that says to me "this author put the character in to fill a non-existent minority quota". It says to me "this is a bad writer". Do you think someone who made any of those mistakes (discounting the last one, which isn't a mistake since there were definitely black people in medieval England and, I would imagine, white people in medieval China) could write good white characters just because they're white?
That's my view. The only reason the character is black is that this story sort of sprang to my mind one morning, and when it did an image of a young black woman I'd seen the day before came to mind with it, as a representation of the MC. So I went with it. It's not important that she's black, but that's how I envision her. The only racial politics in this particular story are between humans and the one non-human race on the planet.
On your last question, yes. I mean Crash won a best picture Oscar and it is one of the most simplistic and offensively stereotypical explorations of race I have ever had the misfortune to watch.
I've read a few stories now where there are minority characters thrown in and feel forced; rarely do LGBT characters feel natural, they often have this weird lens through which you're forced to spectate. Diversity for the sake of diversity is pointless. If you're going to have diverse characters, let them come naturally. If you think up a character who is white, let them be; if you have a character who is gay, let them be. Too often do I see people on writing boards feel that they need to diversify their characters, to the point where they're no longer characters... just traits that need to stand out so they can avoid harassment for pushing an agenda.
The protagonists of my fantasy and sci-fi are all dark-skinned because that's how they appeared in my head. I'm with you on this one, the only reason they have dark skin is because that's how they appeared. CONFESSION TIME: Originally, all of my characters in my fantasy were white save for...one or two people. This alarmed me greatly so I began to expand on the cultures of the other countries, their ethnicities, even changed the ethnicity of my formerly-white MC and now I can safely say my cast is...mostly diverse. Granted, I've made sure they all were more than just their skin color, I merely diversified them because I didn't think it realistic that 99.9999% of my human races in my fantasy would be all white.
But you think the white characters in it are well-developed / well-written? Could you expand what you mean by the bit on bold? I'm not challenging you, I just don't know what you mean!
Doesn't it employ those stereotypes to argue against them? I haven't seen the film, but I remember when it came out and I thought that's what people were saying.
Okay... how does that relate to this thread? There was a movie with a diverse cast that lots of people loved. You didn't like it because the characters came off as stereotypes - apparently all of them, not just the non-white ones, though you didn't answer the question. So your problem with Crash doesn't come from the writers trying to shoe horn in diverse characters to meet a quota, does it? The problem with the movie, as you see it, wasn't the diversity but the writing?
You have to watch it. It is mind-numbingly crude and simplistic. Everyone is a stereotype. Does it subvert stereotypes? It attempts to.. but no, it is too monumentally stupid.
Heh. Now I don't want to watch it. But I'm curious to, just to see why it won (if that's something explicable).
Sure thing. So in my experience, many times I encounter LGBT characters in stories they're almost always revolving around the subject of discrimination - and, not as frequently, vigorous sexcapades - which isn't the worst thing because it happens. Very rarely do I see them as just people living their lives. My problem is that their sexuality becomes a plot line instead of just part of who they are, yet heterosexual characters are free to be characters where sexuality isn't important. I don't know if you're part of the LGBT community, but I am, and it's become very annoying when all of the gay characters have their sexuality tied in with the plot. My point is, characters have to be natural. Don't focus on diversification for the sake of it, because it comes off as shallow, fake, and if I'm being honest, kind of insulting. My life is more than my sexuality, which by the way, is not the only issue I've had to deal with. Even with racial minorities, their experience dealing with injustice at one point in their lives often appears in stories. If you're going to have a character present, give them a legitimate excuse for existing. Pleasing the politically correct crowds is one of the worst mistakes an artist can make. Lack of diversity is not discrimination.
I have lost your point somewhere along the way and I assume you are arguing for the sake of arguing now. So lets get back to the crux, you do not think that anyone forces minorities into pieces of work for the sake of diversity, whereas I do. I do not understand this stance, I mean there are many posts on this very site from writers who feel they need to diversify their cast.
Considering this thread has become a sort of "diversity in fantasy" thing, I'd like to say that we move it outside of medieval Europe. Even if it's just a shift in time period or geography. The reason fantasy is so homogenized, or at least in my opinion, is because it tends to use the same setting over and over again.
Thing is: if it's a fantasy, then we're already not talking about "Medieval Europe", we're talking about "Fantasy Land with the Medieval European trappings that the author likes (such as straight white men being the people who matter the most) and not the Medieval European trappings that the author doesn't like (such as there not being magic or dragons)"
Well, I shifted from Medieval Europe to the Iron Age Hallstatt culture (approx 800 BCE to 475 BCE). I have a battle-scarred Druidess and a pair of gay warriors. Unfortunately, that's not diverse enough for this lot who seem to think I need to make them all black as well. Because a story can't really be authentic unless my version of Switzerland in 600 BCE is written to be swarming with minorities. (Never mind that persons of African decent didn't live in the Swiss-Bavarian basin at that time.)
I don't think you're reading the thread correctly. Perhaps purposefully for the sake of arguing. The point people are making is that most fantasy isn't set in a real historical time and place and isn't meant to be. If yours is, then fine. Go with that. But to use real world history as some kind of constraint on what a fantasy world has to be is foolish.
Perhaps you didn't read my post all the way back on page one? I offered the following explanation as to why fantasy was full of white people: Many authors in fantasy, which includes high fantasy, historical fantasy, and sword and sorcery set their work in some form of historical Europe. This is the post that started all the following hoopla.
First, awesome name Second...I disagree with this? For sure, it's possible to go down the whole route and build up a fantasy where anything is possible - imagine a world where everyone is born with a completely random skill level, can walk up and down walls like they were the ground (but not on ceilings!) and fights with flabberbabbers, which are blunt weapons, because their physiology prevents them from being hurt by sharp objects due to a very hard skin. But that comes from nowhere and as a reader, I don't immediately relate to it...as an author, I'm now responsible for everything about this world, from their achaeology (how did it evolve to support wall walkers?) to military (how are these weapons used?) etc... Whereas, to say, "Ok, my place is like England - but instead of Arthur and Merlin, Excalibur was found by a little girl who loves cats, and the lady in the lake turns out to be her aunt. Now, 1000 years later, X happens...", gives you a template to start a story that is more immediately relatable. I think this is where most writers start - they take what they know, and then they tweak things. So maybe a writer knows England, or Wales, or the USA, or maybe they even start with Middle Earth (only the orcs aren't bad, just misunderstood, and the elves are the antagonists) and run with it from there. I think the above is more likely where authors start, and I don't think it's foolish to start your fantasy world in such a way.
Nothing wrong with starting that way, if that's the world you want and the story you want to tell. I don't think it should be assumed that this is taking place when dealing with an entirely fictional world, even if you might be able to point to certain trappings of medieval Europe or what have you. It is still a fantasy world. It can be like medieval Europe in as many ways as you like and still differ from medieval Europe in as many other ways as you like. Even if the author starts with a real-world reference, that's not a limitation on the author's world-building, unless they intend it to be (there are works of historical fantasy, for example, where you want to observe these limitations because that's what you're writing). I don't agree with the idea that if you see a fantasy work with the trappings of medieval Europe that you should assume that the author is setting it in some form of medieval Europe. That doesn't make sense as an assumption in a work where there are so many elements that clearly don't comport with the real world. The assumption is only justified if the author makes it clear that's what they're doing (and in my experience authors who are doing this do make it clear). Thanks for the comment on the name!
Okay, maybe I didn't express myself properly, but it seems like you missed the point I was trying to make, which is that when you are dealing with existing, real-world mythology, you are limited to what is canon for that belief system. You mentioned Norse mythology. It would make perfect sense for Thor and Freya and the gang to look like Nordic people, unless described otherwise. If a given goddess is described as pale and blonde within the existing myth, it would make no sense to cast an African-American actress in the role, for instance. However--and I know this could easily blow up into another issue--mythology is not the same thing as fantasy, and what we were talking about was fantasy and fantasy worlds. A fantasy world may share similarities with the real world, but is *not* the real world. It doesn't necessarily have to follow the same rules as the real world. As a creation of your imagination, you are free to write your own rules of culture and racial phenotyping. Hopefully that makes a little more sense.
Issue is, I can't think of that many fantasy authors whose works are explicitly set in pre-CE Europe. I'd say that the majority of fantasy is set in secondary worlds.
