Writers of Color

@mashers : I know you’re also LGBT, so this is how I’m going to choose to explain it.

In college I belonged to a club called Spectrum, which was a group for queer college students. It was a group for people to support each other, talk about their problems, and discuss issues that affected them.

One of the things that I personally liked about the group was that I could walk in there and freely talk about my problems and experiences without dumb straight people saying dumb straight stuff. When you walked into that room, it’s automatically assumed that your identity and experiences as a queer person will be taken seriously.

For example, let’s say a transgender person is trying to figure out how to come out to their family. A transgender person could come to a Spectrum meeting, talk about their problem, get experienced advice, and get different points of view. You can’t do that in a room full of straight people. You just can’t. Even if they’re nice people, they have zero experience with your problem, and there’s a solid chance they have no idea what you’re even talking about... and then you have to spend thirty minutes explaining how pronouns work, justifying how you know you’re transgender, and getting dumb but well-intentioned advice.

There were straight people in the group. In fact, about half the group was made up of straight/cisgender allies. That’s a ton. It’s not like we had a sign on the door excluding straight folks. And many of those straight folks had interesting, insightful, valuable things to say. Mostly what they did was ask questions, listen, provide support, and provide an outside point of view.

There is value is having a group of people like you.

It’s the exact same reason we have cancer support groups, widow and widower support groups, golf clubs, writing forums, and literally any other form of group. Because we want to talk to people like us.

I think there’s value in a subforum specifically for POC writers, because I think POC writers could be faced with different challenges than white writers—the same way queer writers might have different experiences and challenges. There might also be value in (for example) a group for international writers who face different markets and might speak English as a second language.

But if Wreybies disagrees, that’s his business, and that’s fine. I’m not trying to push the issue—just trying to explain.

 

A very fair point, and again one which I hadn't considered.

Yes, absolutely. Sometimes it's good to discuss things openly and publicly to raise awareness, educate others, and get varied feedback. But sometimes you just need to talk about things with somebody who already understands. I get that. It would be like me posting a question about programming or music in a forum not dedicated to those topics, then getting pissed off when I got irrelevant comments which showed a lack of understanding.

Interesting. I didn't know that. Then perhaps a sub-forum for this genre is needed.

I'm aware of the issue, and am personally of the opinion that anybody should be permitted to write anything they want. And within reason, they are. I believe you're a good example of this yourself; correct me if I'm wrong, but you're a woman writing M-M romance, right? You don't need to be a gay man, or even a man at all, to write about male homosexual experience. It's the difference between "write what you know [having researched it]" and "write only what you have directly and personally experienced". The former seems sensible, the latter restrictive at best, or at worst, censoring people from writing outside their demographic.

I realise I am just one person and haven't shared the OP's experiences. But if I am creating a character, and have a query about that character, then I want to get the view of as many different types of people as possible. Including the ones who don't understand. Because any one of those people who has failed to understand the point is representative of a potential population of readers. If that one person has failed to see the point, then so might other readers. And it's important for me to know that. For example, one of my characters is autistic, and I am aware that a lot of people who do not fit into the definition of autism (and some of the ones who do) will not understand this character, and will find his responses perplexing. But I need to know that that's how he's being perceived so that I can make sure the character is portrayed in a manner which will allow others to relate to him. That means finding out who doesn't get it, as well as getting feedback from people who do.


I sense that we actually agree on several points here, and may be discussing this needlessly, though the discussion itself is interesting

 

I would like to see a sub-forum for 'writers of sound', within which would be sub-sub-forums
for 'writers of perfect fifths' and 'people of Purple Rain by Prince', and of course 'persons of acoustic
vibration'.

Then onto 'people of texture', 'writers of half-baked ideas', and 'those of metallurgy'.

Only then will I feel like justice has been done.

 

@CoyoteKing
It's interesting that you bring this up, because I considered highlighting it myself. I have, on several occasions, been encouraged to join LGBT groups in colleges, universities, jobs, and the community. I have always resisted this, because I actually don't see the value of it for me personally. I have had my own struggles with my sexuality, some of which have been due to prejudice, some due to issues in relationships, some to do with sex, some to do with not parenthood... My point is that at no point have I specifically sought out people who are also gay to discuss these issues. Because actually, sex and relationships are pretty much universal - almost everybody either has experience of these things, or wants to experience them. So if I'm talking to somebody about an issue in a relationship, or I want to talk to somebody about sex, or I feel I'm being unfairly treated due to my sexuality, then I want to talk to somebody who will understand and be able to empathise, not necessarily somebody else who is gay. I discussed coming out to my family with straight friends. They gave me some amazing advice, because they have had experience of relating to their parents, and telling them things they didn't want to tell them and which were life-changing for their parents (e.g. one who fell pregnant and had to tell her mum). So those people were able to empathise and offer suggestions even though they didn't share my exact experience. Which brings me to this quote:

Perhaps, but I think it's more important to have a group of people who understand. And you don't have to share an experience to have understanding of it. It's about finding the common ground. I don't know what it's like to be a woman in a relationship with a man. But I know what it was like to be in relationships with some men. So if a woman came to me to talk about a problem in a relationship with her male partner, I would be able to draw on my experiences to offer advice if it were warranted. I don't need to be a heterosexual woman to understand the other person's point of view. Likewise, a black friend might come to me and say that he/she is being unfairly treated and feels this is a race issue. I have never experienced this personally, but I do know how it feels to be treated differently (in my case because of my sexuality). So I can empathise. I also have a rational mind, so I can empathise and understand this other person's experience without sharing it.

So, as I said, I think it's less important to have a group of people that is like you than it is to have a group of people who understand and can empathise.

True, and that's an interesting point. If you're talking about things you actually do (e.g. writing and golf) then of course it's sensible to do those things along with other people who share that interest. Otherwise you're just inflicting golf on people, and that can only be a bad thing. But if you're talking about viewpoints and attitudes towards things like ethnicity, I think that's something we can all relate to, all have experience of, and all have something to contribute to the discussion.

 

@mashers:

Okay. So back to my analogy about the transgender person.

In that situation— your opinion would still be the same? IE— that person literally does not need an LGBT group to talk to at all, because straight cisgender people can provide the exact same support, empathy, experience, and advice?

 

Disclaimer: The below isn't about debating the admins to create a category of group that they don't want to create. It's about the general idea of special-interest groups being a bad thing.

A book club doesn't solve any problem other than giving people with a common experience (reading the book) an opportunity to talk. Neither does a club of advanced knitters, or ballroom dancers. Should we forbid them to meet, because they aren't solving the problems that we think should be solved in the way that we want them to be solved?

I'm a member of a group of adult children of hoarders. The group only accepts children of hoarders. (Or their spouses.)

It could accept anyone and everyone, including hoarders. It could spend much of its time explaining to the layman that, no, the problem is NOT "Maybe they just need a little help cleaning!"

It could spend much of its time listening to the hoarder exclaim, "You guys are sooooo understanding and clever, unlike my awful kids. Pleeease, teach me how to clear out my house," only to have them, after weeks or months of carefully phrased diplomatic advice, spit, "Well I'm SORRY I'm not PERFECT. Some people have THINGS in their houses, you know?" as the hoarder refuses to throw out so much as a gum wrapper even though they're facing eviction.

But...no. It doesn't do that. It's about the CHILDREN of hoarders, and helping them with their problems, and talking and talking about their experiences.

Centuries ago, the Usenet newsgroup rec.food.cooking.jewish was proposed. There was the usual debate about whether the new group was needed, and a lot of people argued, "Why can't you discuss Jewish cooking in a regular cooking group?"

I remember that it was explained that there's a special value in a common understanding of concepts. That when someone asked for a source of, say, kosher marshmallows in a particular region, it wasn't helpful to have sixty people chime in with suggestions for non-kosher marshmallows and then demand to know how a marshmallow could be non-kosher and why are you being so picky. That when you want to chat and gripe about your quest for kosher Coke at Passover, you want to know that a decent percentage of the people you're talking to know what you're talking about. Sometimes you just want to talk to people with a common understanding.

There's nothing wrong with talking to people with a common understanding. Not every conversation has to be about forming a global consensus across society about solving a problem. Sometimes you want to talk to people who just get it.

 

Yeah, it might. I’m not sure a sub forum or thread would turn out much differently.

 

I'm not sure, as I'm not trans. I would have thought the same could apply - that a supportive and understanding other person doesn't necessarily need to be trans too. But I can see how another trans person might be able to give a different kind of support.

 

I just want to highlight what Coyote said about a hypothetical trans person having to explain how pronouns work, justify being transgender, and so on. It can be exhausting having to explain the same things over and over and over. Does every cis straight person require these beginner-level explanations to give good advice? Of course not. But if you have a whole group of them, someone almost certainly will. And sometimes people want a break from explaining. They want to be able to go right for deeper-level discussions.

By the way, talking within a special-interest group doesn't necessarily mean you're protected from dissent and having your opinions challenged. Quite the opposite, such groups can have rich and thought-provoking debate, because they can move past the beginner stuff, and because they feel safe talking with other people they trust won't question their basic human rights.

 

This is what I was going to bring up. No group is a monolith. It's pretty weird to assume that people's experiences and opinions will be carbon copies and result in an echo chamber just because they share a single trait, IMO. And it's especially true when you're discussing umbrella terms like 'of color' or 'queer/lgbt' -- these are groups of people who are going to have completely different experiences based on where they fall under those umbrellas. They might be unified by having been othered, but there are still going to be wild differences between them.

 

I am in total sympathy with the mods who obviously don't want to start monitoring an Identity-based group where things are likely to get crazy.

However, to speak to the OP's original thought ...this forum does provide a Personal Message/Conversation facility. You can include several people within the same 'conversation.' So if the OP wants to PM a few others who indicate they are also writers of colour, then I don't see any big problem with that. They'd be free to discuss the issues that concern them without interference from people who don't share their experiences or perspectives.

Ditto the Romance writer's group idea, as mentioned by @BayView . I think it's an excellent idea, but any open group or thread that's specific to a genre would be subject to interference from people who don't understand or like the genre. Ditto any other type of genre, really. Why not go the PM route? I've already done that myself, to some extent, with writers here who share my interest in historical fiction based on solid and detailed research.

 

I did get the impression that the mods aren't keen on doing that kind of extra monitoring.

 

Yes, but I understood that the problem with these kinds of threads—as highlighted by several here in this discussion—is that people who are not really into specific genres will enter the open discussions. Then the writers of genres like Romance have to try to explain or defend their genre—when all they really want to do is interact with like-minded writers to focus on issues specific to the genre. I can understand that wish.

Some people who like historical novels don't really care if the research is accurate or not. We just had a discussion similar to this one on another thread, not that long ago. Those of us who DO care are interested in how to do the research, what to do if the research doesn't turn up what we need, or—worse—turns up information that derails the train. We don't need people telling us that we should just ignore the anomalies and write whatever we want because, hey, it's FICTION. We just want to discuss the problems we see, and figure out a way to solve them.

I can see people writing in other genres wanting the same kind of focus from the people they interact with. I still think the PM route is the best one we have, which gives us the ability to interact without interference. The downside is we need to figure out who the like-minded people are before we can invite them to take part in a conversation. However, that comes with time and familiarity with the people on the forum, doesn't it?

 

Sub-forum mods have been considered in the past but never deemed truly necessary. However, that doesn't mean that things can't change. There is a lot of potential for changes and new ideas as we move to XF2.0, and we're happy to hear all suggestions. So feel free to make a separate thread (or post in the XF2.0 thread - we have one of those, right?) regarding this if you want and we'll discuss it; possibly as a more open replacement for the groups feature.

 

But the people outwith our subject area aren't necessarily trolls, or deserving of being put on ignore—never mind the airstrike angle, which puts unwanted pressure on the mods. Often they are just perfectly pleasant people who are curious about the subject, have opinions on the subject, or want to contribute positively to the discussion. (Non-LGBT people wanting to know how to write characters who are not heterosexual, etc. White people wondering how best to write people of colour, etc.)

I would never report somebody as a troll simply because they advise us historical writers to simply write with what we've got and forget about doing overly accurate research. That's a valid opinion ...but just not helpful to those of us who don't share it. It's a waste of our time, having to explain why we think it IS important to do accurate research, yadda yadda yadda.

As @BayView said, you can just get tired of having to explain everything. Defend implies attack, so I prefer 'justify' to 'defend.' But why should a Romance writer have to justify aspects of the genre? They are writing what the genre expects. They sometimes just want to interact with people who agree on the aspects of the genre and simply want to learn to write them better, or solve specific problems WITHIN the genre.

That's why I prefer the PMs—or Conversations, as they are called. Yes, it's hidden, but as you work the forum you begin to figure out who the people are who share your genre ...and that's when you invite them to interact with you. They quickly become friends.

 

See, you're free to do what you like, regarding your own genre and what you want to learn from writers of other genres. That's you. However, others (obviously) feel differently, and I think their feelings are valid. I am merely suggesting a way they can interact on the forum without interference.

At no point have I implied (I hope) that we can't learn from other genre writing. I don't think any of us take that view. However, when we want a focused discussion within our genre, I see no reason why we shouldn't seek to do that. And I speak from experience. Nothing is LESS helpful to somebody trying to do accurate historical research than to be told by writers of Medieval Fantasy, Steampunk, Bodice Rippers, stock Westerns, or what-have-you, that that it doesn't matter if we get the historical details of an actual small town wrong, because hardly anybody is going to notice. Yes, yes, thank you ...now....

 

PM (Conversations) exist so people on the forum can interact without interference. That's not really an issue, is it? Anyway, I think I've more or less said my piece, and don't really have anything more to add. Anybody who doesn't agree with me is more than free to do so!

 

I like your last line there. That is pretty much my own view on this, actually.