Resource Fanfic Writer's Desk: Your Place for Writing Discussion, Questions, and Advice

Bantha milk is blue and Bantha butter is green, so we can have a trandoshan with scales the colour of Bantha butter

What? I did not know that, why is it a no-no?

 

I don't know if this can help by I am slowly writing a story were we are introduced to our main characters through the eyes of a group of native police men whose ethnicity have a dark brown skin colour and almond-shaped eyes. There for I describe, as seen below, the outsider as having round eyes.

Not that the strangers was not strange to any of the on looking [nationality]. Their leader was androgynous with dark skin, not unlike an [nationality] but with round eyes, curly hair in some kind of topknot and his, or was it her, chin was painted red. She, or he, was dressed in a kind of brown tunica below a kind of short cuirass with shoulder guards, with a yellow, encircled star on one shoulder guard and the Republic’s red axe-head on the other. His, or her, companions were even stranger.

One was a humanoid lizard of some sort with red and red orange scale and a spiky crest going from its head to its back. The other one was at least human but had brazen-tan skin, round eyes and curly hair with many small colourful braids hanging down his neck. They were both dressed in _colour_ coveralls and had, like their leader, utility belts and backpacks.

 

Well for one, I don't think it is very accurate despite it being a cliche, and I guess it relates back to food-related descriptions being problematic - although I stress I am not an expert on the subject and how offensive/non-preferred such descriptors can be is subjective.

 

Honestly, I've had a bit of this issue in description,too. One of my OC's would be described as Asian but obviously that has no meaning in the GFFA. I made a conscious decision to not describe the physical shape of his eyes or the comparitive "roundness" of the female OC's eyes, although I have described the color of the eyes since that can be universally applied to any ethnicity.

I wrote that his skin is darker than hers, more tan than pale, and that his cheekbones were sharper whereas hers were rounder. I don't think it is so problematic for skin color as long as you are consistent: a dark-brown skinned human with her friend who is a light-blue skinned Twi'lek, for example.

Readers will make their own visualization anyway. It's ok if it differs from yours.

 

I use that one for a non-human;because she happens to have "somewhat feline features" according to concept drawings. Since she is a legends character voiced by a POC...

 

Oh I definitely will use it, but I was wondering how much is tiresome for a native English speaker. In my mother tongue I'd know exactly where to set the limit.

+100000. To me, this article can only be used as as a point of reference for what people define as prejudice, stereotypes and clichés in North America (possibly even only in the US?) and the underlying assumption that all so-called "Western" cultures are in agreement with these points is so myopic that it makes me want to barf.

Is "slanting eyes" also not acceptable? It's the translation given in my dictionary.

(As a side note, in Greek "almond eyes" is a compliment )

 

If I were you, I'd really not use "Slanting eyes", as that was frequently used as a racial slur against Asian immigrants in the US,

 

I would probably use almond-shaped eyes or something similar

 

Oh for the love of...

Like JadeLotus said, there's no rule that can't be broken if the result is well-executed. This, I would argue, extends to every perceivable "rule" out there—some of the best, most remembered works out there deliberately break contemporary norms, mores, and even taboos, often with alarming (to some) results. We as authors should never, ever be afraid to express ourselves as we see fit, no matter what others may say; to limit ourselves thus is to stunt our ability to do what we love.

If our intent is not to deliberately offend, then our readers ought to be able to understand, but if not, that's not our problem—at least we know we're in the right.

 

You might consider choosing to describe skin tone with a simile or comparison. Especially when thinking about different regions of Asia, the skin tones vary widely. You might have a tan person with skin that "gleamed like dark amber" or "glistened like liquid caramel". You might also have someone with lighter skin who's pale cheeks "blushed a soft rose". Especially if you're concerned that you are coming off as derogatory (assuming that's not your intent) I would say comparisons and similes to known, positively associated items are your best bet.

 

I would like to respectfully disagree. As writer's it is part of our craft to paint with words the scenes we see in our heads. To that end, we must be highly aware of the words that we choose and the way they may be perceived by our audience. While I agree that PC terminology can be frustrating and difficult to navigate and that no author should feel beholden to use or not use a specific phrase solely on the merits of conforming to PC standards, it is important for the writer to know and understand how the choice of that word will impact the experience of their reader and, if they deem so, to choose another which more closely fits to the aesthetic, tone, audience, and feel of their piece.

 

"Slanted eyes" is definitely a slur in my view. Maybe "lidded eyes" is more appropriate although that may have a different visual association?

It's difficult because what is offensive in one culture is not in another, particularly if the history of why such descriptions are offensive are not known in other countries (see: blackface)

I do agree that we as writers shouldn't be afraid to express ourselves creatively and use the descriptions we feel we need to allow the reader to understand what we are describing, but I think it's also a good thing to be mindful that some descriptions have negative connotations for others - it's a balancing act.

Something I struggle with in my writing is avoiding cliche, and trying to find unique yet appropriate descriptions for things - as I said above "almond eyes" isn't really an accurate description of what eyes actually look like (nor is "round"), but there is the cultural connotation (at least some countries) that "almond-eyes"="Asian eyes" so it's a shortcut. Coming up with something else is a challenge, but I think a worthwhile one.

 

In the USA at least, slanted eyes in not currently a politically correct wording. I'm sure you can use almond eyes to depict color, but not specifically shape.

 

Continuing the conversation on describing eyes, here's an interesting article with a very particular view point about not using terms such as "tilted, slanted or almond shape" and their reasons for why. If nothing else, the suggestion to read up on descriptions on an beauty blog seemed helpful.

http://writingwithcolor.tumblr.com/post/101967940901/wwc-guide-describing-asian-eyes

 

Just out of curiosity, but are you aware that the origin of the term "political correctness" was coined by the American neoconservative movement of the late '70s and early '80s, as a means of differentiating their ideology from that which they associated with the "liberal elites" of contemporary academia? It was since evolved into a means of manipulating discourse in such a way as to suit the advancement of right-wing politics, particularly once it was adapted for use in the media by such persons as Grover Norquist, Theodore Olson, Frank Luntz and Rush Limbaugh (some very despicable people). The overall goal was to create a populist opposition to the status quo that would help to secure the Republicans' base, and it has worked magnificently, to the point that the term has become so ubiquitous that everyone uses it without really understanding its meaning.

Why do I bring this up in a discussion about writing? Well, just ask Jo Rowling what she thought when certain people decried her works as corrupting and such, all because she writes about something that isn't actually real.

My point is that, no matter what one does, there is no possible way to please everybody. An author writes what an author knows, yes, and sometimes it's necessary for the point of the story to deliberately offend. Take for example The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, a book which has come under attack recently for the simple fact that one of the primary characters is called "Nigger Jim." Huck and Jim, in the course of their journey down the Mississippi River, encounter gamblers, confidence men, feuding families, criminals of every stripe, and yet Jim, the only black character in the novel, is also the only adult with actual, recognizable morals that he keeps to. His name is meant to invoke irony; he's an escaped slave yet he possesses more character and moral fiber than any of the supposedly better white folks that the pair encounters. Samuel Clemens was very much a man of his time, writing about the world he knew, but also deliberately poking at the norms, mores and taboos of his society in order to effect change. This is hardly his only work in which he does this; others, such as A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, The War Prayer, and Letters from the Earth, are biting commentaries on American culture that still resonate today.

I'm not saying that every author should go this route, and indeed most are quite happy to just tell a story (I'm one of them). But to say that anyone, even fan fic authors, should go out of their way to appease every sensibility is foolish at best and willfully ignorant at worst. I say this not to stir the pot, but to remind everyone in this discussion that we're all human, all fallible, and that we should not be afraid to take chances, make bold narrative choices, without fear that we might get dogpiled by anyone who might be offended at what we write, either by choice or reflex. And believe me, I've encountered and heard from people who do become offended by choice—to whit, those selfsame folks who were "offended" by the idea of a hero that practices sorcery.

 

To be fair, I don't think anyone in this thread has indicated that writers should try to please everybody. I've said that I think writers should be mindful that certain words may offend, and really take a look at whether we need to use those descriptions.

I'll take your word on Huckleberry Finn, as I've never read it, but if that is the purpose of using the word fair enough (although was there a need to reproduce it here?) - I don't believe in censoring the literature itself because interpreting the text and examining why such techniques are used can be very valuable. One of my favourite books is Gone With the Wind, and there's some horribly racist stuff in that, not only espoused by the characters, but in authorial intent. But the text can be interpreted and assessed with the knowledge that the author was very misguided and presenting an image of slavery that wasn't accurate. But if an author wrote the same book today without some layer of irony or satire (see: The Wind Done Gone, a satirical retelling of the story from the pov of the slaves) I would absolutely consider racist and unnecessary. And on the point of phonetic dialogue - that book is a fine example of how it shouldn't be used.

I do think there's a bit of a false equivalency between "anti-Harry Potter because witchcraft" and wanting people to be respectful through writing when it comes to words and phrases that have negative historical connotations.

 

Goodwood

The thing about the works mentioned is that they are a product of their times. At the time, such mindsets were widespread and writing styles reflected it. I've read plenty of Lovecraft and Frank Belknap Long that have racist terminology that I would otherwise not see in a book today.

Writing styles change with language, and unless you're writing a period pastiche piece, you really should avoid using nomenclature that could otherwise be seen as offensive. It's not about being politically correct; it's about knowing that certain terms and words are not okay words anymore.

 

You're right, those are period pieces and right now I'm in the thick of reading another series that also (as sidebars) deals with such issues from the perspective of 1940s-era American service personnel, so the use of such terms is to be expected. Of course, that hasn't stopped countless efforts to later ban such books—Huckleberry Finn has been the victim of such campaigns on many occasions since it was first published. Even so, period pieces written nowadays should still be allowed to use those styles, otherwise there is the risk of creeping revisionism, not to mention believability (the film Django Unchained has received flak for this, IIRC).

Writing styles absolutely do change with language and the times, you're right; the dictionary reflects a fluid language that isn't set in stone for the very reason that such a feat is impossible anyway, which is why it's a guidepost and not a destination. Despite that, however, I would argue that the words themselves are only ever given power in how and when they are used. Words in and of themselves aren't bad, they're just words. We don't care when Richard Pryor or Eddie Murphy (dating myself here, haha) use that word in particular, because reasons (and quite a double-standard it is). My point is that, just like with the overuse of provocative language, use of mollycoddling verbiage can be just as bad and is just as likely to sink an otherwise promising narrative. Certain terms are given disproportionate power, true, but to try to extend the "no-no" list to encompass more and more words and terms that "might" be offensive strikes me as a needlessly complicated handicapping of our ability to communicate.

Edit: I also think that it's a valid question to ask just "why" certain words and terms are no longer okay.

Certain words and styles, yes I can agree will "age" or "date" a piece, but they should never be totally stricken from the author's arsenal. That's why we have age ranges and such, to help regulate who reads what and when (BTW, yes it was necessary to reproduce the full word here—censoring it would have undermined my point entirely).

Your point with Gone with the Wind is well-taken and understood, and yes that highlights the issue of authorial intent, which I brought up in my initial post regarding this matter ("If our intent is not to deliberately offend, then our readers ought to be able to understand, but if not, that's not our problem—at least we know we're in the right."}. Yes, there are folks out there with differing points of view and mindsets, folks who may feel that it's perfectly normal to think in those terms, for whatever reasons. But even in this modern world, if there are authors out there with views like Margaret Mitchell's, they should still be able to write and publish whatever they want, no matter how much we may disagree with their views (assuming they can find someone willing to, or self-publish). That's one of the aspects of the Internet, and freedom of speech in general, that's a double-edged sword, and for my part, I would just as soon take the bad with the good and let racists and extreme nationalists (and others) have their say. It's better to let them speak and show their foolishness than to try to silence them and give them even the illusion of persecution to bolster their causes.

(See what I did there? I took Clemens's quote of "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt" and turned it on its head to illustrate how woefully ignorant some folks can be.)

Bear in mind that I'm coming at this from a broader perspective; in no way am I trying to influence "the way things are done" here on TF.N. You could even say I'm arguing just for the sake of it, and you'd be right, but I do feel that there were valid points made and not just by me. Language can be used to hurt or heal, and the same word can have many meanings that can be used to accomplish both, or service other goals. In polite society we are encouraged to be mindful of our words, but from my point of view, forthe purposes of writing the overall story is greater and more important than the sum of its parts. Sometimes the use of powerful terms is necessary to show how careless, petty or mean the antagonist is, sometimes they're used to show how far the protagonist is willing to go, other times they may show how fed up some other character may be with the actions or circumstances of the participants and situations. But you knew that.

I bring up the fringe reaction to Harry Potter to show just how far arbitrary censorship can go (I trust you're familiar with medieval witch burnings?), and the absurdities it can produce. We all know that witchcraft isn't real, but even today, there are people (and I've met some doozies) who do believe that it exists and is somehow linked to some evil entity that seeks to corrupt us humans. All the various isms are also, unfortunately, still things we have to contend with, and they're pernicious little things no doubt about it. But I would argue that some of them aren't the boogeymen they once were, and the shadows they still cast are slowly shrinking. You can probably tell I'm dancing around the issue here, even though I'd rather not, because I don't want to waylay this thread into a discussion about topics not suitable for a fan fiction forum. My point here, however, is still germane; casting the net too wide is as bad as casting it too close to the boat. It's all well and good to be mindful of the audience and what one can get away with and what might be crossing the line, but it's another thing entirely to cripple oneself unnecessarily.

Hopefully you guys can see where I'm coming from, at least, and understand that I'm not advocating for total freedom or total censorship (not that either is really possible). Rather, I'm saying that we should be wary of letting ourselves get too caught up in the mires of self-censorship and any perceived notions of inoffensiveness or what might provoke an adverse reaction. As the Salman Rushdie quote in my signature implies, nothing is sacred, nor should it be if we wish to retain freedom of thought. Perhaps even more compelling, if at the same time quite provocative, Christopher Hitchens has said in regards to the phrase 'that's offensive,' "I'm still waiting to hear what your point is."

Anyway, I've dragged this thread around enough as it is, at least on this tangent.

 

There's some really useful stuff in there (and funnily enough, something like "mono-lidded eyes with an epicanthal fold" would work quite well in a SW fic -- not so much in original fiction though ) but there again I'd argue that for someone like me, this article is interesting as a reference to understand what is perceived as derogatory and prejudiced in the "Anglo" world (I'm using "Anglo" for lack of a better word here.) What makes a word be perceived as a slur is:

• the cultural referential of the reader (e.g. "my country/culture has a history of using this word as a slur against X") and
• the underlying assumption that the writer shares this same referential and uses that specific word or phrase with intent.

So when writing on these boards, there are words and phrases that I will not use because they would be perceived as slurs by a majority of users and if nothing else I don't want people to be biting my head off all the time.

However, there are also "acceptable" words and phrases that make me cringe every time I have to use them, because in my own culture they're totally inappropriate, e.g. "people of colour" -- in Greek, saying "people of colour" implies that you think of yourself as white like other "civilised" Europeans whereas "people of colour" is every Asian or African immigrant "who are not like us".

I don't remember this sort of detail from Gone With the Wind (there's probably a lot of subtext I missed while reading it in the first place) and I'm not challenging at all the idea that it's a racist book because that's a well-established fact. However one thing I'd like to add to your comment taken generically is that "[writers] shouldn't use phonetic dialogue that way" unless they deliberately want the POV character/narrator to come across as racist. A few years ago, a book that was widely discussed in France in particular but also in other European countries was The Kindly Ones by Jonathan Littell. Littell chose to write a WWII novel exclusively from the perspective of an SS officer, and as you can imagine it's extraordinarily disturbing but in my view it's also a literary masterpiece. I don't think I ever read anything else that gives so much meaning to the expression "the banality of evil". Given the chosen approach for the book, there is every possible racial slur and stereotype in there but it couldn't be otherwise, because if it were then the narrator would stop being an SS officer. There was (obviously) a lot of debate about it because it's so controversial, but once you got past the knee-jerk reactions there were some interesting discussions about just how far a writer can go in depicting evil realistically.

I'm going to put a massive content warning here in case someone decides to check out that book -- it is NOT, repeat NOT, child-friendly and even for adults it's not for the faint of heart. I'd also clearly argue against adopting that approach to writing for fanfic on these boards -- even if a writer managed to work around the TOS restrictions (forbidden words etc), this is not the place for it, but since this is the thread where we get to discuss writing in general, I thought that this approach should be mentioned.

 

I'm gonna have to add that one to my reading list, Chyntuck, so thanks for the suggestion—it just goes to show that so much can be accomplished by an author who's truly willing to push the limits. I've always maintained that it is only by pushing the envelope that we can expand our boundaries, in many ways besides simply technologically. Evil is something that one has to be able to understand in order to properly fight it, and what better way to convey true evil than through fiction, either historical or by other genres?

 

I agree with the former, and I've not said that they should - context is king. In the context of the original text given the period in which it was written, I agree that the word should not be censored. On an open message board however, even in a discussion about the text we'll have to disagree on whether use of the word is appropriate - but since that is a whole other discussion let's let it drop.

I agree to a point, and will say again that generally I am against censorship, however the other edge of that sword is that you can't dismiss criticism of such works either. People can absolutely say/write what they like (within reason), but then they have to be willing to accept that others are going to express negative opinions about it.

Intent sometimes doesn't matter - I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say "I'm not racist, but..." and then proceed to say something racist. They "know" they're in the "right" and that they didn't mean to offend - doesn't mean that they didn't, or that other people can't express the fact that they took offense. Blanketing oneself from criticism by rationalising that the readers just don't "get it" can be harmful to a writer's self-growth.

As writers we do not create works in a vacuum, unless we keep them in a notebooks and on our computers and never show anyone. I certainly do not believe that writers should be beholden to their readers, but I do believe we should be mindful that real people with real histories and experiences may be reading our works, and think about whether use of language which has been pointed out by others to be problematic is worth using. If it is, and it is necessary to make a point/flesh out a character, for historical accuracy etc, by all means, I'll support that within the confines of the text. But if it's not, and is simply reliance on tired, lazy cliche then well that's not a good enough reason for me.

Take the "almond-shaped eyes" example - I personally had no idea that this was problematic until I was looking for an appropriate way to describe a character several months ago. I still, personally, don't think it's particularly offensive or derogatory, but discovered that it is to a great number of other people. Being mindful of this, I sought to come up with a more creative way to describe the said character, and I would suggest what I wrote is all the better for it. I avoided cliche and came up with something that actually described the character, not just their race. Isn't that the goal - to improve and stretch beyond what is easy and comfortable, and at the same time avoid perpetuating stereotype?

If I was writing from the pov of an old-fashioned character and they, in the text, was describing the other, maybe I would still have used to term, because it revealed something about them. But I wasn't, so I didn't - again, context, which I feel is in congruence with the thrust of your argument. I actually think we agree on the whole but are looking at the issue from different perspectives, and that's great. I appreciate a robust and challenging discussion about these things.

I agree, although in terms of the phonetic dialogue I was speaking more to the readability of the text which I found very, very difficult. For example, the typical dialogue of the Mammy character:

"Ah say Miss Scarlett kin stan' whut de Lawd sen', kase she done had ter stan' a-plenty, but Mist' Rhett - Miss Melly, he ain' never had ter stan' nuthin' he din' wanter stan', not nuthin'. It's him Ah come ter see you 'bout."


I find this very off-putting and hard to decipher.

 

Yeah, that is my main objection to it. It can be hard to decipher if the accent gets too "thick." Not to mention it just immediately snaps me out of my suspension of disbelief.

 

Goodwood Given what I know of your taste in literature and of your interest in the WWII era, it's certainly something for you to look at and I'll be curious to hear your opinion about it.

To be on the safe side I'll repeat the warning: The Kindly Ones is not a book that one decides to read, just like that, on a bright summer morning. It's the fictional autobiography of a Nazi mass murderer with everything that can imply, and I advise anyone who wants to read it to look up a few reviews (including negative ones) before jumping into it.

"Hard to decipher" doesn't begin to describe it I must have read Gone with the Wind in translation, because I'd remember something like that.

Can I say that I'm really happy we're having this discussion here? I think this is one of the most interesting debates we've had on this thread and it's good food for thought.

 

It reminded me of when I had to read Chaucer in the original Middle English back in my British Lit class years ago.

 

You know I don't understand the problem with using food to describe peoples look, maybe it comes from that I read many stories where food is used in that way . Ex. "apple cheeked", "milk white skin", "the sun had turned his skin nut coloured", "she had a doughy complexion", etc.

You know I think I first heard almond-eyes used to describe elves actually.

The translation of my countries words to usually describe Asian eyes is also "slanting eyes"

Maybe it is because I am dyslectic but I have no real problem reading that.



whiskers your quote two/three posts above need fixing