David Anthony Durham on being a "color blind" reader

[TerraPrime]

I read the first few pages of the article that Dylanfanatic linked to. I quite agree with the sentence in the first couple of paragraphs. How can we not see color when it is so pervasive, when its effect is so inseparable in our daily lives? The argument put forth by folks like HE and others does not resonate with me. We are the products of our accumulated past, and for people of color, their skin color played a significant role in their social interactions. To claim that one does not see the color of other people is to deny that race affects people's lives. I just can't get behind that. I think the sentiment that we ought not pre-judge people based on their skin color or ethnic origin is a noble one, but it does not have to be implemented via a color-blind policy. One can recognize the diversity in life experience without being ensnared by prejudice.

[Larry.]

And to take it a bit further, for many people "color blind" is just another way of saying "assimilation," or rather the abandonment of one's group identity/culture/value for another's. I am myself around 1/8 Native American ancestry (Cherokee, Chickasaw). But I knew next to nothing about what that means in cultural terms because until quite recently (after my childhood), you just didn't really hear or learn anything. Those of us whose ancestors intermarried gradually came to self-identify as "white" (and as such, I've been listed on the past few Census reports). Much easier, that way, to just abandon long-held traditions (when not forced to reservations) and be something "other," to be assimilated. When I think back on what I've missed out on, it's difficult at times for me to see how "color blind" isn't just the latest of a long line of "melting pot"-type notions whose ultimate end (the means are debatable, I suppose) is a monotonous, monocultural entity whose base is that of the WASP, it seems. And that I find to be not just distasteful, but almost abhorrent.

But when we have fictional stories that deal so much with conflicts with the "others" out there, I don't think it is too much of a stretch for some to interpret that as a particular subset (in this case, the dominant one) being at unease with the prospect of interacting with others. But how many stories have been written from the perspective of those "others" that are being contacted? Stories about having the contacters imposing their value systems upon them? There are quite a few. Almost all of the ones that I know of have been written by PoC. Something to ponder, I suppose.

[dadurham]

Wow. I’ve never generated as much immediate conversation as I have with this post. (The author summons work, clearly.)

Thanks for talking here. As I started to read through I noted posts that I might respond to, but before long I realized others were doing that for me – from their own perspective, but expressing sentiments I share. That’s immensely gratifying. I’m happy to acknowledge that coupled with the reasonable assumption that most members here are white is the happy acknowledgment that you’ve often, often expressed sentiments I share – and expressed them very eloquently. That only make sense, but it’s nice to see it.

I’m decidedly inclusive in my world view (check my familial history if you doubt it), but I’m also all for ruminating on the very real issues floating around in the world. That’s why I offered the original post. Crazy thing is that – considering how often race is a divisive issue in our culture – I’m quite encouraged by the tone and content of how people are talking about this. We don’t all have to agree, surely. And I don’t claim ultimate knowledge. (I claim some specific knowledge, but we can all that about various things.) It’s a good thing that we talk, though. So thanks for taking some time with this.

Okay, I gotta go. I’m dead tired and I’ve already written 2,000 words on my blog. Before that I spent the day at “new faculty orientation†at my wee day job. Misery. Misery. And I’m going back for more tomorrow…

Hey, if you have any specific questions or comments for me, please hit me with them at my blog. If you ask I’ll answer, but right now I’m going to drop…

[Larry.]

After having suffered through enough secondary school "in-services," I feel your pain, David! Get some rest and perhaps there'll be another 60+ comments to read/respond to when you're even more tired tomorrow

[Happy Ent]

Ha! Our Summon Author spell is colour-blind!

Going back to categorisation; the book store metaphor seems to be a helpful way to explain our attitudes towards this.

I am for a section about African–American issues. History, culture, biographies, analyses, whatnot. That's a sensible category in a bookstore to have, just like 18th century military history or cooking.

What I am taken aback by is the categorisation by author, and (to a lesser extent) by reader. I didn't take a close enough look at the African–American section in the book store I was at when I visited the US last time to decide which is which. (I had the understanding it was by author.) If the categorisation is by subject then I have no objection. To take an example we may be all familiar with: in the DVD section, should Amistad by filed under the African–American section, or under Judaica?

-*-

However you want to frame it, the relevance on a categorisation by author or by readership presupposes the veracity of a stereotype. (It assumes "Young adults like X" or "Female authors do X"). This in itself is a bad thing. That's why I don't like it, and certainly won't act by it.

There is an added perspective about which categorisations we should think are important. The US is obsessed with race, and people since a generation or so heavily self-identify with their heritage. This is not the case everywhere, in fact it would be extremely rude in many places in Europe to inquire about somebody's heritage even though she is clearly Asian. On the other hand, we are quite used to have books for children separated in the book store. Insisting on a categorisation by race is no more self-evident that insisting on, say, by body mass index. After all, when is the last time you read an Epic Fantasy written by a 25-year old blonde bimbo? Are you saying that body shape is not important for your personal experience? You do know that a lot of people with eating disorders or obesity are being ostracised in our society, don't your? Or that a genre obsessed with chainmail-clad heroines wouldn't benefit from the perspective of just such a writer? After all, you would know if you'd read such a book.

See? The snarky parody writes itself.

But let me not muddle my point: the arbitrariness and US-centrism of a categorisation by race (rather than by subject) is not what makes me very uneasy about Durham's piece, or Dylanfanatic's defence of it. It is my distaste about the categorisation by race (which in itself, I'm sure, to some extent is the results of my intellectual environment).

[Tempra]

Shryke,

My statement stands. The AA fiction section is NOT a classification by race. I believe DAD's earlier works(gabriel's story and walk through darkness) were the fiction stories relegated to the AA fiction section. I seriously doubt Pride of Carthage and ACACIA ever had any chance of being put in that section. They are so uncharacteristic of every other novel in the section. Perhaps David can correct me if i'm wrong, but i think thats what he meant. The section is 99% books about the black experience, black issues, street novels and the such.

Now, the one exception i know is Octavia Butler. I think her stuff might be placed in both sections, just like C.S. Lewis/tolkien are placed all over the store. I am not 100% about her though.

Happy Ent,

I can't speak for every store, but Borders does not classify by race. I would be absolutely shocked if B&N did, in fact i'm so curious that i'll probably go check it out later today. Borders classifies their fiction section as such: Mystery/Thriller, Sci Fi/Fantasy, Western, Romance, General Fiction, AA Fiction, Gay and Lesbian Fiction. Off in the psyology section is the erotica section. Christian Fiction is in the religious section. Their history section includes sections on AAs, Latinos, and Native Americans. There are Social Science sections on women's studies, GLBT issues, and men's studies. These are subject matter classifications, not classifications by race, gender or sexual orientation. There are tons of books that could be placed in one or more sections or heck, dont fit into any real section. Some corporate dude makes a judgment call and throws a dart against a wall for those books. They can't all be explained, but i didn't notice that they went down any racial or gender lines.

They are far from perfect, but they are not abhorrent.

[Shryke]

Shryke,

My statement stands. The AA fiction section is NOT a classification by race. I believe DAD's earlier works(gabriel's story and walk through darkness) were the fiction stories relegated to the AA fiction section. I seriously doubt Pride of Carthage and ACACIA ever had any chance of being put in that section. They are so uncharacteristic of every other novel in the section. Perhaps David can correct me if i'm wrong, but i think thats what he meant. The section is 99% books about the black experience, black issues, street novels and the such.

Now, the one exception i know is Octavia Butler. I think her stuff might be placed in both sections, just like C.S. Lewis/tolkien are placed all over the store. I am not 100% about her though.

Like I said, I've never seen one of these sections in a Canadian bookstore. I was just going off the article, which in the bolded part definitely made it sound like stuff by and "for" black people was shoved off into a separate shelf. I found that appalling. It's separate but equal to the fiction section!

[mormont]

To be a little more provocative:

I think that people who say they 'don't notice' characteristics of the author need to reflect a little on what that really means to them. You don't assume, surely, that the author has no race, no gender, no sexuality, no political persuasion, no interests, no family, no education. You may indeed assume that these things aren't an important influence on the work, which is a point we can debate separately: but I guarantee that, like me, you have a set of default assumptions about the writer.

In this genre, I can probably accurately guess them, too: your default assumptions will probably begin by including that the author is - white, male, educated to degree level, and straight. Beyond this, your default assumptions will probably be that the author is somewhat like yourself, especially when it comes to political and social attitudes.

Now, you're probably willing to revisit any and all of these assumptions based on information in the books, that you derive from the internet, etc. But the point remains that the claim that you are 'blind' to these attributes is not really completely true. You are instead working on a default assumption - a stereotype. A perfectly normal psychological process, of course, and one that we need, but that's my point. Psychologically, you aren't 'blind', because you can't be.

Do these assumptions influence your reading of the work? I think so. It might not be much, and it might not be conscious, but I think that the notion that your opinion of the success of the characterisation of (say) women in the story cannot help but be influenced to some degree by knowing whether the author is male or female.

[Filippa Eilhart]

Do these assumptions influence your reading of the work?

I think what influences my reading of a work much more than my assumptions about an author are my experiences as a reader (female, white, educated etc etc).

Example -- when reading Polish/Russian political fiction, I think it matters less where the authors come from, and more whether I have any experiences with the regime. My reading of their books will be totally different than that of people born 10 years after me.

[mormont]

I think what influences my reading of a work much more than my assumptions about an author are my experiences as a reader (female, white, educated etc etc).

Example -- when reading Polish/Russian political fiction, I think it matters less where the authors come from, and more whether I have any experiences with the regime. My reading of their books will be totally different than that of people born 10 years after me.

Yes, but if the reader's characteristics are important, surely the writer's are as well? Not as important, in the majority of cases, it's true. But they influence the writing process, that's for sure, and therefore what you read is already coming to you through a filter, even before you apply your own.

Add to that the fact that, as I say, most fantasy/sci-fi books are by default read by readers as if they were written by educated straight white males (whether or not they actually were) and you can surely see where this is at least an issue...

[The Iceman of the North]

To be a little more provocative:

I think that people who say they 'don't notice' characteristics of the author need to reflect a little on what that really means to them. You don't assume, surely, that the author has no race, no gender, no sexuality, no political persuasion, no interests, no family, no education. You may indeed assume that these things aren't an important influence on the work, which is a point we can debate separately: but I guarantee that, like me, you have a set of default assumptions about the writer.

There's a difference between getting a feeling for who the author is based on how the book is written, and consider these characteristics when deciding whether or not to buy the book.

As for the default assumtions, if I read a fantasy novel by someone, and there's no picture of the author and the name is inconclusive, I might assume that the writer is white and male. (After all most of them are.) But my appreciation of the book will not change if I learn that this assumption is wrong (unless it happens to be a multi-handicapped person that had to use her big toe for typing, or something).

[Happy Ent]

Do these assumptions influence your reading of the work?

Of course they do. And not necessarily in a good way.

What few part of Vellum I enjoyed were the Oirish socialist and the gay character. I thought those were well done. Now, after reading up on Hal Duncan through this forum and his blog, I learn that he merely wrote about himself. From a universally interesting description of Important Human Themes the novel has now become (in my mind) soapboxing. Cheap, navel-gazing, agenda-driven. It significantly lessens my enjoyment of these things. From a novel it turned in to a blog entry.

Look, I get no enjoyment from knowing that Scott Lynch is a female kick-boxer, Michael Chabon and Diana Gabaldon are gay men, Phillip Pullman is a world-class physicist, Rosalyn Scott Bakker used to be a prostitute, Tolkien was a drug addict, and Neil Gaiman is black. I thought their characters were just testament to their abilities as authors. Now I realise that they are just writing about themselves.

See?

To again pre-empt and obvious criticism: I'm not saying that nobody else is allowed to chose authors from that perspective. I'm sure Jewish authors have a lot to say about Jewishness because they are Jewish (rather than being good authors), so if you want to read about Jewishness, I'm sure picking up a Jewish author is a good idea. I am merely pointing out that there are at least two approaches to appreciating ideas. One is universal, modern, individual and literal ("The book has to speak for itself"). The other is contextual ("I don't like Wagner because he was a socialist"). There are whole schools of (say) literary criticism aligned with these positions. I firmly come out it favour of the first. You're welcome not to. It's a choice.

ETA: By the way, I had the impression that fantasy authors are female by default? I probably don't know enough about the genre. But I'm pretty sure readers of fiction are female be default, and that ought to include fantasy. I'm merely curious, please tell me that I'm wrong.

[hyperbion]

Thought I'd chime in an opinion (apologies on length, I just got carried away ):

How can we not see color when it is so pervasive, when its effect is so inseparable in our daily lives? The argument put forth by folks like HE and others does not resonate with me. We are the products of our accumulated past, and for people of color, their skin color played a significant role in their social interactions. To claim that one does not see the color of other people is to deny that race affects people's lives.

Dylanfanatic - When I think back on what I've missed out on, it's difficult at times for me to see how "color blind" isn't just the latest of a long line of "melting pot"-type notions whose ultimate end (the means are debatable, I suppose) is a monotonous, monocultural entity whose base is that of the WASP, it seems. And that I find to be not just distasteful, but almost abhorrent.

In that regard, being "color blind" also means being blind to a host of inequities, perspectives and realities that you would be able to see if you chose to acknowledge color and to see how much it affects all our lives. Doesn’t make being “color blind†seem so enlightened, does it?

When I read this, my initial reaction is "strawman".

In my experience, "colorblind" means "your color doesn't affect whether I like you or hate you". "Your racial background is not being considered when I decide whether to hire you or not". "We won't skip a Latino's spot on a heart-surgery waiting list to donate to the next white person instead". "I will not denigrate and trash-talk this truly excellent fantasy novel simply because the author's black". "I will not praise and applaud this steaming-pile-of-excrement fantasy novel simply because the author's black".

In short, "colorblind" means that you do your best to ignore colour when forming value-based judgments on a person, their character, actions, or ideas/opinions, or deciding how to treat another person in an economic, social, legal, institutional etc. capacity.

I believe "Colorblind" definitely does NOT mean "your racial background is of no personal interest to me". "Your racial background has no bearing on your work, your life, your history, the nature of our personal or professional relationship with each other, etc.". "I think that your racial heritage should not add inherent interest to your work or has any bearing on the attractiveness or relevance of your ideas". And so on.

In short, "colorblind" does NOT mean that you do your best to ignore color in all capacities, including forming opinions as to the personal or inherent interest, educational value, or social relevance of a person's actions, work or ideas or that you do not acknowledge the importance of racial identity in another person's life, family, culture or society.

I think many self-identifying "colorblind" people are very defensive about being non-discriminatory, because they are aware of racial issues, their prominence in many parts of history, and at least on some level are very aware that race has and continues to play an important and (often negative and sometimes severe) role in the lives of many "people of colour". They say "color is unimportant" very defensively, especially white anglophone readers in America/Canada, because they feel racially associated with the 'majority' race that in recent history has been the perpetrators of much racial injustice in our societies, and want to distance themselves from that dubious inheritance - not to suggest that race is not an issue. Quite the opposite. They say they are "colorblind" in order to say "I am aware that racism still permeates many areas of society and I am doing my best to not propagate it by choosing NOT to slant my buying habits (books or otherwise) along racial lines."

Hence I disagree with the quite different picture painted in the original article, that most people who read "colorblind" do so because they think that race is unimportant to the author, the work or the publishing process; are not interested in race and culture and its impact on the development of an author's POV; or due to a blind faith that "racism is dead". I believe that many people who identify as being "colorblind" and read accordingly do so from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance. Or at least some knowledge; and certainly not complete ignorance. It's not because they don't know about racial inequalities within genres, racism in the book publishing process, or have some grand naïveté about a happy color-blind world. It means NOTHING more than "I'm not buying books based on the author's race". That's it.

"Colorblind" readers IMO generally are not like their characterization in the original article, or by comments such as those I quoted. Hence my opinion is "strawman".

-------

What IS true in the original article is that specifically reading from authors of diverse backgrounds to get different cultural perspectives can be a very instructive, enriching and eye-opening process that can give you a much better sense of diversity and divisions in the modern world.

I find this rather obvious - about as obvious as saying that if you go out and read from authors with different religious perspectives can give you great insights about faith-based opinions and their ssignificance in history and current events. Or select authors who have differring opinions on the existence of "fundamental rights"; or whether or not P=NP and its implications on computation theory, mathematics, future technological developments, and philosophy. Of course you will come away suitably enlightened.

What I don't understand is how one's lack of interest in exploring authors of different backgrounds supposedly makes one a "willing accomplice to institutional segregation". Not everyone is interested in exploring cultural diversity or making a study of it. People have other, valid reasons for reading and choosing the authors they do. I think it is extremely... harsh, to say that a reader's failure to seek out and buy books by authors of another race constitutes a vague form of racism. It is not the reader's fault that there are racial barriers in the book publishing/selling industry.

Getting more readers to proactively 'buy diverse' (as David is very proud of doing) can certainly bestow a great appreciation for other points of view, as well as help financially the authors who have to deal with racial issues in their line of work, but... jeez, what if I'm just not interested in cultural exploration as an aim in my reading? If I, for example, am looking to read and build a collection of what I find to be 'quality' epic fantasy, well, it might happen that most of my top authors are white. Maybe more men than women. There's not a deliberately wide variety of cultural perspectives because... well, that's not what I'm interested in. If I'm buying books about sailing, sailing history, old adventure books involving the sea (like Conrad etc.), and so on because I have a thing for old squareriggers, chances are I'm not going to have many books written from an African-American or Latino or Korean or homosexual or whatever opinion because... well, I'm not looking for a diverse cultural perspective on sailing. I'm looking for a diverse historical, geographical, or class perspective on sailing. My bookshelf consequently is not going to necessarily be racially diverse, gender balances, etc.. Why? Because I have other, valid interests and reasons for buying and reading books. Because cultural exploration is not high on my book-collecting priority list, I am.... complicit in the propagation of institutionalized racism?

That is horribly unjust.

---

Besides, I think many "colorblind" readers DO actively read into other cultural perspectives.

As an example: consider changing the first question to "when was the last time you read a book by someone of a racial background other than your own". I'd fail the original question; I can't recall the last book I read by a black author. I didn't know there was an AA fiction section (mind you, I live in Canada).

I can list a dozen recent books I've read by a Chinese author, however. At least a couple books by a French author. At least one by an eleventh-century Arab author (a new Ibn Fadlan translation). And I'd be one of those who'd knee-jerk say I read "colorblind". I AM interested in other racial perspectives; but I do not proactively buy a culturally diverse and balanced assortment of books because I DON'T think it's right that I be morally obliged to do so. Again, not like the way the article characterizes "colorblind" people. Hence again, I say "strawman".

[edit to fix smiley - yup, sorry, way too long a post]

[Happy Ent]

Hyperbion, that matches my sentiments exactly.

The critique becomes even more absurd when "diversity" is so parochially defined. I read books in four languages and from a wide variety of genres. I'd read a Black Epic fantasy author primarily as "an American fantasy author" and would make little distinction in my mind about what box in the census form that American ticks. It interests me about as much as his sex or his obesity. (Namely, not.) I must honestly say that almost all of my reading of genre fiction has been anglophone (my third language, and from a countries I have been to only a few weeks of my life in total).

Maybe I should try some German SF.

But, actually, no. I have as much desire for reading German SF as I have for hearing German Jazz. None. It turns out I primarily take my F/SF anglophone, my capital-L-literature German, my Jazz Black, my Baroque vocal music Protestant, my Computer Science Jewish, and my whisky Scottish (*). Out of principle? No. But I don't feel bad about it. And I do let Eric Clapton play the Blues on my stereo now and then.

(*) I really had to rack my brain there, mormont. I came up with malts and Rankin.

Edit: whiskey -> whisky

[mormont]

Ice: if you're going to say that your appreciation of a book never changes because of any incorrect assumption you have made about the author, I'm calling bs, frankly. I simply can't believe it.

HE: well, I've mentioned above that I can't understand the predomination of the 'book must speak for itself' school, so you might assume I'm firmly in the 'contextual' camp. But honestly, I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. I can have different perspectives on a book, just as I can on a piece of music or a painting - one in which the art speaks for itself, and one in which I can place and understand it in context.

Moreover, I can't understand why the former perspective is somehow being viewed as morally superior, as it is in this thread: it seems to me to stem from a fear of contextual factors, caused by a confusion between those and prejudice. It's not a moral question, to me: it's about information and understanding. What you do with that information is a moral issue: if you use it to ghettoise authors or exclude them, that's bad. But simply being aware of it? Not a moral issue.

Hyperbion: you have some excellent points, but again: you can't pretend to a neutral perspective when in fact what you're adopting is a default perspective. It might be that you're not interested in 'diversity', and that's fair enough. But if you're not looking for a diverse cultural perspective, the latter, not the former, is what you wind up with, and that is why I think DAD would suggest that you are being a "willing accomplice to institutional segregation". (I think that's harsh, and would be more inclined to call it 'unwitting' accomplice myself.)

Race is just the example here. In some ways, as you say, it's an unfortunate one because it makes people defensive. On the other hand, it is a good one because the predominance of white authors in certain genres is down to political factors, and a 'colour-blind' approach is arguably an approach that refuses to ask questions about the genre. Questions that, perhaps, readers ought to be asking.

[Monboddo]

I never worry over an author's race. In fact, I could care less about the biography of any writer. I look for an interesting plot and prose style.

Everyone should adopt my mindset, in this regard. (In all other areas as well. )

[Happy Ent]

Moreover, I can't understand why the former perspective is somehow being viewed as morally superior, as it is in this thread [...]

Hold you horses, now.

Remember that the entire thread is born out of the opposite attack: that there should be something fishy, ignorant, or at the very least intellectually incurious about people who hold my position. I merely want to establish that one can strive for colourblindness with the same "I'm holier than you" attitude that Ran, you, Terraprime, Dylanfanatic and Durham use.

In the end it could easily be a matter of taste, and the ethical underpinnings are a rationalisation.

[The Iceman of the North]

Ice: if you're going to say that your appreciation of a book never changes because of any incorrect assumption you have made about the author, I'm calling bs, frankly. I simply can't believe it.

I wont say that it never does, but if my appreciation of a book changes it'll be in a subconcoius manner, so I can't tell that it changes. If I read a book by someone I thought was a man, but later learn it actually was a woman, I seriously doubt that I would change my appreciation of the book. My question to you mormie is why the background of the author should matter for my appreciation of a fictional story?

[Rhaegon Targaryen]

I agree with HE on this subject. I also think this is pretty much only an American issue. The one thing I don't agree with HE on is his whiskey. Irish is superior.

[mormont]

HE: but if you look at my posts, I have never at any point adopted a 'holier-than-thou' attitude about my apporach (except, perhaps, in pointing out that it might be worth asking questions about why the white-male-educated stereotype came about and why it persists). Indeed, my point has been all along that I don't see it as a moral issue but one of getting more out of a book, and am slightly perplexed by the alleged moral superiority of 'colourblindness' as an approach. If I'm saying contextual reading is superior, it's not in a moral sense.

To be fair, I've also questioned the validity of the 'colourblind' approach - because, as I say, so-called 'colourblindness' is really nothing of the kind. It's merely adopting the default assumptions. Possibly those have no influence on the reading of the text. Myself, I am sceptical - in fact, I don't believe it. It flies in the face of what I know about human psychology, for a start. We all use biases and stereotypes in interpreting the real world to a greater degree than we realise (indeed, it's adaptive and useful, which is why we do it) so why should this suddenly cease in interpreting the written word?