David Anthony Durham on being a "color blind" reader

[Filippa Eilhart]

the market discriminates against Polish authors too most people only know Lem.

people should learn Polish to prevent this!

[salinea]

The first one is good. The comic less so, since some of those responses are quite true and proper, depending on the context they are offered.

I'm glad you liked the first one. I'm curious about when you think the responses are proper about the second?

The first issue here is to what degree racism is a problem in SF/F.

Well, it's more of an issue in Fantasy than in Science Fiction in the first place, but I think it's an issue in both cases.

You say there is a rarity of black writers in the field; that is also my impression. But what is the cause?

Okay. Complex causes, feeding off each others. Feeback loop.

If there's very very few Black writers and Black characters and Black thematics in SFF books in general, there will be less Black readership; therefore, they will eventually be less Black writers. So yes, that's one of the reason why there may be fewer Black people interrested in writing SFF.

At the same time, I assure you that I see often a lot of Black people interrested in writing and reading SFF who feel frustrated about how they're welcome, or how characters of colour are portrayed in those fictions. Some of this happen on the fandom level, some happen on the publishing industry level. I don't think it's 'let's keep the Black people from writing in SFF' so much as people thinking nobody will read them therefore skipping over them, you know? Racism because you assume the audience is going to be racist. (this is as true for literature as for TV, movie and comics btw).

I also think it's deplorable because SF/F as a genre has a particulary big potential about dealing with such issues. And it occasionnaly has done so. (think of Star Trek).

Rarity of black writers does not mean there is a problem of racial discrimination.

Do you think there's any reason why Black writers on average would be any less interested in the SFF genre than other people? I don't think melanin has any impact in people's interest in fiction, so... yeah. I think it's a good sign there's a problem somewhere.

Black protagonists are rare? Maybe so. That, alone, does not imply racism.

It's a problem when you cannot identify with any of the characters in the books you read. Feels frustrating.

It's not like there's some sort of a statistical quota that ought to be filled in a genre.

No, but it would be nice if, in the future everyone would not be white and American(or pseudo-American) and straight. Some SF books are actually very good at challenging that. Too bad not more do, because it makes for good SF.

First, if there is a problem, it has to be accurately identified. There can be no solution to an inaccurately or vaguely defined problem.

That's true. Which is another reason to pay more attention to the issue. When you become sensible to an issue because you've heard about it in such discussions are this one, you pay more attention to what happens in real, to the books you see, to how the characters are described and characterized.

I know my point of view on this issue has changed a lot because of such discussions I've read on the internet.

Now, if there is a significant problem, what to do about that? The primary motivation of people reading SF/F is that they enjoy reading SF/F, I think.

Tautology

If that is jeopardized by this problem, appropriate action ought to be taken regarding it; dealing with this problem ought not undercut enjoying literature.

Like Filippa, you don't think one can have fun while going out of the way to read something a bit different?

Okay, I see your point. You don't like being preached at. And you don't like feeling like you're doing homeworks when you pick books. I sympathize with that. I also think it's bloating a problem which is not that big.

Nobody can make you pick books you don't want to pick in any cases. But I think there's definitly some fun to be had even when you try something different on purpose.

A reader of SF/F has no moral obligation to actively study and analyze the genre from racial perspective--each issue has its own activists who specialize in that kind of thing.

I disagree with you. This is not someone else's problem.

I don't like the field that's my biggest hobby to have racism problem. This is a problem that concerns me because of that. I think the indifference you mention would be being complicit of the problem, collaborating with racism. Activism would be giving money or organizing events or doing something more proactive. This is something very simple, and doesn't require all that much work.

I also think simply thinking and talking about it as we do now is one first step, which is good. So there is that

Actively welcoming more black writers in the things we read? I can't agree with you there. I actively welcome good and entertaining writers, and I don't see how focusing on skin color is going to do that.

If good writers are being shafted because of the colour of their skin, yeah, I think trying to focus on them would improve welcoming good and entertaining writers.

Generally speaking, being careful to have a greater diversity means having more statistical chances of finding good writers. You widen the pool.

Racial problematics is a valid theme like any other--it should not be overused or it will become boring, though.

So are the themes White writers have been bringing to the story so far. More diversity = less boredom/less reuse of the same themes over and over.

[Rhaegon Targaryen]

Just a quick response to Rhaegon:

Well, let's see.

Now, if you found that unclear or ambiguous, I'm going to say (rarely for me) that it is not my fault. Perhaps you find it so because you confused it with the answer you were expecting.

Ok,with respect you did not answer my question.

And for a textbook example of an ambiguous statement, I give you:

"I'm not saying you should go out and buy books by a black author purely and solely because he/she is black. I'm saying two things: one, knowledge of the author's background adds to the experience of reading his/her work: two, a failure to even be curious about the background of authors you read is not a neutral action but amounts to an acceptance of the status quo."

What it seems to me that you are doing here is trying to have it both ways. You resist going all out and saying "yes, you should by a book because the author is black". You say instead that knowledge of an authors background adds to the experience of there work and the reader's failing point which I previously addressed, when I said that a reader owes no duty to an author. But surely if you believe these points to be true you are saying that people should buy some books because the authors are black?

You say you have not told people what they ought to do, but you have by implication because if you believe the things you say then you believe people should buy some books because the author is black.

Of course what people do is up to them. No-one here can force any one to do anything they don't want.

But what I say, is I would encourage readers NOT to choose to buy a book because of the race of the author.

[Padraig]

But what I say, is I would encourage readers NOT to choose to buy a book because of the race of the author.

RT, I presume you mean "only because of the race of the author"? I wouldn't have a problem with that statement. And i'm not sure its been argued for.

But I do think there are advantages in looking for some diversity when it comes to selecting authors. Some people like reading "safe" fiction. In other words they know what they are going to get when they pick up a book. But others like coming across new ideas/perspectives or situations. Even if a book isn't as well-written as another one, it can more than make up for those deficiencies by being simply different. That's why I get puzzled when people talk about "wanting to be entertained". Except if they prefer "safe fiction", surely they are avoiding quality entertainment by refusing to be more encompassing?

Things like Magical Negroes or Closer to the Earth primitives and all the spectrum of racial stereotypes (which even GRRM isn't above using, just to show you that racism is so instutionnal even a liberal minded and good writer like GRRM can fall into those trapping).

Stranger, while I think you have made some very interesting points, i'm curious about this. I'd like to see what GRRM would say. Is including a racial stereotype in a book a sign of racism? Now i'm not sure what specific cases you are talking about but it strikes me that ignoring all stereotypes (or introducing inverse stereotypes) is just being well, colour blind. "Lets pretend they don't exist".

[Altherion]

I think Durham did a much better and much more informed round up of ways the discrimination happens already than I could do, so I would suggest you going back to read those if you don't remember them.

I did, but I only see one relating to books (the AA section at Borders) and that one is not relevant for me.

You said you were in France currently. Is it in Paris? If so we have access to the same book stores right now (if not, I don't think you have access to many book stores in English apart from Amazon so point is moot ^^).

No, it is not Paris. It's Prevessin and St. Genis depending on whether I'm at work or at home. Basically, right across the border from Geneva, Switzerland. And you're right, there is only one big English bookstore down in Geneva and I haven't been there yet (maybe next weekend).

That's plenty of levels where discrimination may happen before it even hit the readership but which will have an impact on the readership nonewithstanding.

An impact, yes. A significant one? I don't think so. I rather like the books I read.

I really don't think what's being asked is such an extremely excrutiating thing to do. Buy a potentially interestin book every now and then that's a bit out of the way because the writer is Black (or South Asian, or gay, or South American). Is it that difficult?

No, it is not difficult... but that is assuming I remember to do so (which I probably won't; it is difficult to remember to do something contrary to one's ordinary actions).

Okay, thank you, that hadn't been clear to me. Bad experiences, then? Can you talk about them? (I'm curious).

With African-American authors? Only one that I remember (this was back in high school). It was a book called Black Ice (I looked it up on Amazon and there's a whole bunch of them; I believe the one I'm talking about is by Lorene Cary). Later (end of college) I was in London and wanted to try an Australian author not available in the US and bought The Black Magician Trilogy by Trudi Canavan. Again, tolerable... but not that good. There may have been some others, but I forget what they were (they clearly weren't that memorable ).

[john]

Is there a hierarchy of types of media to which we can apply this consumer diversification tactic? I'd say it's better to concentrate on things which have both a prevalent problem in this context, and on which we are more likely to bring about a change. Surely anglo-american TV, movies, press and general popular fiction would all come before the SFF subset in this respect. Should you stagger your efforts? Or should you take in to account this kind of mild affirmative action in all your consumer choices? The latter is probably going to dilute the effect.

But I suppose it's a question of balancing this with the desire to see diverse choices in a genre which is important to most of us here.

[mormont]

Ok,with respect you did not answer my question.

With respect, I most certainly did. If you are dissatisfied with the answer I gave, unfortunately that's your problem, not mine. I don't feel any need to simplify my answers for your satisfaction, I'm afraid. This is a complex issue and to simplify my answers would be to misrepresent my position.

You resist going all out and saying "yes, you should by a book because the author is black".

Indeed I do, because I don't believe you should do that. I've said so in as many words.

You say instead that knowledge of an authors background adds to the experience of there work and the reader's failing point which I previously addressed, when I said that a reader owes no duty to an author. But surely if you believe these points to be true you are saying that people should buy some books because the authors are black?

No, I'm saying what I've already said, repeatedly, which is that readers ought to give the issue some thought and that what they do thereafter is up to them. I've explicitly said that I'm not interested in dictating to people what they should do. Frankly, you're arguing with the position you think I ought to hold, not the one I've repeatedly and clearly stated. And again, that's your problem.

You say you have not told people what they ought to do, but you have by implication because if you believe the things you say then you believe people should buy some books because the author is black.

Here's an illustration of your other problem: reductivism. In your formulation of the issue, giving any consideration to race at all, even thinking about the issue, equals 'buying books because the author is black'. You have reduced the opposition's arguments to a position you feel you can deal with, and appear disinterested in engaging with them on any level above this. This might be why you find my answers ambiguous or unclear: you are unable to reduce them to this position. But again, that's your problem, not mine.

I don't intend to devote any more time to 'explaining' statements that, frankly, don't need any explanation. Any trouble you're having with them is frankly not my problem.

[Rhaegon Targaryen]

With respect, I most certainly did. If you are dissatisfied with the answer I gave, unfortunately that's your problem, not mine. I don't feel any need to simplify my answers for your satisfaction, I'm afraid. This is a complex issue and to simplify my answers would be to misrepresent my position.

Indeed I do, because I don't believe you should do that. I've said so in as many words.

No, I'm saying what I've already said, repeatedly, which is that readers ought to give the issue some thought and that what they do thereafter is up to them. I've explicitly said that I'm not interested in dictating to people what they should do. Frankly, you're arguing with the position you think I ought to hold, not the one I've repeatedly and clearly stated. And again, that's your problem.

Here's an illustration of your other problem: reductivism. In your formulation of the issue, giving any consideration to race at all, even thinking about the issue, equals 'buying books because the author is black'. You have reduced the opposition's arguments to a position you feel you can deal with, and appear disinterested in engaging with them on any level above this. This might be why you find my answers ambiguous or unclear: you are unable to reduce them to this position. But again, that's your problem, not mine.

I don't intend to devote any more time to 'explaining' statements that, frankly, don't need any explanation. Any trouble you're having with them is frankly not my problem.

I find your answers ambiguous and unclear because they are ambiguous and unclear. Your assertion to the contrary notwithstanding. It seems from your tone that I touched a nerve.

On my "reductivism", there's nothing wrong with looking for a straight answer to what were simple questions from me. Here they are again:

"How should the conscientious reader be helped to select books to read by differing ethnicities they otherwise would not read though? Should all books have a picture of the author to help readers racially profile the authors? Should black and white authors be stocked in different areas?"

Of course you don't have to answer them.

Instead the answers you gave were wishy washy equivocations "I'm not saying you should buy a book purely and solely because the author is black" which means you think it should be one of the reasons you buy a book "I have suggested its worth reflecting on the issue". Trite and irrelevant since we are all discussing it here, meaning we are reflecting on it.

Thanks for helping me with my problems too.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

The main problem with reductivism is that not all questions have straight answers. Not all reductions accurately express the meaning behind either the questions or the answers given -- notably, your earlier attempts to "simplify" mormont's responses actually mischaracterised them entirely.

[TerraPrime]

I am finding this hardcore resistance to consider the author's characteristics in our reading habits quite eye-opening.

For me, I definitely do consider an author's characteristics in my reading. That includes politics, too. I've abstained from buying books that I know I would enjoy because I disagree, strongly, with the politics of the author. I've also bought books before where I am not so sure that I would like the book, but I want to financially support an author who's a member of the minority. I will likely keep doing this in the future. No book is good enough that I must pay for it to support an odious political stance. If I really want to read it, there's always the library or borrowing from friends. Mostly, I find myself completely turned off from the book if I find the author unworthy of respect as a human being. Buying a book is not some form of abstract philosophical thought. It has definite and measurable economic impact in our world. If I want to spend my money in support of minority authors, then I will. Race of the author is one of many factors that I use in deciding what to purchase. I do not consider it to be racism, because I am making no judgment on the quality of the book or the ability of the author.

Re: Rhaegon Targaryen

"How should the conscientious reader be helped to select books to read by differing ethnicities they otherwise would not read though? Should all books have a picture of the author to help readers racially profile the authors? Should black and white authors be stocked in different areas?"

These questions are a tad silly. It's entirely up to the author and publisher to decide whether the author's biographical info relating to the author's ethnicity should be provided in the book flaps. The potential purchaser of the book can only go by what's provided, except in cases where the reader has done the homework beforehand. It is also not true that every book a conscientious reader buys must come from a minority author. It simply means that the reader pays attention to the issue when there's information about it. I know that in my collection, most of my books are probably by white authors. However, my collection probably has a higher percentage of female authors and books relating to and/or portraying gay themes in SF/F. What your questions implied is that the consideration must be in effect constantly, whereas I for one am not advocating that at all. Merely having the awareness of the issue and seeing the information when it's presented to you is rather sufficient, imo.

Finally, one of the points of Durham's original posting, with regards to the African American Literature section, is that the playing field is not even. The selection based on race has been made for the buyer beforehand, by the publisher, the promoter, the bookstore, or all the above. Race has been used as a metric in judging books, and it's done before the readers get a chance. Therefore, as readers, it behooves us to dig deeper and be more aware of the (sometimes) biased selection that we're given. If one is deliberately unaware of the author's race or ethnicity, then how would one even know that the selection is screened beforehand? If you go to a shoe store and every pair of shoe you can see is red, wouldn't you wonder where the other shoes are, and why aren't you given other choices to choose from? I mean, you might still end up buying a pair of red shoes, but having the option would be nice, don't you think?

[Nous]

Stranger,

I'm glad you liked the first one. I'm curious about when you think the responses are proper about the second?

"Race doesn't matter to me" can be true.

"I did it all on my own" Also.

"To be fair. We should be talking about racism against whites, too." If the topic is racism as such, there is no point pretending racism is limited to people of one pigmentation only.

"Our ancestors got here after slavery." A legitimate rejoinder to people who advocate reparations for slavery, or any other kind of blood-guilt over it.

Do you think there's any reason why Black writers on average would be any less interested in the SFF genre than other people? I don't think melanin has any impact in people's interest in fiction, so... yeah. I think it's a good sign there's a problem somewhere.

Melanin has no impact on music taste, either. Yet blacks tend to prefer rap to heavy metal. (That is a problem, all right.) I can think of a few reasons... but they would be guesswork.

It's a problem when you cannot identify with any of the characters in the books you read. Feels frustrating.

I could identify with Ged just fine. Human experience is universal. If race forms a significant part of your identity, that could be different.

Tautology (IMG:style_emoticons/New/smiley2.gif)

And disgustingly wishy-washy, too.

I disagree with you. This is not someone else's problem.

I don't like the field that's my biggest hobby to have racism problem. This is a problem that concerns me because of that. I think the indifference you mention would be being complicit of the problem, collaborating with racism. Activism would be giving money or organizing events or doing something more proactive. This is something very simple, and doesn't require all that much work.

I also think simply thinking and talking about it as we do now is one first step, which is good. So there is that

There are a thousand ideological issues other than racism that one could analyze the genre for, many of them with great moral relevance in real world. That does not mean that a person who is trying to enjoy a book should actively analyze its position on every one of those issues. I have no obligation whatsoever to become an anti-racist activist, activist for sound principles in judicial system, or an activist for any other cause that does not cross a certain threshold in its relevance to my life. Color balance in SF/F genre most assuredly does not cross this threshold. I do consider myself obligated to speak out if my convictions are breached in my presence and my silence would be taken as agreement...otherwise it's a matter of my interests and my hierarchy of values. My primary interest in SF/F is enjoyment--I'll let somebody else analyze it from racial perspective.

If good writers are being shafted because of the colour of their skin, yeah, I think trying to focus on them would improve welcoming good and entertaining writers.

Generally speaking, being careful to have a greater diversity means having more statistical chances of finding good writers. You widen the pool.

They are already in my pool. I just don't go diving after them unless I think they look more interesting than the other writers.

[Maltaran]

the market discriminates against Polish authors too most people only know Lem.

Hey! I know of Sapkowski as well.

[Larry.]

OK, since it seems some are wrapping themselves around this notion that others are "demanding" that they read culturally diverse writings, I want to excerpt some bits from Durham's latest blog entry on the issue:

And that's a big part of my objection to "color blind" reading. It's hard for me to separate it from wishful thinking. Of course I want to live in a world not so plagued by racial strife. It's simply that I don't think we get nearer to that by announcing that race just doesn't matter and hoping that doing so makes the problem go away. It does matter - and I hope some of the examples from my life illustrate that. If those examples give you pause for thought - good. If you read other black authors you'd find those experiences not at all unusual (they're often a lot worse), and you'd read many more things that would give you pause for thought. I firmly believe that we'd all understand each other better if we read more widely, and reading widely has to be intentional.

The last part contains an excellent reason (in my opinion, admittedly) why one ought to be "intentionally" seeking out all sorts of readings - in order to understand each other better. In an age where it seems (in my country at least, although I've heard quite a bit in the news in recent years about race/ethnic-related riots or attacks in Britain, France, and Germany for example with Muslims from North Africa, India/Pakistan, and Turkey) that people are self-segregating ("white flight" to the suburbs, the labelling of certain styles of music as "urban" or "black" - even when suburban whites, who used to be pejoratively called "wiggers," constitute a major percentage of the listening audience, - the sports one enjoys to watch, etc.), it might bear keeping in mind that without an intentional seeking out of "something different," it is very easy to fall into a routine that might be influenced by societal inclinations that you barely have to give thought to. "Why consider that stuff over there? This stuff here pleases me. I like it. It's like comfort food to me." - thoughts similar to these are voiced in various ways by quite a few. Of course you don't have have to consider anything, or do anything, or change anything at all. After all, this world is already so perfect and everyone gets long so well and there's no grounds for anyone to question why one's society is structured the way it is, right?

Right? Is that what I'm reading into what some are saying? That it's not their responsibility for anything that goes on in a society? Or are there exceptions to this...or is this belief wholly mistaken at its core and that people instead are responsible to make their voice heard if something is going wrong in their society?

Would I want you to read something from a "segregated section just because it was from there"? Of course not. And I never said anything like that. My original post was about 1) pointing out that there is a segregated section, 2) noting that if you don't know it's there or go to it you're not being presented with enough options to make that "color blind" claim mean anything and 3) encouraging you and others to read diversely because there's so much great stuff out there, and reading outside your normal parameters offers a wealth of experiences and perspectives that can enrich your understanding of what it means to be a human on this planet.

This is how I interpret what Durham is saying here: If we do not question why things are the way they are, then it is very easy to fall into the trap of believing that which we see is all that there is. If you walk into a bookstore (using the original example) and you go to a section that is already culled of virtually all the visible minorities, how do you know that you are getting the whole picture? Maybe one prefers pale-skinned superbadasses for all their reading, but how can one know without trying if other styles might not be rewarding? And if these other styles have already been culled from the SFF section and placed elsewhere, would you be content to stay with the rather limited selection without looking at all elsewhere for an occasional example of a different perspective?

Some of you I would imagine would say "yes, I would" to this and would be happy to stay where you are, reading just minor variations of books that you've read before. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but nothing is inherently right about it as well. It is neutral, almost. But when the choice has largely been taken away from the consumer due to how the books have been marketed/positioned in stores, if the consumer/reader is not aware that there are other perspectives out there, would it be safe to presume that if made aware of this, some consumers/readers might feel a bit "cheated" and want to know just what is out there in the "other" sections of the imagined bookstore that might appeal to them, both as entertainment and perhaps as something thought-provoking as well?

It's this unawareness of what's going on that makes "color blindness" seem so...off. Just as people who are red-green colorblind cannot recognize all the beauty of colors in our world, those who cop to "color blindness" appear to be putting blinkers on to what is going on. After all, "color" might not matter to one personally...one will just continue in the same old habits, perhaps. But when others are affected by this other person's unawareness of what's transpiring, "color blindness" just seems to be more blind eyes turned to practices of not just suppressing an author's background, but also his/her books from appearing in the favorite haunts of SFF fans (for one of many examples). Perhaps it might be better to be aware that there are different groups out there with different perspectives and that if one wants to understand these groups and perhaps integrate their perspectives with one's own to create something more connected with the whole of humanity, it might behoove someone to just explore. No demands, no exhortations, ought to be something one should be moved to do on one's own initiative. And chances are one will find hundreds, if not thousands, of books that will be very enjoyable, very well-read, which will stick with you for years and years.

What's to lose? Seems to me, there are only things to gain

[Filippa Eilhart]

well, i went to see caramel, so i did my part for expanding horizons this year.

--

TP,

For me, I definitely do consider an author's characteristics in my reading. That includes politics, too. I've abstained from buying books that I know I would enjoy because I disagree, strongly, with the politics of the author.

that happened to me once. I stopped buying an author because i drastically disagree with his politics. The thing is, he's a good author, and I'm missing out, and he doesn't even include much politics in his writings, but i still can't force myself to read him. So after that, I decided I won't try and find out about other authors' political leanings.

[john]

Mievilles politics are quite extreme (and somewhat suspect, imo). So you should give up reading the Scar.

[Black Dow]

Mievilles politics are quite extreme (and somewhat suspect, imo). So you should give up reading the Scar.

Yes...truthfully, I'd prefer (if forced to choose) Goodkind's Objectivism to Mieville's Marxism. However, it would seem that bashing Marxism would be quite unpopular on this board, so I'd best leave it at that

[hyperbion]

I suppose the issue sounds more reasonable to me if one takes from the article as advice, not "go and buy more books by black people", but instead the much milder and more reasonable "while you browse the SF/F section, look through the AA fiction section for a couple minutes as well, because there could be some good SF/F books erroneously shelved there as well" (or whatever section you're browsing through).

That's about the best a reader could be expected to do if publishers/bookstore chains still miscategorize genre works by authors or a particular race into a separate racial section rather than the genre's section. That is a goal we can all agree on, right? That the average book be categorized in the bookstore based on its content, not on its authorship?

As for reading with an awareness of race and racial issues: I still say that "colorblind" doesn't mean you don't. Speaking as a "colorblind" reader, I believe that "colorblind" readers are more aware than the average other reader about diverse cultural points of view, and are more likely to read and appreciate minority perspectives in literature. The mere fact that you carry around an admonishment against prejudice as a self-identifier seems indicative that such issues are important to you on some level, and at least that you are aware that racism is not a solved issue.

Thus I think that Durham, in addressing his points about "reading with an awareness of diversity" etc. squarely at self-identifying "colorblind" readers, is just preaching to the choir.