David Anthony Durham on being a "color blind" reader

[Rhaegon Targaryen]

It's my responsability to not be racist, it's not my responsability to be an activist for minority groups. I'm sorry but I can't think that not going out of your way to favor some few selected minorities is racism. I might add that it's not doing nothing than trying to be fair, much to the contrary, it's contributing to a society without bias. In my humble opinion, of course.

Bingo!

[salinea]

Well, because in this case you're always unconsciously racist, one way or another, since the world is not perfectly fair.

I think everyone is racist, yes (and I include myself). Not to the same degree, though, which does make a difference. However it's not "because the world is not perfeclty fair".

How does that prove that racism cannot be unconcious?

If the intent is enough then those guys trying to not be racist in a way you disagree with are ok, but if it's a matter of implication depth, then it becomes problematic.

I've no clue what you're saying I'm afraid.

What a bastard you are, giving money to white people for nearly everything in your life, instead of going out of your way to seek the minorities to support significantly enough, on this note.

Strawman.

Yet that's the exact argument used by both sides, you just need to replace colour blind by ethnically aware.

Both sides? Which sides?

excuse me are you a member of a visible minority in the place you're living?

Because the condemnation of "colour blindness" (in this specific context of disclaiming responsability to try not to be racist) is something I've seen very often coming from People of Colour.

I know it sounds like appeal to authority but this is one case when I think that the people who do have occasion to suffer from racism have more of a say than random white people.

I know it might come of across as odd, but they tend to know a bit more about the experience of suffering from racism, so I think it's fair to listen to them more.

Take the previous arguments about people being "unconsciously racists" and you can synthetize them that way too. So everyone is racist except those who agree with me... (neener neener)

You're not interested in not being racist. You're interested into proving how non racist you are to other people.

You're the only one who cares about the "neener neener" part.

Maybe we could forget about the word racism and talk about acceptable discriminations? From my standpoint, if you compromises your principles in order to counter something already compromised, you compound the mindset that it's OK to be unfair and all goes downhill from there. That's why I don't want to discriminate a priori, at least consciously.

OMG it is so compromising to my principles to try to read books by writers I don't usually see in my usual shelf of SF/F. How could I ever live with myself again?! I can barely stand to see my face in the mirror!

It's my responsability to not be racist, it's not my responsability to be an activist for minority groups.

I'm sorry, are you actualling calling talking about racism, trying to see things from minorities' PoV and buying books by Black writers "being an activist"? Please, think this again. Activism involves something more pro-active and involving than that.

I'm sorry but I can't think that not going out of your way to favor some few selected minorities is racism.

If you want me to reformulate that without using that pesky r-word. No, it doesn't make you a nazi. It does make a collaborator.

I might add that it's not doing nothing than trying to be fair, much to the contrary, it's contributing to a society without bias. In my humble opinion, of course.

Of course if you keep being stubbornly ignorant about your "lack of biais" because you never get out of your way to find out how not lacking they are, then you're totally contributing to a fair society. Congratulation on your fairness.

[Errant Bard]

If you want me to reformulate that without using that pesky r-word. No, it doesn't make you a nazi. It does make a collaborator.

A Godwin hidden in a strawman. Wow.

Now, you will have to excuse me if I bow out, I have a few trains of jews to send to death camps.

[salinea]

A Godwin hidden in a strawman. Wow.

Now, you will have to excuse me if I bow out, I have a few trains of jews to send to death camps.

Nah, Godwin's about nazi, not collaborator. That's one comparison that's not memetic yet afaik.

[Nerdanel]

I don't use Amazon.com myself. (I don't have a credit card, I don't want a credit card, and if I had a credit card I would be too paranoid to give its number over the Internet.) I'm completely free of all African American categorization. I have ordered books over the Internet, but none of the sites had even the innocent "if you liked this book" automated recommendations. Just saying. There is a world outside of America.

I guess, though, that somebody could make a case that by reading Internet forums I'm participating into institutional bias since some people on the same forums are from countries with African American sections... I'm completely unbothered by this, however.

[Nous]

There are no semi-sensible criteria by which it would be reasonable to choose your books based on their author's skin color. That's taking "judging a book by its cover" to a whole new level. Even if you for some reason want to understand some specific cultural experience, race would still be a tangential factor; an African man would have no better insight into what it was like to grow up black in the South during the 60s than a Scandinavian. If I wanted a writer to have personal experience of what he's talking about, I'd find out whether he actually went through that cultural experience or not.

Is taking an author's pigmentation into consideration when selecting going to lead me to better books? More skilfully constructed plots? Greater reading experiences? More insight and wisdom? More enjoyment? No. Therefore, I ignore it.

If other people's ( =society's) racism acts as a filter of some kind that prevents me from maximizing my reading experience, well, that's bad. But there is no cure for it other than just trying one's best to find interesting books, based on recommendations. Digging extra-deep into books written by members of minorities that are discriminated against, on the theory that there must be undiscovered gems, might be a good idea for a publisher or a critic, but it's not feasible for a regular reader; he must rely on critics and word-of-mouth and browsing.

yadda yadda, back to the 'people who try not to be racist are the true racist, because they're not colour blinds like me!' Which is exactly why the use of 'colour blind' used like this is an issue.

Yes, that's the issue. Not individuals' racism, but the society's racism. Yet the problem is society is made out of individuals. if we let the issue stands as is, who's going to make the change? Do you think it's not your responsability as well? Even if it's just in little, tiny things? You can't do much to change society besides talk about it, speak against racism when you see it, and yes, try to get to know people from minorities or at least see things from their PoV (including buying books written by them ^^). You're not a horrible person if you don't do those things, but that means you do go along with the flow of society's racism. And yes, it's is our (your and mine and everyone else's) problem and responsability to do such thing. Don't let only minority people speak out.

No one said it would be easy.

I don't see how being a color-blind means going along with the flow of society's racism. If the society is racist, i.e. not color-blind, being color-blind does go against the flow. You don't have to be trying to turn the flow to go against it.

And being color-blind and acting against racism are hardly mutually exclusive.

[mormont]

Ethnicity and skin tone may not be interchangeable, but skin tone is an indicator of ethnicity is it not?

Not always, no. And I'm not sure I get your point there anyway: does that mean they can be used interchangeably? You've just said that it doesn't, so I can't see what your point is.

On your point on the conflation of racial awareness and rascism, what's really the difference? Which discrimination on the basis of race is acceptable?

Buying books based on the author's ethnicity, race whatever, is rascism is it not?

Yes, and black is white and up is down.

The difference between racial awareness and racism is simple and has already been stated clearly: the former is information. The latter is action.

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 I have not done is tell people what they ought to do if these things are true. People are, frankly, filling that bit in themselves, drawing their own conclusions and then reacting to those. Well, that's not quite true: I have suggested that it's worth reflecting on the issue.

But frankly, people are far too busy establishing their unimpeachable credentials as prejudice-free robots who never even stop to think about race to notice that the only thing I have suggested they do is just that: stop to think. What you do after that is up to you.

After all, as I've already said, I'm not vain enough to think I've got the answer to the equality/diversity problem, which has challenged better men than I. But I do know that the one thing that encourages prejudice more than anything else is an unquestioning acceptance of one's own attitudes as 'right'.

[Larry.]

Here's an interesting take on the larger issue that seems to be coming up. Food for thought?

[Maltaran]

But frankly, people are far too busy establishing their unimpeachable credentials as prejudice-free robots who never even stop to think about race to notice that the only thing I have suggested they do is just that: stop to think. What you do after that is up to you.

Robot? No, I'm just lazy. If the book looks interesting, I'll buy it and read it, but I'm unlikely to try and find out anything about the author other than what's in the profile on the inside back cover. I read books mainly for enjoyment, and the author's background seems to me an irrelevant factor in the equation of whether or not I'll enjoy their work. (I could tell Wizard's First Rule was crap without knowing about Tairy's philosophical beliefs, for example)

[Eurytus]

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.

An acceptance of what status quo precisely?

[gabola71]

I would kindly suggest in the future that in reading any work of fiction or non-fiction that one consider not just the text, but the author and the author's perspective. Doesn't mean accept those perspectives, but to consider them and to see where he/she is going with them. To read a text without considering the person who transmitted the text is just baffling to me - must be all those darn pesky historiographical courses I had to endure where we had to note why Author X argued this and why Author Y counters with this. But in such a context, an author's background, interests, biases are vital for a fuller understanding of a text. After all, I'd shudder to know if García Márquez's OHYS is being read as a "colorblind" bourgeois novel, as that would mean so many subtextual bits are being missed or misinterpreted.

I quoted the above to ask how much can you really know an Author. Seriously, so Daivd is an African American, did he grow up with privilage? did he come from a working class family? was he picked on in highschool? did he experiment with drugs in his late teens/early twenties? Do we not fill in the blanks with our own thoughts on what they experienced, in short our own steroetypes? If that is the case then I would prefer to be "color blind" and by that I mean not taking the color/sex/nationality of the author into account when selecting books. Maybe I am just lazy, but I really don't have the time or interest in finding out the racial background and full history on authors in order to enjoy a good story. I try to let the written word speak for itself.

I'm really enjoying this thread and agree with many things said. I am trying to challenge myself on this subject but keep coming back to my original thoughts on the whole "color blind" thing. Its a matter of definition of the phrase that is throwing me off. My definition is very much in line with hyperbions.

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 really do think that being color blind is not a bad thing (using my personal definition) and take offense if someone feels that I am part of a problem for that.

Is this my first post? If so then just want to say I love the Literature portion of this message board and have found many wonderful reads thanks to the posters here. I enjoy all of your insights and have created numerous lists thanks to the many topics.

[Larry.]

Some good questions there. First, what I know is an author who worked his way through an MFA program. That he's from a multicultural situation, both growing up and with his wife/children today. That these are things that he's talked about and that they are questions that have been asked of him before (I did help interview him a couple of months ago). As I read before and during a novel reading, I do like to know as much as is feasible about an author's take on life. It was rewarding, for example, to know that Elizabeth Moon was inspired to write her Nebula-winning novel The Speed of Dark because her son has autism (the main character is high-functioning autistic). To know that Erikson's Malazan books are a reflection of his training as an anthropologist helps as well. To know that Gene Wolfe's Catholic beliefs inform a lot of his fiction enables the astute/well-read reader to pick out certain nuances in his stories, without said stories being incomprehensible to those who do not know who St. Catherine was or about her martyrdom. To know that an author may have experienced prejudicial treatment due to the color of skin, genitals, religion, etc. is often helpful in understanding where they are coming from.

Reading a text is not a solitary thing. Right now, you're reading this bit of electronic "type" done by someone who may be from the same town, or a different state, or a different country altogether. This writer, who has a blue emblem that identifies himself as "Male," may have already given you some clues on how to interpret what he is writing. After all, these words that appear on your screen (and on the screens of others who click on this) are but symbols of my thoughts, which in turn are symbols themselves. Are they going to be interpreted as someone who is seeking to compel others to accept his words, are they being written from the fashion of someone who has acknowledged privilege and yet has experienced, albeit briefly, the stripping away of it? Are these electronically typed symbols those of a benighted crusader, or of a cynic? But most importantly, are these words neutral?

I do not believe that they are. Just as I accept and am curious about those on the other sides of this conversation - how am I interpreting their words? Why are they coding things in such repetitive patterns? Is it really this endemic? Am I different? If so, is being "different" a "bad" thing to be? What if I were to say the wrong thing at the wrong time to the wrong person - will there be a lot of heated argument with electronically-typed words spewing across dozens of screens within the hour? What if I know that I'm "right" from my vantage point, but that I might be mistaken and say something foolish from theirs?

No, I just cannot believe the Author can be left out of this. We probably have a case of the Author as a person transcribing thoughts/symbols into a publicly-communicated form, the perception of the Author by the Reader, the Text as interpreted by its author, the Text as interpreted by the Reader, and the Reader, who often does not know how to interpret him/herself in context to others or what's being presented within the Text.

So many ways to go from here, so many ways fraught with the potential for "error" and "discord!" Maybe this is why considering how you (in general, or y'all, to give you a bit more about my origins) react to texts and thus to one's own perceptions of the Author is very important to consider. To say that you don't consider the Author at all....well, that's just plain "blindness" to what's provoking your reactions to that Text, whatever those reactions might be. And if that Author (as person who wrote the Text, not the perception of Author by Reader) were to learn that he/she's been "discarded" and told that "it doesn't matter," then what do you expect for that Author to do? Be happy about it? Or to ask questions, be confused, be irritated, etc.? And if the Author were to be told that the things that shaped his/her life are "not seen", then what questions will the Author ask then?

So many sides to this. All I'm asking for is for people (as mormont says above) to stop and to think/consider the implications of their position. That's what Durham did in that initial post with his questions. If you've ever read a moving tale that might be inspired by the Author's life/experiences and don't question why said story was written - are you getting the full picture?

[Padraig]

And if that Author (as person who wrote the Text, not the perception of Author by Reader) were to learn that he/she's been "discarded" and told that "it doesn't matter," then what do you expect for that Author to do? Be happy about it? Or to ask questions, be confused, be irritated, etc.? And if the Author were to be told that the things that shaped his/her life are "not seen", then what questions will the Author ask then?

I'm always a little sceptical when we seem to be moving into generalisations. Do all authors expect/hope their readers to come away from a book wanting to know about the lives and experiences of the author? The personal experience people had reading there book may be the only thing important to them. (I admit. I don't know. I know few authors).

Do we not fill in the blanks with our own thoughts on what they experienced, in short our own steroetypes?

I think challenging these steroetypes is what is to be aspired to. (I do agree that we all have biases in some fashion, rightly or wrongly). One can never know everything about an author but at the same time, its hard to escape knowing nothing (most books say something about the author after all). That's why aspiration is the key word.

At the same time, I think how "colour blind" is defined is important. Many people see it in different ways.

[gabola71]

First and foremost I want to be entertained. Maybe I am a simple person but I think that I can be entertained well enough by an Authors work based solely on that work and not by the Authors history while knowing that history has an impact on the story being told. Should I not judge the book Velum on its writing style and content? I can and do make a judgment on that basis rather than him/her being Black/Asian/homosexual/economically disadvantaged while growing up or whether or not he/she was overweight. Does my knowing his race help that it jumps around in time and dimension? Am I missing out on a part of the greater understanding? Possibly but I still think that books should be judged by the actual work not our limited understanding of their life's struggles, well documented or assumed. I guess I just haven't gained more pleasure for a work by knowing pieces of the background/history of an author. OK, I am shallow.

You definitely know your authors but I would guess that most people don't go through the trouble of tracking down that information when looking for and judging a book. I might read the occasional book sleeve and note that they live in Sante Fe but don't make assumptions based off of that, who knows they might be from NY or something. That probably speaks more to myself and the way I lead my life but it is what it is.

Having said all that, I often do research after reading a book I really enjoy to get some background on Authors. Robin Hobb being married to a sailor helped her write a better nautical tale but again I think its the story that was good and which benefited first and foremost. Did learning that fact after having read the book enhance my enjoyment? No, it was already taken care of by the good books. Would it have helped if I thought poorly of the books?

Maybe there are different levels to enjoyment for different people when reading a book. Some take more digging and assumed or known understanding of an author while others are a straight up judgment of the work. I salute those of you who do find more enjoyment from asking the questions and pondering the motives but I am quite happy to take my enjoyment simply from the written words.

I guess I could research authors before I read their works, maybe I'll give that a go but then am I doing a disservice to their work? Or is the real trick being able to read the book knowing the Author's history and still judging that book on its merits rather than my understanding/prejudices? Many questions to ponder. I still thought Feast for Crows was weak even though GRRM is a Giants fan.

[Rhaegon Targaryen]

Not always, no. And I'm not sure I get your point there anyway: does that mean they can be used interchangeably? You've just said that it doesn't, so I can't see what your point is.

Yes, and black is white and up is down.

The difference between racial awareness and racism is simple and has already been stated clearly: the former is information. The latter is action.

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 I have not done is tell people what they ought to do if these things are true. People are, frankly, filling that bit in themselves, drawing their own conclusions and then reacting to those. Well, that's not quite true: I have suggested that it's worth reflecting on the issue.

But frankly, people are far too busy establishing their unimpeachable credentials as prejudice-free robots who never even stop to think about race to notice that the only thing I have suggested they do is just that: stop to think. What you do after that is up to you.

After all, as I've already said, I'm not vain enough to think I've got the answer to the equality/diversity problem, which has challenged better men than I. But I do know that the one thing that encourages prejudice more than anything else is an unquestioning acceptance of one's own attitudes as 'right'.

You don't think skin tone is an indicator of ethnicity? I'm not saying it's the only one but come on, it's the main one, and especially in the context of this discussion, i.e. Mr. Durham's comments on african american authors etc.. This however is not what we're talking about here.

Buying books because an author is of African-American extraction IS discriminating on the basis of race. You must see that, and while you may think that's an acceptable reason for buying a book, I don't.

I disagree with your statement that not being curious about an author's background is not a neutral action. It's not an action at all. It's not a failing in the reader. The reader has no duty or responsibility to the author, other than to pay for the book.

In response to your assertion that you are not telling people what they ought to do, you are saying people should have regard to the author of the book that they are reading's racial/cultural background are you not? If not what are you saying?

[mormont]

Eurytus, Rhaegon: you are asking me questions I've already given answers to, and I pretty much thought they were clear and unambiguous answers. I don't like repeating myself: so I won't.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

But mormont, this time you might think differently!!

[Rhaegon Targaryen]

Eurytus, Rhaegon: you are asking me questions I've already given answers to, and I pretty much thought they were clear and unambiguous answers. I don't like repeating myself: so I won't.

I suppose the answers were not clear and unambiguous then.

I'll boil it down to one question. Should the race of an author be a factor in choosing whether or not to buy or read a book, and let's say it is a fantasy book in this case?

[Larry.]

Rhaegon, others,

You might be interested to read Durham's own response to a related issue. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to ask the guy himself more about this.

[TerraPrime]

I've responded to two diff entries at Durham's blog.