1 / 13
Aug 2022

When it comes to your fiction, these two statements are not contradictory:

  • The reader does not want to hear what you have to say.

  • The reader is very interested in knowing what you think.

Why aren't these statements a contradiction? The answer is that while the reader does not read your fiction to get a lecture, they are reading your fiction to see what you will explore. The reader is actually very interested in what thoughts are in your brain - they wouldn't be reading your story otherwise - but they want to see it explored through your characters. They don't want a diatribe on the horrors of systemic racism...they want to watch as your characters encounter, fight, and overcome it.

So, if you want to explore an issue such as systemic racism, homophobia, class iniquity, etc., how do you do it? More specifically, how do you do it while avoiding being written off as "woke" nonsense, or just another activist writer preaching "The Message"?

The answer comes down to a simple principle: Take no short cuts.

This is a problem I see in a lot of "woke" storytelling: writers thinking that because they have a character who is a visible minority/from a perceived marginalized group or because they are tackling a societal issue such as racism or sexism, that they are therefore freed from the confines of having to do the legwork when it comes to proper character development or narrative. In a way, they are treating things as tropes (storytelling shortcuts) that are not actually tropes. The end result is a story that is simplified to the point of absurdity - the reader or viewer knows, for example, that not all black people are helpless victims, or that not all white people are racist oppressors - and thus has no feeling of a greater truth behind it, or even fidelity (or sometimes sincerity).

But, while many of the "woke" storytellers will turn on their detractors and declare that their failure to capture the imagination of their audience is because of societal or fan-based bigotry, the reality is that social issue-based storytelling has been a staple of fiction for centuries. Harriet Beecher Stowe's 1852 novel Uncle Tom's Cabin was not only a massive success, it laid some of the groundwork for the American Civil War. The vast majority of readers will happily read and accept explorations of the struggle against iniquity...so long as it is done right.

What this means is that if you want to tackle racism, you must have fully developed characters with agency. There must be a fully developed narrative with an inciting incident, story beats and reverses, and a climax. The protagonist must grow as a character and be changed from the experience, finishing the story in a different place and as a different person than when the story started.

So, what might this look like? Let's create a hypothetical example of a black American teenager who, more than anything in the world, wants to be a famous musician. Through their story, we will explore systemic discrimination.

(Before I go further, I need to preface this example by stating that I know very little about the music industry. I am creating this example for the purpose of illustrating the mechanism, and thus this should not be taken as anything resembling an accurate depiction of how one becomes a musician.)

We must start by developing our character. "Black" is not a character. Who is our protagonist, and what do they want? What is holding them back from what they want? Let's say that our protagonist is an inner city kid. Their family isn't doing very well, and is barely scraping by. This means that they can't afford to send the protagonist to a music school - it also means that the protagonist starts the story by being torn over whether to enter the workforce and help pay the bills, or to chase their dream with the knowledge that by doing so their family will remain in poverty. We now have a properly realized character that any reader will be able to identify with. Our inciting incident thus becomes our protagonist conquering their first antagonist (their own fear about what will happen to their family if they don't enter the workforce) and applying to a music school in the hopes of getting a scholarship.

The good news is that our protagonist is very good at music - a prodigy, even, if left in the right hands to bring out their talent. Unfortunately, the first school they apply to is led by a racist who thinks that there is too much "black" influence in modern music - our initial, and possibly main antagonist. He rejects our protagonist's application. Our protagonist realizes that he should have been accepted, and complains. In response, the antagonist uses his influence in the system to blacklist the protagonist from every music school in the state. The entire system now becomes an antagonist to be overcome.

Our protagonist must now adapt. As they can no longer chase their dreams through a proper school, they must find somebody to take them under their wing. Perhaps a world-famous cellist finds them, recognizes their talent, and agrees to mentor them. Perhaps they find themselves playing Jazz clubs for tips to make ends meet, and attract the attention of an old but revered Jazz musician. As our story follows the protagonist work around the system that rejected them, they must still face the same stresses and pressures that anybody would in their shoes - they must still have that temptation to give up on their dream and just join the workforce to help their family make ends meet, and this must be a constant struggle for them. As our protagonist continues their journey, they also meet a variety of people who react to them and their situation in a manner that would be logical for their character.

Our protagonist becomes ready for their "graduation," and we reach a crisis point in the story. The antagonist has been following the protagonist's career, and is incensed by their success - how dare they not give up and just go away after the entire system has been turned against them! Now - as the protagonist begins seeking to join an orchestra where they can continue their career in earnest, he uses his influence to blacklist them from the orchestras as well. The climax is determined by what our protagonist does next. Perhaps they take the antagonist to court, exposing their misdeeds to the world. Perhaps they set up outside of the orchestra manager's house and play such beautiful music that the manager cannot possibly ignore it. Perhaps they give up on the system entirely, going independent and becoming a famous musician that way.

What is important about this example is that, in it, no short cuts are taken. The protagonist is a properly developed character, torn by their dreams of becoming a musician and their desire to see their family no longer struggle. They have agency throughout, making their own decisions and acting to achieve their desires. The system is turned against them because of the colour of their skin, but the people the protagonist meets along the way are themselves fully realized characters with their own way of looking at the world and their own reactions to the unfairness of the system. The reader sees the cruelty of the system when it is abused, but they see its complexities as well, and what it could be if it was truly fair. Most of all, the protagonist changes throughout the story. Perhaps they begin as an idealist and are transformed into a pragmatist and a realist. Perhaps it is the other way around - they have to be convinced to chase their dreams, and as they do they realize that no system discriminating against them can hold them down...after all, there is always another way. And, because no short cuts are taken, the story is a proper exploration without ever being a lecture - something the reader can read and enjoy because they have a protagonist they want to root for and succeed, and they are witnessing the systemic discrimination through their eyes.

To sum up, the reader wants to know what you think of the world and its iniquities - they just want it in the form of a well-told story. Provide them with one, and they will follow your exploration of the issues dear to you every step of the way, and thank you for it.

  • created

    Aug '22
  • last reply

    Sep '22
  • 12

    replies

  • 980

    views

  • 7

    users

  • 19

    likes

  • 1

    link

And in order for those statements to coexist, what the author is saying apparently fails to demonstrate what they think. ^^; Which I think is another factor to why this kind of writing abounds: people who write in an effort to look "woke" often just want the morality points and relevance; they don't actually have any thoughts to express to the minority groups they claim to be talking to (or speaking for, in worse cases...).

I think you make a lot of good points about not taking short cuts and using racism as an actual plot element in a story, rather than a nebulous 'theme'. Call me a cynic though, but unfortunately I think the people who really need to hear that don't think about storytelling that deeply at all. =/

I just wanted to point out that the example you illustrated isn't as much 'systemic discrimination' as it is 'someone using a system to enact discrimination'. Related concepts, but different.

When people talk about discrimination being 'systemic', they mean that discriminatory practices are so ingrained in society that even people who don't consider themselves bigoted end up contributing to them just by being a normal participant. The overall effect is greater than the sum of its parts, so to speak.

For example: if every applicant to the music school has to show that they can supply their own instrument and formalwear; attend rehearsals for undetermined lengths of time, day or night; demonstrate a long history of prior music education in order to be accepted...these sorts of requirements can be considered a form of systemic discrimination.
Because essentially, they ensure that the only applicants who have a chance are those who are privileged, particularly financially. Which means that historically underprivileged groups, like racial minorities, can't meet the requirements and can't get into the school.

To the untrained eye, however, the rules seem justified. "Of course students should buy their own instruments, why should the school have to pay for that?" "Sometimes rehearsals run long; if you can't be flexible you can't be a musician..." "Well, if they can't show experience in music, how do we know they can actually play and aren't wasting the school's time...?"
And so on and so forth. But the results, i.e. a class that's overwhelmingly rich and white even when the surrounding community is not, usually speak for themselves. And if this continues for long enough, the school will not be equipped to handle any other demographic even if they DO manage to get in.

Students who try to squeeze in part-time jobs will be reprimanded/expelled for being late to rehearsals or handing in unfinished assignments. Students with cheaper, lower-quality instruments won't sound as good as their peers, and won't have their talents recognized. Students with different facial features or hair textures will be called out for looking 'unprofessional' and become targets for harassment, which may eventually drive them out of a school they could have otherwise excelled in.

At the end of the day, the entire situation becomes a network of various obstacles interacting to make the environment hostile to anyone who isn't the 'correct' demographic. There doesn't need to be any one person pulling strings from behind the scenes or specifically trying to keep the 'undesirables' out; even if no one at the school was racist it would still be difficult for racial minorities to exist there. And that's why we call it 'systemic'.

Admittedly, the example is not perfect (as I said, it's to illustrate the mechanism). However, the point does stand that you have to present the narrative in terms of the interactions of people...otherwise, the system itself becomes a short cut in and of itself. Things have to happen in the narrative because characters are trying to achieve their goals, and this includes the antagonists. Even in what you have described, there are a number of people involved, who will have various reactions - perhaps you'll have the administrator who has checked out and doesn't care, or the teacher who is putting their own money towards helping students buy instruments. All of these are facets of the system, and their interactions with the protagonist will add the depth the exploration requires.

I remember back when I tried to write my first novel back in high school. It was an absolute dumpster fire because I fell into the trap of me putting my 'oh so important' ideas before the story. I still haven't worked up the courage to revisit that book a decade or so later. In some ways the experience made me drop the need to have a message in my writing at all. The shorts I write now (as a way to experiment with different styles/story structure), I try to convey an experience rather than an idea.

There's a quote from Vladimir Nabokov I stumbled on a while ago: 'Style and Structure are the essence of a book; great ideas are hogwash.'

I may be misinterpreting I, but I always took it to mean that as an author the priorities should be the story first - style and structure - the ideas, or message will come naturally after.

Let me explain.

Perhaps this interpretation is mostly due to my experiences watching two films I adore: Stalker by Andrei Tarkovsky and It's Such a Beautiful Day by Don Hertzfeldt.
Both of these movies arguably aren't really about anything, Stalker simply follows the journey of three men into the eponymous 'Zone' to find a room that grants one's deepest wish. While each of the men have their own little say: the professor wishes to destroy the room saying the darkness of men make it dangerous, the writer wishes for a reason to write as he feels unvalidated and unheard, and the stalker (man I love this scene) simply wishes to do something good and worthwhile. But none of these feel like what the movie is trying to say. I'll get back to this.

It's Such a Beautiful Day simply follows the protagonist Bill through his struggles with an undisclosed mental illness that from what I've read closely resembles schizophrenia. Hertzfeldt's hand drawn minimalistic animation style somehow feels more emotive than many high end animation I've seen, and the strange seemingly disconnected narrative style ends up making the movie feel less like a story and more like you simply watching Bill. Then we get to the important part: unlike many other depictions of mental illness in media it never feels like Hertzfeldt makes any judgement on Bill or his condition. We are just allowed to observe Bill and his struggles as they are. And I think that's what makes the film have such a big impact. It feels raw, human, you don't need to fully understand, just believe Bill is having a human experience - and Hertzfeldt's style and structure sell this idea in spades.

Getting back to Stalker, the same idea applies. Tarkovsky's slow paced, picturesque style of long takes stretched to their limit allows the viewers to immerse themselves fully into the journey of the three men, and despite not much of anything happening, we become a participant in their journey, and much like Hertzfeldt, despite presenting ideas and messages to us, Tarkovsky never makes any judgements on them. Because of the immense meticulous work done on the style and structure of these two movies they stop just being stories and become experiences. Make an experience that sticks and the message will take care of itself as the reader dwells on that experience.

I think some additional problems that arise with modern media about this subject come from the fact that writers probably feel incredibly boxed in by what they can and cannot portray on screen due to evil studio execs holding the whip and fear of being called racist at the drop of a hat. So instead of writing human beings who just happen to be apart of a minority group, they end up writing flawless characters who are really, really boring, and their badguys have no depth other than "I am evil and I am white."

I am a big fan of Sidney Poitier movies because, despite being really old, writers back then just wrote interesting characters without fear of being called racist. One of my favorites is "the slender thread." and I don't think they even mention his race in that movie, at all. In the Heat of the Night is great, too, 1. because racism actually was highly rampant back then and 2. the racism in the movie is subtler and felt more realistic rather than just... "evil white man bars black guy from career because he's evil." Both he and the white officer he works with have character flaws and neither is portrayed as strictly evil.

I feel like a lot of movies tackling the subject of racism that are based in modern times feel highly unrealistic because most racism these days happens on a very sub-conscious level, and would read as very subtle, and writers these days do not know how to write something that subtle. XD

This isn't systematic sexism, but one interesting thing I've found interesting in recent years is the drop in men going to university in general. I think there's definitely some fascinating psychological things going on there. I can't remember the statistics on it, but I think men are just twitchier than women and they can't sit still for long periods of time, which cracks me up, but also makes me feel bad for them LOL. A story about that would be fascinating though. This summer, view the story of the man who learns to control his twitchiness.

Anyway, I find stories that examine the personal (psychological) reasons as to why someone is not succeeding in life to be far more interesting than societal ones, especially if it's based in America.

I am just going to say this... I am so afraid of the new X-Men movies... I swear. Even seeing the writers for X-Men '97 I'm like "Oh... oh boy". Logan was probably the only X-Men film that did the minority thing really well imo.

Logan was highly underrated imo. Great film I don't want to experience again.
I think also it was so good at it's message as the problems in the movie largely aren't fantastical mutant issues, but just mutant coatings of human problems, ya know like the original X-Men.

Hm, I do think there's a difference between 'idea' and 'message' though. I try not to have a message in my writing but I do tend to base them on ideas - I just try to explore said ideas from all sorts of different angles and try not to tell my audience what to think.

For me, ideas are inseparable from experiences (that I actually feel compelled to write about) - the most compelling experiences for me are based on an idea. Sure, there are some very potent experiences like when your leg is on fire and OH GODS IT HURTS SO BAD - but if you ask me to write about that experience, I'd kind of feel like ... what's the point? Everyone knows pain hurts and it sucks. Where do I even take this? :'D

In contrast for instance, the experience of 'being tired of life but having a project you really, really want to make reality' is tied to the idea of 'how important is the average person's art in the long run? Would the world really be poorer if it didn't exist'? That's the kind of stuff that I feel compelled to write about (which in fact I did) ... and that's not to say stories with no particular ideas behind them aren't worth telling in general - I just personally have absolutely no drive to tell such stories :'D Ideas are what gives me motivation to actually get my arse at the table and pick up my stylus :stuck_out_tongue:

Good catch, I did mean message. I do agree with you that there is an important distinction between the two and I shouldn't be mixing them willy-nilly. Mostly because I think I'm in the same boat as you as far as a desire of exploring ideas is what motivates me to write now-a-days. Like the title short in my collection based on the idea of a fear of waking up (as someone else).

I did mean message though. When I started writing back as a young 'un I was probably too focused on what my writing was going to say rather than what it was going to convey. I've been told I was quite the soapbox preacher way back in my highschool days 🤣

Now I'm a clam.

Not to turn this thread too political and off-topic but an observation about your last point:

My department at the university I'm attending for graduate studies has been really pushing diversity, inclusivity and equity and the topic of male university attendance and graduation did come up during one of the department-wide discourses. I think the projection is that in the US within the next 2-5 years or so the ratio between female to male students will be 2:1.
The weird thing for me as this was viewed as a victory for the DEI goals and the conversation almost felt like 'how can we make that gap larger?'
Yea, really makes me want to stick around.

0o0 That's cray-cray and sounds deliberately malicious. xD Honestly, I've heard about stuff like this, but to have it confirmed is pretty wild. I got out of university just in time LOL.

I'm sorry if I sound dumb, but imo, I feel like the 'woke' writers have inability to set up the characters, the settings, and writing in nuances.

1 month later

closed Sep 9, '22

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.