Random Questions Thread

"That a character might be from a culture doesn't necessarily mean they represent that culture; you should be sophisticated enough to draw the distinction between "a character, with a background from X" and "a character representing X"

Thank you, that is almost precisely what I was trying to say, except that not everyone has that level of sophistication, nor should be expected to, esp. beginning authors. Thats why it needs to be pointed out.

Cultural appropriation is most definately a thing- there being a multitude of examples even relatively recently. Merely including a character of a particular background in your story isnt appropriating anything, but taking their beliefs, watering them down in some way and then presenting them as the real thing definately is. Thats the thing to try and avoid.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

I'm with Sharysa, I think. Besides, from a practical perspective, there's really no amount of research that can compare to a lifetime of living that culture as an insider. Even if you manage to acquire a nuanced working understanding of the culture, you still may not know what it's like, on a very visceral level, to actually be a member of that culture. And you still may not quite understand what the members of that culture want when it comes to media representation, and as such may end up making any number of (well-meaning) errors.

For example, someone could have a very in-depth, scholarly knowledge of feudal Japanese culture and history, and then go on to write an awful Mighty Whitey-style narrative loaded to the gills with Unfortunate Implications. And it would probably be very accurate from a historical realism standpoint - but there's more to representation than just cold, clinical accuracy.

That's not to say that people can only write characters who are exactly like themselves, that would be absurd. But maybe trying to write deep, soul-searching analyses of cultural or racial identity is a task best left to people who have actually already had those experiences - and would be the ones negatively affected by a failed or mishandled attempt. Because let me make it clear - when you try to write about a group you're not a member of, and you screw it up, you are not the one who will pay the price. They are, because now there's one more piece of media out there that depicts a flawed or stereotypical or otherwise lacking picture of themselves.

And that goes double for cultures or groups that already have massive problems with visibility or representation or even self-identity, such as many indigenous groups. You need to approach those from a very careful and respectful - and yes, deferential - perspective.

My usual go-to answer is that it's okay to represent all different kinds of people in your work - that's an admirable goal - but most of the time, maybe you'd be better off making their cultural/racial/whatever identity largely incidental to the narrative. Marginalized people do get tired of seeing character like them be defined solely by the thing that makes them marginalized, so many of them will appreciate it - and you don't have to run the risk of trying to write about an experience you have not had. It's not a hard and fast rule, nor a perfect solution - but it's my usual rule of thumb.

The idea that people who criticize cultural appropriation are criticizing the idea of any and all cultural exchange is really just a very widely held - and deeply inaccurate - misconception. There are people who misuse the term, sure, but their misuse of the term shouldn't be used to invalidate the people who use the term correctly.

In a nutshell, it's not about admiring or wishing to appreciate a culture - it's about using trappings from that culture in a gimmicky, disrespectful manner, without bothering to learn about their actual significance. And (and this is key) without caring what actual members of that culture think of you doing it. If I had a penny for every time I've seen somebody go "I'm just doing this to show my respect for this culture," and then a member of that culture goes "that's disrespectful, please stop," only for them to effectively respond with "tough shit, I'm going to do it anyway."

edited 26th Sep '16 11:15:31 AM by RBluefish

"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."

So it sounds like this: both my argument and yours is to avoid caricaturizing another culture of which you know little. Fair.

But, I'm more optimistic about the potential for doing it right: study assiduously, stay humble about the limitations of your approach, and keep in mind that you're an outsider looking in. In short, take a scholarly approach. If you do that—in short, if you execute well, there is nothing inherently wrong about portraying another culture. Flaws are in execution, not inherent to the concept.

Unless I'm missing something like "it's not cultural appropriation if you do it correctly"? Which strays close to logically fallacious territory.

edited 26th Sep '16 11:33:44 AM by SabresEdge

Charlie Stross's cheerful, optimistic predictions for 2017, part one of three.

A fact here, my story has tons of multinational characters but their ethnic background mostly do not take part of their main personalities and have a degree of varying personalities with different fighting skills. That is one of my ways to portray other cultures positively in my work.

The only good fanboy, is a redeemed fanboy.

I asked what he wanted to do with his fantasy-Filipino culture. He said he just wanted the aesthetic and to do an homage, so I—being a Filipino-American—advised him not to lift the culture wholesale, but take the big points and go from there. That's still a good way of getting representation without having to do years of research. Researching the Philippines properly IS going to take years because most of the sources are from racist Spaniard conquistadors who literally called us savages, Indians, and ridiculous.

I did not say "STAY AWAY FROM OUR CULTURE UNLESS YOU GO FULL OUT AND MAKE A COLONIZATION STORY."

Oh, sorry about it...

The only good fanboy, is a redeemed fanboy.

Why is being edgy a bad thing? I got the question when I was searching around on the internet and I found a forum topic in an Overwatch forum. They weren't taking it very seriously in that forum but it is an interesting question nonetheless.

edited 26th Sep '16 12:59:14 PM by GAP

"Analay, an original fan character from a 2006 non canon comic. Do not steal!"

let's be honest here, i never trusted wikipedia at all sometimes. i just don't trust it but anywho, yes it's a bit easier to have culture that is similar but different from it's real world counterpart since you months of research is needed in order get an idea of how it works.

that's my two cents, i'm really not flat out wanting to create a by the book version of filipino culture. i'm actually want to understand enough so that at least can make somewhat "inoffensive"

by the way, yeah i know, colonization sucks yet anger isn't a good response to this. from the history and stories i heard about the filipino colonization, i didn't react in anger, i reacted in sadness and even empathy for the indigenous people who lived there. i'm not trying to say that being angry is bad but you almost sound like your want to overthrow the people who've wrong your people and bring back your people's culture into their former glory. (forgive me for exaggerating what you said. it's just a thing i do sometimes)

edited 26th Sep '16 1:11:27 PM by ewolf2015

MIA

Edgy used derogatively is when you're trying to throw in "mature", "dark" and "cool" onto something and it falls flat and you look like a kid smoking and choking on the cigarette in desperate attempt to be an adult. When you don't fail, you're not edgy, you're just mature/dark/cool.

And of course there's So Bad, It's Good principle for comedies and joke characters poking fun on things. Overwatch's Reaper is a parody edgy.

edited 26th Sep '16 1:39:00 PM by Adannor

I'm angry at the Spanish conquistadors who basically destroyed our culture five hundred years ago. I'm not angry at every single person with the slightest drop of Spanish blood, because that would mean I'm angry at most of my Latino friends who ALSO got colonized by Spain.

Similarly, I'm not mad at you for wanting to know more about Filipino culture and wanting to use it in your story. Yes, I'm glad you're interested, but since you only want a bit of Filipino flavor, you shouldn't waste your time on a decade of research when using broad strokes from mostly decent sources (yes, like Wikipedia) will do fine.

No, I'm not exaggerating. I've been looking for my heritage for at least five years, and all of my reliable (non-Spaniard) sources are two or three years old AT MOST. Because that's when the resurgence of native Filipino beliefs started happening on a global scale.

edited 26th Sep '16 2:14:31 PM by Sharysa

I think anger is a pretty damn valid reaction to have to brutal colonization and cultural genocide. And I haven't seen Sharysa say anything even close to expressing a desire for some sort of bloody revolution.

On an unrelated note: in a medieval setting, how readily available would riding horses be as a mode of transportation? My assumption is "not very," but if that's the case, would it be a matter of them being prohibitively expensive for most common folk, them being uncommon and hard to find, or both? Also, even beyond that, would the cost required to keep them well-fed and in good health be likely to place them outside the means of most commoners?

"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."

i didn't mean to. it's really hard as fuck to find reliable sources for some more obscure non-european cultures but hey at least i found some reliable sources on some mythical beings of your culture. though some of them i'm at least familiar with.

MIA

Oh I see. Edgy is just like most tropes then?

"Analay, an original fan character from a 2006 non canon comic. Do not steal!"

As long as you avoid the more common stereotypes, and dont pass off your story as what being Philipino is really like, you should be fine.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

RBluefish: PURELY riding horses would be owned by the wealthy, who can afford to spend 1) lots of money on a pretty horse, and 2) lots of money and time feeding and grooming them to keep them pretty. Your average farmer/townsman/merchant would probably have cross-trained horses who are mostly used as pack-animals and draft horses, or decent horses they bought from their friend/neighbor.

There's a big difference between "the giant pedigreed stallion that costs $8000 and really shouldn't be around small children unsupervised," and "hey, the neighbor's mare had a foal and he's selling for five hundred dollars or so."

edited 26th Sep '16 2:59:05 PM by Sharysa

well it's one of the many tribes i'm developing for a series of mine (pm me if you have any questions about it)

MIA

@Sharysa: So basically, all the good (or at least impressive) horses would be owned by the rich and the noble-blooded, while commoners would have access to far less prestigious pack animals and beasts of burden. And of those horses, it would be reasonable to expect your average business-owner or whatever to have a few. That's very helpful, thank you.

On a similar note - how easily spooked are horses (that aren't trained for war)? Would a nearby fight be enough to panic them or send them running, or are they typically more sedate than that?

"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."

Considering there are many books about "how to bombproof your horse", I take it the average untrained horse can be easily spooked. I don't know enough about horses to tell you if they'd rather fight or flight though.

I think trying to add to the previous discussion would be redundant on my part.

Depends on both their personality/training and their rider's ability to keep their cool. A bombproof horse would probably be able to channel their instincts into galloping steadily away from the fighting the minute their rider tells them to, but a panicky horse might bolt and not listen to anything for a minute or two, which would need an extremely good rider to either wait out the panic or just keep giving them cues until they finally calm down and respond.

Example: If I were caught near a medieval war-zone unawares on my horse, I'd probably panic and hunker down immediately. Yes, I'm on a giant horse, but it's my instinct to curl up when I'm afraid. If my horse is calm and knows that I hunch/curl up when I'm scared, they'd logically think "she's upset and it's probably because of the loud noises and sharp things. Time to run, but not too fast." If my horse is panicky like I am (which is a horrible combination), they might think "OMG LOUD NOISES AND SHARP THINGS, WHAT DO I DO? IS SHE TELLING ME TO RUN? OH SHIT, SHE'S GLUED TO THE SADDLE—THAT MEANS RUN LIKE HELL."

Poor Communication Kills, so I would either die from falling off my panicking horse, or die when my panicking horse runs into a spear, wall, or gets shot. If I had incredibly good luck for my horse to just bolt away from the fighting until I calmed down, that would be good—but then I wouldn't know where the hell we are after ten minutes of mindless galloping, and I might need to spend an hour trying to get my bearings.

And if I had someone ELSE with me who was level-headed, I definitely wouldn't die because they could grab the reins and tell us to run in (Insert Direction).

Basically, do you want your characters to (almost) die, get lost, or go "Screw This, I'm Outta Here?"

edited 26th Sep '16 4:07:50 PM by Sharysa

All of those are actually pretty compelling options - though I was also considering the possibility of an unattended horse panicking and bolting, leaving the character stranded with no means of fast transportation.

Thanks for the info, anyway. I don't know much about animals.

"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."

That is the most hilarious/sad instance of Reality Ensues EVER. I say you do it.

I think I will! It's a good narrative complication to throw in the character's way. They have to make the same trip, but now they have to either do it on foot or find a way to...acquire another horse.

And first they have to survive the fight.

"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."

"Oh I see. Edgy is just like most tropes then? "

Not really. Edgy is more like Mary Sue: if you're getting called that, you probably screwed something up (i.e. it's ok for a main character to be an outstanding person, but pile on too much without balancing and you've got Mary Sue; it's ok for a character to have dark traits, but pile on too much without thinking and you're an egelord◊). Parody is just always an exception.

But basically, it's all in execution. Don't aim for "edgy", aim for other descriptors.

edited 26th Sep '16 9:36:48 PM by Adannor

As Lionel Shriver recently said, soon the only thing we'll still be allowed to write is autobiographies...

"Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man; and his number is 0x29a."

It's the attributive form, i.e. means "my daughter". You have to drag out the last "i" though — i.e. it should be "bintii".

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.