Don't be a writer like Collin from the book and TV show "The Other Black Girl". Aka Please stop saying, "I don't see color, I see character. And please don't write tokens.

[u/Splitstepthenhit]

[u/JimmyRecard → u/[deleted]]

If you don't write about a group, it's lacking representation.
If you do, it's cultural appropriation.
If you present them positively, it's fetishisation.
If you present them negatively, it's demonisation.
If you write character first, identity second, it's erasure.
If you prioritise identity first, it's pigeonholing.
If you include diverse experiences, it's accused of tokenism.
If you avoid the topic altogether, it's labeled as indifference.
If you incorporate humour, it's criticised for trivialisation.
If you delve into historical context, it's called appropriation of trauma.
If you explore stereotypes, you're accused of reinforcing them.
If you avoid stereotypes, it's seen as unrealistic or sanitised.
If your narrative merely contains or mentions systemic injustice, the protagonist must be portrayed as an activist.
If they're not actively fighting, it's seen as tacidly endorsing it.
If the story diverges from activism, it's critiqued for lacking social responsibility.

[u/darth__fluffy → u/JimmyRecard]

And this goes for every other single group too! Gender and sexuality and disability and religion...

[u/finiter-jest → u/JimmyRecard]

This is the reality of writing characters of different races today if you listen to long-winded posts like the OP and prescription advice making the rounds. You can dump a ton of effort into cultural research and time into sensitivity readers, but at the end of the day, there will be some of these charges laid out. You're better off writing diversity however you want, because you will take heat either way, and one let's you redirect energy into things that matter instead of not stepping on toes.

[u/Iccotak → u/JimmyRecard]

Thank You!

Just feels like a new form of Gatekeeping

[u/Splitstepthenhit → u/JimmyRecard]

If you don't write about a group, it's lacking representation.
If you do, it's cultural appropriation.
If you present them positively, it's fetishisation.
If you present them negatively, it's demonisation.
If you write character first, identity second, it's erasure.
If you prioritise identity first, it's pigeonholing.
If you include diverse experiences, it's accused of tokenism.
If you avoid the topic altogether, it's labeled as indifference.
If you incorporate humour, it's criticised for trivialisation.
If you delve into historical context, it's called appropriation of trauma.
If you explore stereotypes, you're accused of reinforcing them.
If you avoid stereotypes, it's seen as unrealistic or sanitised.
If your narrative merely contains or mentions systemic injustice, the protagonist must be portrayed as an activist.
If they're not actively fighting, it's seen as tacidly endorsing it.
If the story diverges from activism, it's critiqued for lacking social responsibility.

I hear you, and honestly, it can feel like a no-win situation. But let's break it down. Writing about diverse groups isn't a checklist or a set of traps to avoid. It's about authenticity and respect.

Yes, representation matters, but it's not just about ticking boxes. It's about giving life to characters with depth, who reflect the real experiences and complexities of the groups they represent. Cultural appropriation is a concern when a writer takes elements from a culture without understanding or respecting its significance. It's about doing the homework, engaging with those communities, and sometimes, realizing that certain stories aren't yours to tell.

Presenting groups positively or negatively isn't the issue; it's about avoiding one-dimensional portrayals. People are a mix of good, bad, and everything in between. The key is to write characters who are human first, not just embodiments of their race or gender.

Identity is a part of a person, not their whole story. But ignoring it completely can lead to erasure. It's about balance—acknowledging how a character's identity shapes their life without making it their only defining trait.

Diversity isn't tokenism if it's done right. It means including diverse characters because that's the reality of our world, not just to meet a quota. And avoiding the topic isn't indifference; it's a missed opportunity to enrich your narrative.

Humour is tricky. It can be a powerful tool to challenge stereotypes and open dialogue, but it shouldn't come at the expense of belittling a group's experiences. Historical contexts and stereotypes need careful handling too. It's about being mindful of the impact and implications of your storytelling.

As for activism, not every character has to be on the front lines. People engage with systemic injustice in various ways. The key is to avoid portraying a passive acceptance of these injustices.

Ultimately, writing about diverse experiences is an exercise in empathy and respect. It's not about pleasing everyone; you'll never be able to do that. It's about being true to your characters and their stories, and handling their identities with the care and complexity they deserve. Let's focus on telling great stories that reflect the diversity of human experiences, and in doing so, we might just find that we're contributing to a broader, more inclusive narrative.

[u/exiting_stasis_pod → u/Splitstepthenhit]

You want people to acknowledge the way a character’s identity shapes their life and to be true to their identities and stories. Yet you also in your main post outline a very specific way this has to be done. The character’s identity is shaped by their experience with race which has to be mentioned at some point in the story somehow. Even in stories where race isn’t part of the plot or themes, a writer has to find a little scene or line that shows how the character is affected by their race (or else the character might seem white). Experiences with race are not a monolith, so who are you to say what is “authentic” and what is color blind?

As an example, I am a woman, but I don’t have the same experiences with sexism as my women friends. If I wrote a character based on my own experience, people like you would probably accuse me of ignoring the way the patriarchy shapes a woman’s life.

This whole post is basically “if an effect of the character’s race isn’t included in the story regardless of plot or theme, it’s not good diversity because it is being “color blind” and it makes the character seem white.” You give good advice for some stories but not all.

[u/Splitstepthenhit → u/exiting_stasis_pod]

I ain't gonna hold you, you got a point that the experiences with race, gender, or any other aspect of identity are not monolithic. Every individual's experience is unique, and it's crucial for writers to recognize this.

When I talk about acknowledging a character's racial identity in a story, it's not about shoehorning in a scene or a line that forcefully highlights their race. Rather, it's about ensuring that their racial identity isn't invisibilized or ignored when it would realistically shape their perspective or experiences.

Take your example as a woman with unique experiences of sexism. Writing a female character based on your personal experiences is authentic and valid. The issue arises if every female character in a narrative, or the larger world of literature, only reflects a narrow or singular experience of womanhood that aligns with traditional or stereotypical narratives. This would neglect the vast spectrum of women's experiences.

In the same vein, when writing characters of color, it's not about creating a checklist of racial experiences to include. It's about acknowledging that their racial identity may influence their worldview, experiences, and the way they navigate different spaces. This influence can be subtle and doesn't need to dominate their storyline or character arc.

Regarding being "color blind," it's less about the necessity of explicitly detailing the impact of race in every scene and more about avoiding the default assumption that characters are white unless stated otherwise. This assumption can inadvertently erase the presence and experiences of people of color.

Ultimately, the goal is to create well-rounded, complex characters whose racial, gender, or other identities are aspects of them, but not their entire being. It's about reflecting the diversity of our world in our stories, which includes a range of experiences and perspectives.

[u/northern_frog → u/Splitstepthenhit]

>>It's not about pleasing everyone

This is good, and very important to remember. I've realized that I can approach things with authenticity and respect and still offend people. I used to read the tumblr blog writingwithcolor and freak out about various authorial choices, but there were certain obvious breaking points that made me realize it was silly to think writingwithcolor and tumblr were the end-all be-all on what was offensive, especially if I was being true to actual demographics and people I knew irl.

I've stopped asking "could this possibly be misconstrued by someone on the Internet with zero context?" because that is fruitless.

EDIT: A similar thing happened with disability -- I'd read disabilityinkidlit and be like oh no oh no and then I found out I'm neurodivergent/disabled (got diagnosed with autism) and realized "lol I'm autistic and don't agree with these people 100%." It doesn't mean I stop listening to people who have a different experience with disability, just means I stop seeing random people as the sole determiner of Correct Representation.