Once in a Blue Muse: character

Showing posts with label character. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Confused thoughts on representation

We all live at the intersections of multiple identities. Most of mine happen to be privileged or relatively so in our society. Some are not. Some vary, depending on context. It's confusing, messy, like all things pertaining to people.

Some of my identities include (in no particular order and certainly not an exhaustive list): white, cis-female, heterosexual, Jewish, American, feminist, neuro-atypical, and writer.

I include writer here because it's not just what I do, it's interwoven with the way I process the world. If I want to understand how I think about something, I write.

This post is an attempt to work my way through an enormously important issue that pertains both to myself as a writer, but also as any of my identities; that of representation in fiction.

Once upon a time, a white, cis-het, female writer wrote a space opera series.

That series contains an ensemble cast of a half-dozen principal characters, each of whom gets 'screen time' as a point of view (POV) character. Unless that cast consists of clones of some version of the writer, that means said writer is creating characters outside of her own direct experience. Not only are there male characters in the cast, but also characters from non-white backgrounds. There are also characters who are not heterosexual.

The writer did not create this cast as an exercise of filling out some kind of diversity bingo sheet. She grew up on the original Star Trek (albeit in syndication) and imprinted on the message (albeit somewhat flawed in the show) that the future was for everyone. And when she grew up, those were the kind of stories she wanted to tell.

Speaking for one, not for all

So, it's pretty obvious that writer is me. And in crafting the series and its characters, I worked hard to balance honoring the (not) diverse (enough), (not) inclusive (enough) world I live in with my vision/hope of a future that is more so. I was aware the identities that bring me privilege also put me at risk for drowning out writers with less. I was also aware it was not my place to speak for someone else's experience, especially when someone from an identity different than mine could speak with their own voice. And yet, I also knew that creating a future with a cast of characters who were all cis-het and white would be erasing the reality of the majority of people on the planet.

Imagination can only take you so far

I chose to create a cast of individuals who came from different backgrounds and who lived at the intersections of their own specific identities. Each of these characters are uniquely themselves. They represent, not a race or a creed or a belief system in any way, but a richness of individualities. They are each, based in part, on pieces of people I know who are themselves living at the intersections of many identities. I also draw on personal history and experience of simultaneously being privileged for some of my identities and disadvantaged in others.

But you're not . . .

Fill in the blank: gay, Black, Latino, Japanese, etc. There are characters in the Halcyone Space book who have those as part of their identities. By far, the most criticism I get is why I chose to make Ro (Rosalen Maldonado) and Nomi (Konomi Nakamura) gay. I have been accused of "ruining" my space opera with some sort of homosexual agenda. Never mind that their relationship is primarily a deep emotional one, with little overt physicality. (The novels are SF, not SF/Romance.)

My answer is something along the lines of 'because you're still asking the question.' I live in a world where I joyfully attended the wedding of my sister-in-law and her wife. Where my dear friends Alan and Paul used to tease me that I was their token 'breeder' friend. Where my son carries the name of my husband's former boss and mentor, who passed away while I was pregnant and whose family had disowned him for coming out.

Because when I introduced Nomi to the story, she was everything Ro needed, but didn't know it yet. Because I couldn't imagine a future where love between two women would be anything to remark about. They are simply two people who care for one another. That is neither revolutionary nor particularly worthy of praise.

And yet, and yet, and yet. . .

I'm somewhat dismayed that it has become something to notice - that there is a gay couple in a space opera series.

This is a screen shot from this afternoon. DERELICT is the 2nd highest selling book in the LGBT SF category on Amazon. When I took this screen shot ITHAKA RISING was 7 and DREADNOUGHT AND SHUTTLE 8. (It also made the hot new release category.)

On one level, I'm thrilled. I've worked hard on these novels. They are good stories.

On one level, I'm dismayed. First, that the bar is so damned low that a series with 2 woman in love as a very tangential part of the plot is enough to have the books rank this well in the subcategory. Second, that 3 of my books are in the top 10 of this list and I very well may be drowning out the voices of queer writers of SF in the process.

I don't know if I am or not. I do know I never marketed these books as LGBT SF. And yet, here they are. I can't pull them from the category and I wouldn't want to. I do know that I am proud of each of my characters and their individuality.

And I will continue to do my best to honor that little girl who grew up to believe that the future was for everyone.

#SFWApro

Friday, May 13, 2016

Creating full characters, not strong ones

I write science fiction and fantasy stories. And in those stories are characters. They interact with other characters, move through settings, and deal with conflicts. They act and they react.

This is basic storytelling '101', regardless of genre.

Everywhere I look, I see articles talking about writing 'strong female characters', or praising them in TV shows or movies. It makes me wonder about the definition of strong and how media has limited the scope and range of ALL characters in elevating strength over all other aspects.

I understand where this push comes from. Looking at female characterization in popular media over the past few decades, for every Ripley or Sarah Connor or Peggy Carter are dozens and dozens of passive, poorly written female props, victims, and plot devices. And in an effort to change this, strength has come to mean the ability to fight against terrible odds and win.

But if you look closely at the three iconic female characters I named (and there are more, thankfully!), their power doesn't come solely from their ability to kick ass, but from their ability to be fully human and express both their strength and their vulnerability.

What made Agent Carter so compelling to me (and to many fans; just not to the networks, apparently) is that she is intensely real. She expresses a full range of emotions, including fear and uncertainty, and thrives within a context of solid relationships with the other characters around her. We see her vulnerability and root for her to survive, even as we recognize the sometimes outlandish plots and situations that the series placed her in.

Because she is so fully real, we are willing to suspend disbelief and enter into her world.

That is the difference in writing full characters rather than strong ones.

The character of Lara Croft in the Tomb Raider movie was strong, but not full. I enjoyed the movie for what it was: superficial action, but never had any sort of emotional connection to it.

This created dichotomy between strong and full characters is not limited to the depiction of women on screen or in written work. The characters who stay with me, who resonate for long after I've closed the book or turned off the screen are ones who have a reality far beyond their story. Captain America in The Winter Soldier. Morgan in The Riddlemaster trilogy, Samwise Gamgee from The Lord of the Rings.

It's this resonance and reality I strive for in all of my writing. In my Halcyone Space books, I have an ensemble cast roughly split between male and female characters. They all have moments of strength and moments of vulnerability. They all make imperfect choices and have to contend with the results. It makes for a much richer experience for me as a writer. I have to believe it does the same for the reader.

Dev, pictured in the artwork above, is a new addition to the series. She is smart and resourceful, but she is also hamstrung by her upbringing in the Settlements. She feels the sting of class prejudice very keenly and it colors her interactions. That makes her far more interesting to me than if she had had a privileged life. In fact, she would not be the character she is had she been raised otherwise. We see her vulnerabilities and want her to succeed. She is strong in the ways that matter, rather than in a purely cliched sense.

Strength that does not come from the fullness of the human experience is not true strength.

Who are your favorite characters who exemplify this kind of larger, truer strength?

#SFWApro

Monday, January 04, 2016

Contrary thoughts about Kylo Ren

I'm going to talk about The Force Awakens here and specifically why I think the movie did a good job with Kylo Ren's character, so if you haven't seen it, you probably don't want to read this.

By now, if you're a Star Wars fan and have a social media presence, you probably have seen the parody twitter account 'Emo Kylo Ren.' It's pretty funny. And it would be easy to walk away from the movie and all the internet commentary feeling Ren is the WORST BAD GUY EVER.

I mean the guy throws temper tantrums like any three year old who doesn't get his way. How are we supposed to take him seriously?

But after mocking his character along with just about everyone else on the internet, I've come to rethink my position.

From a writer's perspective, I think Kylo Ren's character is pretty spot on.

Here is someone who from his birth was groomed to be someone special. Look at his parentage. His father is the most famous pilot/scoundrel in the universe. His mother, the leader of the rebel alliance and the daughter of Darth Vader. His uncle, also Vader's son, is the last Jedi. And here comes little Ben - named for Obiwan Kenobi - with all the hopes and expectations of the universe on his shoulders.

He has probably internalized the belief that he will be responsible for the rebirth of the Jedi order AND lead the rebel forces AND be good at everything in the process.

And that's not all. Because of who he is and what he represents, he's also a perfect target for the Dark Side.

So here's this kid, stuck in the middle of a huge battle for the destiny of the universe. Before he learns to talk, he knows he's a symbol. And that stronger people than him have carried that weight and failed.

Of course, when he allows himself to be seduced by the Dark Side, his master/teacher doesn't really take him seriously because he's not important in and of himself, but as the symbol he has become. On some level, he surely knows this. Else why use Vader - someone who is beyond his reach AND who redeemed himself in the end - as his personal patron saint?

Given all that, how could he be anything other than the insecure, confused man-child that he is? Don't we have plenty of examples in the real world of the children of celebrities and the wealthy/powerful flaming out in spectacular ways?

It is my hope that future stories will let us see his struggle and development as a character. Darth Vader was this evil dude - powerful, effective, sure - but also one dimensional for most of the original trilogy. (I'm old school, not talking about any of the prequel stories because it's my blog and I don't have to!) I find a villain with vulnerabilities and a developmental arc a lot more interesting.

And that's why Kylo Ren is perfect, just the way he is.