The "Squeee!" Post

 

My deepest thanks to my editor, Dr. Stanley Schmidt, for making this possible, and to Michael Whelan for understanding my story so, so well! I know there are some fabulous stories in this issue, not just from the amazing Michael F. Flynn and Carl Frederick, but also from my friend Jay Werkheiser (his story is called "Ambidextrose" - love it!). And thanks to all of you blog readers for being such faithful supporters!

TTYU Retro: How do you find time to write?

I get asked this question a lot. I think it's a really important one for all sorts of writers, because unless you're a self-supporting full-time writer, you've always got something else going on. Maybe it's your day job. Maybe it's running a household and/or raising children, doing volunteer work, etc. (as it is for me). Maybe you're in school and at the whim of the school year, meeting everyone else's demands while trying to maintain your own goals.

Believe me, it can be hard.

In the end, the way you write is up to you (because who else understands your needs better?) - but I thought I'd share some things I have learned in the process of trying to balance full-time motherhood with writing.

1. Write when you can. Don't figure that it's a waste of time to start if you only have fifteen minutes, because if the Muse is on your side, those fifteen minutes could be gold. Over time, you can train yourself to improve your readiness for short stints like this.
2. Stick up for your writing time. One of the most important things in getting writing done is making sure that you - and as many people as possible around you - consider your writing a priority. If you don't insist that it be included in planning, it generally won't, and then the "gas law of activities" will most likely force you to covert writing stints or extremely late nights and exhaustion.
3. Write when you can't. Thinking counts too! If it's impossible for you to access a computer or even a notepad for several hours, play around with the story in your head. You can work on plot, character, planning, and even words this way. Store it up and get ready to let the fingers fly the next time you get time alone. This is also a great way to make sure you're getting exercise, because using your body gives your brain a great opportunity to play.
4. Watch out for distractions. Everyone is different, but I can't write (at least, I can't write new material) when the television is on, or when I'm listening to certain kinds of music. The fact is that the TV is a devourer of time, and you can lose two hours before you even realize it. Most often when people ask me how I can get so much done, I simply say, "I don't watch TV." This isn't strictly true - but I never ever turn on the TV for myself. I watch it with my kids, or when my husband is already watching. Yes, so I miss out on stuff, but I can always pick it up on DVD later and plan a time to watch. Activities that allow you to think are good; ones that fill your mind with fluff are bad. And you might be able to edit during a busy time even if you can't create.
5. Seek out inspiration. This is somewhat the reverse of #4 above. Take your writer's eye with you everywhere. Read books in your field, or watch television and movies that stimulate your writer's vision - none of that is wasted time.
6. Consider having goals. If you're in a really tough period - like that sleepless one I had for about a year after each of my kids was born - goals can be more demoralizing than helpful, so be careful with this one (see #7 below). However, I've found that having a loosely held goal rate keeps me from forgetting about the task at hand. A chapter a week. Or just a scene. A sentence. Or just "I'll think about it sometime today," if you're in a storm and need to keep the hatches battened down. I find I feel happier and get more done when my writing is a constant presence in my life.
7. Be patient with yourself. Keep in mind that every bit of your effort counts for something. Even just a few words that all seem wrong are helping you better understand what you'd prefer to do next time. Even a few stray thoughts that you can't properly remember are likely to contribute to your subconscious vision for a story. Frustration is normal, but don't chastise yourself for getting nothing done, or for getting less done than you'd hoped - that will most likely lead to you stopping altogether and waiting for a "time when I'm not busy." There is never a time when I'm not busy. So if I have to set my ideal schedule back by a week or two, I try to do so while saying to myself, "Well, there's always next week." Furthermore, there's no point in whipping yourself if you sit down at the computer and no words come out. Try to send your thoughts in another direction, or better yet, walk away from the scene and go for a walk where you can breathe fresh air and look at trees while you think.
8. Believe in yourself and in what you're trying to achieve. Remember that it is worthwhile. Writing is a noble calling, and a beautiful one. It is engrossing and enthralling. Yes, it's also hard, but this is a classic case of a skill best developed through practice, and through seeking out opportunities to learn and grow.

It's something to think about.

The Social Roles of Children: A Worldbuilding Hangout Report

I had actually lost my notes for this one, but now they have been found - whew! I really enjoyed this discussion and didn't want to deprive all of you who couldn't make it. I was joined by Glenda Pfeiffer, Dale Emery, Kyle Aisteach, and Jaleh Dragich.

This topic was a follow-on from the Pregnancy and Parenthood discussion. We started with the question of child-rearing. I noted that things have changed a lot in the last couple of generations, from the "children should be seen and not heard" rule to the "latchkey child" to the "helicopter parent." In my own home, learning was prioritized over a lot of other things - our job as children was to learn. Not that we didn't do chores, of course!

Kyle said that he felt parenting swung between two ends of a continuum, from hypercontrolling to hands off, in a 3 or 4 generation cycle.

We remarked that what is considered "safe for children" varies widely within our own culture and across cultures. I personally mentioned that the MPAA movie ratings scale is grossly inadequate to determine what is appropriate for my children. Typically, they will get freaked out by far more G movies than PG movies, because the problems encountered in G movies tend to be more personal, involving personal coercion, alteration of one's own body, threats from adults to children, etc. while the PG movies generally involve more action and less threat to the self. Jaleh mentioned that in Monsters vs. Aliens her child was very upset when Susan was taken away from her friends. Kyle asked, "what makes sex worse than violence?" We agreed that glorification of violence was a big problem.

So back to child-rearing. Who is doing it? We usually think of child-rearing as being done by parents, but I'm sure most of us have seen the science-fictional scenario of children being taught by computers. Very often in our society now, we see children being raised by nannies and babysitters, or by daycare employees. Children are also raised by grandparents (as Glenda mentioned) when both parents are working, or by older siblings, or a parent-in-law (as Jaleh mentioned). In fact, in some world cultures the older siblings are the ones taking primary responsibility for child-rearing and even teaching children to speak (I read about one where parents don't speak to the youngest children until they are already able to engage verbally). Dale asked whether there were designated child-rearers in every society, and indeed there are not - some societies take joint charge of children from the very beginning without designating a particular person as child-rearer. Kyle noted that special relationships can crop up almost anywhere - an unexpected bond with a friend's child, a neighbor, a teacher, etc. As children grow and move out into social interaction (school being one big factor), peers also become a force for a child's maturation and education. Jaleh mentioned her own experience of being befriended by her 6th grade teacher after she experienced psychological bullying - the teacher let her borrow books and just hang out, and was an enormous help to her.

There is also the question of physical affection... and liability. Studies have shown that babies languish if they are not cuddled and held, but currently in our local elementary school we have rules against inter-student touching which are intended to stop unwanted poking etc. Teachers give hugs but must be very careful. I knew a case some years ago where a teacher was struggling with a rule that said not to touch students at all, because there had been recent problems of inappropriateness. It's hard to know where to draw the line here, to allow for human feeling and yet not permit possible abuses.

Dale noted that the role of caregiver is mixed, between nurturing and education. Teaching is not only educational in the academic sense, but in the social sense, including instruction in the nature of authority and instruction in the complex rules of politeness.

Kyle followed on to this by pointing out that there are phases in a child's life of acceptance vs. rebellion against authority. We talk about the terrible 2's, and everyone talks about the terrible teenage years. I would remark though that these phases depend a lot on the surrounding culture and the individuals involved. "Terrible 2's" for example is a phrase that really didn't apply to my kids... we had far more difficulty with 3's and 4's!

Children also have a special role in fiction (several, in fact). Very often, they see things that adults can't see, or say things that adults can't say. They can play the role of "fool" in the Shakespearean sense, able to engage with problems that other people shouldn't because of the rules of social politeness. The little child in "The Emperor's New Clothes" is another classic example of the reaction of a child bystander. Children can also bring conflict and danger, and be motivators for action (as in kidnapping stories). Dale quoted Virginia Satir's idea of the freedom to see and hear what is here. As we grow, we learn what to feign not to see, or what literally not to notice. A child can also serve as a confidant for an adult who wouldn't normally reveal his/her feelings.

Glenda mentioned that children can take an outsider role in storytelling. This can actually be very important for authors, since the outsider role is the role of ignorance and learning, and allows the author to take time to explain things in the narrative more naturally.

Kyle said that our society extends adolescence, having the age of adulthood come much later than in some other societies. When do you start to engage with the question of romantic relationships? And what are the ages of the two people in a romance? Juliet was 13 years old in Romeo and Juliet, and I didn't get married until age 24!

Coming of age is a prominent theme in fiction. Dale asked, "What are we 'raising' children toward?" Essentially, this is the idea of lifting children up into their culturally established adult roles. Often rituals are involved (whether official or not). One of the great things to explore in fiction is the question of what makes an adult, and what kind of qualities give an adult legitimacy. Kyle mentioned that in our culture, having your "own voice" and "independence" are very important, but they may not be so in other cultures. Dale noted that we are supposed to have our "own voice" in a culturally approved way! Fitting in and being independent are terms that can be defined differently depending on local culture.

The position of children in a family can also become political. We encounter all kinds of politics and propaganda from outside concerning the role of children, and the value of children. Children and their safety and wellbeing are invoked often in politics, often in directly opposing viewpoints. Different subcultures will try to define what the role of children should be, and how they fit into the ideal family; in fact children's roles vary as widely as families do. Then of course, there is internal family politics, as when a child is used as a pawn or a go-between in divorce. Kyle mentioned that Jay Lake had written about the position where children sit in the car and how it can be indicative of family politics http://jaylake.livejournal.com/2837154.html .

There is also the question of who gets to speak for a child and when. Children are very often spoken for by parents - this is a form of social modelling that scaffolds children into appropriate social interaction, but it also can be restrictive and cause resentment. When you are a child, people are inclined to talk about you as though you were not there, even though you are. Shopkeepers and other adults can assume that you will be unable to carry out the required social moves for appropriate interaction, and be rude as a result. Kyle mentioned a situation in which a family member hovered over him until he proved he could handle a situation well on his own... after which the hovering stopped. Dale mentioned salespeople putting children in front of them. Children can be used as shields, or as an invitation to talk. They can be used to give an opening for a pickup line, as Kyle mentioned. Because children are in the process of being initiated into a cultural set of rules, they can be permitted to break those rules themselves, and they can also be used by adults as a reason to cross social barriers they ordinarily wouldn't.

Thanks so much to the folks who came out for this discussion. I look forward to speaking with you again soon.

Does worldbuilding have value? Or is it a subcultural "disease"?

This morning I read an article entitled "The disease of geek pride - worldbuilding and cultural appropriation." Frankly, I found the article interesting and yet ultimately unsatisfying. The author flamboyantly criticizes the worldbuilders of the geek culture as people who simply want to create "a bunch of useless made-up trivia" and invest them with special value whose validity is restricted to the geek culture itself. The author does mention that worldbuilding to serve a story idea or thought experiment has value, but resumes criticism when it comes to those worlds they've seen where cultures are "appropriated," i.e. used with less than full knowledge and treated as exotic, etc.

All right, yes, indeed. Some of these points are worth looking at a second time.

Worldbuilding, the author argues, "...is not culture, because it doesn’t contribute anything to any culture at large and generally relevant not even to all of SFF nerds, but to a select group: the specific fandom of a specific author or franchise." I understand this as saying that the cultures of worlds created by geeks don't contribute anything to real world cultures. This is a problem for me. Sure, thousands of worlds may be created that never make any impact on the larger culture of America or the real world as a whole. On the other hand, it's clear from looking at the enormous global popularity of certain worlds, like those of Rowling or Roddenberry or Lucas or Tolkien, that fictional worlds can and do have an influence on the larger culture. Their words get integrated into our language. Words coined by authors can be used by people who no longer even understand the story or the world in which they originated. The stamp of literature, both popular and classic, remains in our imaginations and in our language. The fact that this does not happen with all worlds ever created by anyone is unsurprising. In the world of inventions, or of songwriters, many inventions or songs fly by without notice, but some become so important they leave a lasting mark in the larger culture.

The author further argues that what's important to the worldbuilders they criticize is quantity over quality. Essentially, that a geek worldbuilder is more interested in every single last thought that Tolkien has had on a subject than in the quality of what was created. I've certainly heard people wax lyrical on Tolkien's virtues. I admire the man immensely, myself, because he was treading a path that no one else had, creating a work of art in the form of a language and animating it with culture and story. Sure, we can question his work in various ways, and ask how it might be more well-integrated, or better serve a particular cultural purpose, but essentially it is a work of art, and an extremely innovative one for its time. The question of how someone becomes inspired to create works of art has always interested me, and reading widely of that person's works, even of their notes, seems like something that might give some insight. The possibility that there might be any valuable motivation behind the avid consumption of a worldbuilder's works, thoughts, and notes is not considered by the author of the article.

Then there's the question of quality in the worlds created in this special group of worldbuilders. The author says, "it’s mostly gibberish, in long it’s identikit claptrap put together from a patchwork of sources that are themselves derivative. It’s a derivation of a derivation." The funny thing about this one is, it reminds me of the kind of thing I used to put together when I was first experimenting with worldbuilding. The first secret alphabets I ever used, which were substitution codes for our own alphabet. The first secret languages I created, which were substitution codes for English. And the names, oh, the names I made, all of which had accents on them! I wasn't so big into apostrophes, but I think you take my point: I was a learner. And indeed, I still consider myself a learner. Learners begin with imitation, and work their way up. Sometimes they get farther than others. But when you think about it, everything we ever do or say is derivative. I always thought of academic papers more as chorus performances where I was the conductor, using other people's words like instruments, bringing out some notes and keeping others more quiet, and then putting my own little flourishes on top. There is a process involved, of discovery and pushing further into what can be accomplished in worldbuilding. Still, though, I think it's important to keep thinking of it as an art form, because some people doodle with pencils, and others take pencils and create masterpieces. This doesn't mean that picking up a pencil and doodling (for hours, even!) is an activity to be scorned.

Apparently, though, geek culture itself is scorn-worthy. I wonder about this, honestly. Geek culture does get a lot of criticism from people entirely outside the sf/f area. And I can see the author's point that it makes little sense to claim (apparently stridently) that one's own canon of great works is better than The Great Works that have been recognized by history and by academia. "Better", though, is a very vague word. If it's a question of value within the subculture, of points gained by mention of one thing or another in conversation with a peer, I know I'd prefer to mention a part of the in-group canon rather than something outside. And in response to outsiders telling me that my preferred art form has no value, I don't doubt I'd get a bit defensive. Yes, I'd probably try not to mention works of outside literature that I haven't read as part of my argument, but still.

Cultural myopia is easy to criticize, but really it's the default state. It's hard to "see" one's own culture, to hear one's own accent, without having experienced others first. And since culture comes on multiple nested levels, one can argue that we'll ever entirely escape. This is why Sheila Finch and I have often argued that actual communication with aliens is unlikely to be achievable. The fundamental assumptions that we have about communication are so embedded in our cultures, and in our own world, that we struggle to see outside the bubble. Let me make clear: the outside view is always worth striving for, but it's a case of bubbles within bubbles - and depending on the social context, expressing an in-group membership has far more social value than an external viewpoint.

The author of the article also argues that people should strive for a viewpoint that is not limited by cultural frame. When taking on the question of cultural appropriation, they argue that "the root cause is geek culture, geek pride (and also the white western hegemony, but that is a given): the tendency to latch onto “cool” stuff without delving any further than that." I'll agree here. Delve further. Look for the meta-view, and at the same time, strive for the details. But then the article goes into criticizing authors for not getting their cultures right. Honestly, I'm in two minds about this one. One side says, "If you're not going to get it right, don't do it at all." The other side says, "If you don't do it at all, you're losing an opportunity." Are we going to argue that an author should never try to portray a country that he or she does not know as a native? Will we argue that an author should never try to portray a character who does not belong to his or her own culture (or subulture)? Why, then we'd be pushing people toward an even more culturally myopic form of storytelling than ever. When Paolo Bacigalupi states in an afterword that the culture he's portraying is a futuristic imagining of Thailand rather than Thailand itself, that to me suggests he's doing something like what ethnographic researchers do - which is to say, including in their work some indication of the cultural perspective out of which it came, so that readers can understand clearly what kind of limitations the research might have as a result. I'm not saying that there is no urge to seize on the cool without thinking about what lies beneath, but part of what happens when you include elements of an unfamiliar culture is that you can make people curious to learn more. Yes, the portrayal of the Other is problematic - that's been said by many more people than me. Yes, we should strive for more depth. To my mind, though, if we want those things, we shouldn't heap insults on those people who are taking steps into this arena. Perhaps some are only looking for shiny things, as this author implies. But some are being daring, opening a door into a world that few have yet experienced, giving them an opportunity to ask more should they choose to (and we'd hope they would choose to, but we can't make them). Doing their best to bring something of the real, with respect, into a fictional work, and opening themselves to derision of their artistic creation and efforts.

There is another culture being indirectly referred to here, in fact, and that is the culture being enacted by the writer of the article (and, yes, by this author). That is the culture of internet criticism. I suppose internet criticism is part of the larger culture of criticism (literary, pop cultural, etc.). There is a distinctive stream in criticism - more strongly in internet criticism, I think, but also in criticism as a whole - that glories in the spice of language, and in particular relies on the use of flamboyant language and insult to spice up a rhetorical argument. The author of the article I've cited here is engaging actively in that subculture, and here's an example:

"Prepare to drown in a deluge of mindless praise for Tolkien’s Finnish copypasta, the maps, the letters, the unpublishable writing that gets published anyway because the Tolkien Estate is hungry for cash, the minutiae in the appendices and basically, the verbal vomit of his “legendarium” (and this word will crop up a lot: when you see it, run)."

I think that we've all been done a service when someone engages a valuable question, as this author has. However, I had to fight through a deluge of aspersions such as "mindless," "vomit" and "diarrhea" in order to get to the value there was in the article. And furthermore, the author's advance declarations of not caring if someone "throws a fit" in response call into question their desire for any reasonable engagement with these arguments.

I hope that we can see beyond the subculture, and do better than that.

TTYU Retro: Worldbuilding - what's on the page?

Are you one of those worldbuilders who has files and files of material that you've developed about your world? Have you spent years on it? Have you tried to fill in every box in the checklists about ecology, economy, culture, language, etc.?

That's wonderful. Congratulations on all your hard work. Those files will be a fantastic resource, just so long as they don't turn against you.

Here's what I mean. Sometimes, as the writer, you can know your world too well - so well that you don't notice when your world isn't making it onto the page. The words that you write can evoke so much for you personally that you mistakenly believe they do the same thing for all of your readers. Having reams of information sitting in your head can blind you to this.

This is one of those cases when it's vitally important to listen to beta readers and critique partners. What you really need is someone who doesn't have all the files, and who hasn't sat with you for hours and hours to hash out world details. The best possible option is to have someone who has never seen your world before. EVER. Hand that someone the story, so that what you hear back about is only what is actually on the page.

Of course, then what you have to do (and it can be hard) is trust their judgment. Allow them to tell you what they don't understand, and try to believe them.

So how do you make sure that the world you know so well is actually coming out on the page, back when you're in the midst of drafting, and not to the point where you're receiving criticism yet?

The best suggestion I can come up with is to do what I'd call "fully engaged worldbuilding." That means leaving off talking about your world in isolation, and going to the story and the characters. Forget "what is true" about your world. Start thinking about what is relevant to one single scene, one single object, one single character. Think about a person's misconceptions, prejudgments, bad judgments, and how those might grow out of the background you've imagined. Think about tiny situations. Look at the world in its daily operation. Dig in as far as you can, and then when you're finished, go back and dig even farther.

Don't worry if it takes a while. This stuff comes in layers. Until you've reached one layer, often you can't see that there's another one below it.

Right now I'm dealing with Varin, which means I'm looking at a very complex caste system - seven levels, each of which has its own cultural values. Frankly, I'd be toast if I hadn't written files and files about what I know. I've rewritten aspects of it so many times I can hardly count them, but I'm still discovering things. My discoveries always come from things that are small, and they always depend on context (usually caste context).

• Pharmacy: my servant character had to go to a pharmacy, which had me thinking about how a pharmacy would work in their world as opposed to ours. I posted about this earlier. It was different because it was a school pharmacy for students with medical training rather than a public pharmacy.
• Money: two of my noble characters had to argue over a bet that one of them made with a member of the soldier/guard caste. During this interaction, the guard pulled out a coin, and I had to go figure out how money would work. I also realized that the noble characters would never have seen cash before (they use cards), but because the guard likes to bet, he carries it all the time and finds their naivete very amusing.
• Architecture/map layout: for a fight scene, I had to figure out how a neighborhood was laid out. When I got right down to it, I realized that space is at such a premium that there are no alleys between buildings, only behind them. To get behind an attacker, one of my main characters had to go through a shop, exit the rear door, travel through the back alleyway all the way to the end of the block, and come back around.
• Oppression: out of my realization about the layout of neighborhoods above came an understanding of institutionalized racism (actually caste-ism) in my story. The alleyways that bisect city blocks are only traveled by tradespeople and garbage collectors, and they are considered to belong to the undercaste. This is why undercaste folk are in a position to worry about running into Highers (tradespeople and shopkeepers) but the vast majority of Highers are able to ignore the undercaste completely because they are not even walking on the same streets, and the undercaste always enter a shop from the back.
• Language: there's so much to this one that I can hardly even touch it. However, I will point out that I was paying very close attention to the use of titles in the last chapter I wrote, deliberately shifting the way one character referred to another from a fully caste-appropriate appellation to a somewhat more intimate one.

So if you're dealing with a vast world, a complex society, a conlang, etc. I recommend that you increase your own self-awareness, and thus the strength of your work, in two ways:

1. Focus on the story, and particularly on small things, when you work on your own.
2. Get someone to read your work who is entirely ignorant of what you want to achieve.

After all, you've done all that work! The least you can do is make sure that your readers get to see what your world is really like.

Gender Roles: A Worldbuilding Hangout Report

It's great finally to be catching up on my reports! For those who have enjoyed the hangouts, I'm hoping to fit in one or two before the end of the summer, and I'll keep you posted. This was not our first discussion of gender, but we had a great discussion beginning with the idea of gender culture for children, and then moving outward from there. I was joined by Brian Dolton, David Peterson, Erin Peterson, Glenda Pfeiffer, Jaleh Dragich, Janet Hariett, Kyle Aisteach, and Chihuahua0.

We started with merchandising. Merchandising is an overwhelming force for gender-normalization in our culture. Personally, I can't stand the way that when you walk into a store without literally having to take sides, male or female. It forces me always to choose one of my kids to be first (grrr - I don't need that everywhere I turn!). Fact: I was really proud of my son when he walked into a store without seeing that divide, as a toddler, and picked out his own bright orange hat and red patent leather shoes. He was the most awesome little boy on the block.

Chihuahua mentioned an interesting issue: he perceives a female bias in YA book covers. Have any of you out there noticed this? If so, then how do you think it might be addressed productively? He recommended "The List" as a very interesting and provocative book about the question of femininity. Kyle responded by remarking that certain genres of book are perceived as out of bounds for certain genders. Female-led adult fantasy is hard to find, as is adolescent romance for boys.

Merchandising and marketing play into this, and they also play into those scenes in girl-related stories that irk me the most, like the "salon scene" or "shopping scene" that seems to crop up in so many entirely unnecessary places. It takes a natural concern with appearance - one that is socially important in many ways - and turns it into a kind of gender-related coercion.

Then we went looking for good example of alternate gender roles.

Kyle gave us Eowyn from J.R.R. Tolkien "No man can kill me..." "I am no man." It bears some similarity to the classical pitfalls of prophecy with an awesome gender twist. Jaleh said she liked how Eowyn fought against her role, and did so effectively.

Kyle mentioned that there has been some debate between historians as to how effective Joan of Arc's disguise as a man actually was, the idea being that a lot of people must have known she was a woman and not cared. This was certainly also the case with female pirates and pharaohs.

Janet mentioned a female pirate who supposedly passed as a man but was known to have had a child. A woman named Mary Reed was scheduled to be hanged, but got out of it by announcing she was pregnant.

Kyle mentioned the story of a pope who went into labor during a procession.

Ursula LeGuin's The Left Hand of Darkness was a natural to this discussion, obviously. We all appreciated the kinds of issues that were brought up by her Gethenians and their mutable gender. One of the most piquant aspects of this is that in the Gethenian society, "Perverts" were those who were stuck permanently in one gender (and this was a label that inevitably got associated with the human male Genly Ai).

All of us appreciated stories where traditional categories were treated as problematic and exceptions were explored.

Erin mentioned a short story about coming of age in a group of people who got to choose their gender at a certain age as they grew into it. The protagonist was experiencing gender for the first time, and questioning the family's tradition, which was to become females and have children.

In The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms by N.K. Jemisin, the protagonist, Yeine, came from a matriarchal society which many of us had found refreshing. I liked it because the male attitudes were not fundamentally changed - just because the society was matriarchal didn't mean that the men had to be what we'd call effeminate, or behave differently from the way we'd expect them to. The difference was that the male desire to protect their women was something that the woman warriors appreciated in a rather condescending manner. The male desire to protect was considered rather darling of them. Kyle mentioned that he appreciated the way that Jemisin set up the plot and the natural reasons why Yeine would be the "chosen one" as opposed to someone else.

My own novel deals with questions of gender identity and misogyny. The interesting, and rather dismaying, thing that happened as a result was that one of my beta readers misinterpreted it as the novel being misogynistic. I'm making some changes to try to make the distinction more clear, as I didn't realize it could be interpreted that way. One of the things I have been doing is trying to strengthen some aspects of gender culture that are recognizable to my readers, such as the way that groups of boys will go out and try to impress groups of girls (and raise their status with the other boys), and the kinds of friendships maintained by my protagonist's mother. I'll probably have a more extensive post on this in the near future.

Outsiders always make good protagonists, and Chihuahua mentioned that he likes to take a look at gender outsiders. It's an approach that is fascinating and worth considering.

Jaleh brought up a point that I've made elsewhere on the blog, that people will fight the social roles imposed on them, but will not move completely outside the cultural worldview in order to do so. If you're writing a historical piece, don't have someone challenge his or her gender role in a modern way. Their actions will be appropriate to the time period, and there will be specific accepted ways in which rules can be bent. Erin agreed with this, saying sometimes even readers won't pick up on the cultural groundedness of protest, and will ask why a character isn't mad about being oppressed. Keep in mind that a member of an oppressed culture will not have the same anger as an entitled modern person. Erin mentioned the case of the people who were interned in the Japanese WWII camps in the US, and how they will typically call it "unfortunate" rather than getting overtly angry.

We also talked about the Bechdel test. As I understand it, the test asks the following questions: Does this story have women in it? Do they talk to each other? Do they talk about something other than men? A story that answers yes to all three has "passed" the Bechdel test. As Brian said, the test is not absolute - some bad stories do pass the test. Chihuahua gave the example of having two women talking in the background of a story about Halloween costumes. It's harder, but not impossible, for stories to pass the test if they have male protagonists. The presence of men tends to change the way that women talk to each other, which is interesting. I find the test most useful as a thought-provoking device, allowing us to ask how fair each story is to women, and which aspects of it contribute to a more realistic view of the world vs. a more female-blind view of the world. Chihuahua said that it would be interesting to consider a reverse-Bechdel test for certain genres, asking whether boys are speaking to each other about topics other than girls... Kyle mentioned the Simpsons, and David asked about how much of male behavior is done to impress females - an interesting pointer. Brian characterized the Bechdel test as a pointer to issues, prompting people to ask "why are you not passing?"

Kyle calls the prevalence of male protagonists in Fantasy "a structural problem." One could see it in part as a symptom of our culture's preference for the adventurer plot, which at least in the case of historical or historically influenced worlds, can be more difficult to achieve with female characters. The most important thing, we all agreed, is to be mindful of these issues as we write. Not all stories need to fall into an easy category. Chihuahua mentioned a story in which a 1900's steampunk shapeshifter can switch from male to female. That brought Loki to my mind immediately. The story of the wall around Asgard, and how Loki changed himself into a mare to stop its completion, and then ended up giving birth to Selipnir the eight-legged steed, is a wonderful example of gender-bending in classical mythology (I highly recommend you look it up for the details).

Kyle expressed disappointment in the social model that appears in many steampunk stories, where classism and racism tend to remain unquestioned. He wanted to see stories from the butlers' points of view (which I found heartening, though I'm not at all writing steampunk!). Brian mentioned that there has been lesbian steampunk. Chihuahua mentioned that the 1920's were interesting years for gender roles because openly gay actors were more accepted; that would be an interesting era to explore. Kyle said that the 1920's were a time of women's liberation, trends toward racial equality and acceptance of LGBT people, but that later backlash had led to more extreme imposition of gender roles. A society can't be counted on to progress steadily toward more acceptance and tolerance (interesting story possibilities here). Glenda explained that in the culture she's working with, it's semi-matriarchal but not a full gender reverse. In her world, women's nurturing qualities are seen as the proper kind of strength to make good rulers capable of making long-term plans.

We barely touched on the question of subcultures. Gender norms, and who gets excluded on the basis of them, vary between groups. For example, I have read personal articles about transgender or bisexual people feeling rejected by gay- or lesbian-normative groups. These areas are fraught with significance for everyone.

Erin recommended Tamora Pierce's work, and David gave us a couple of links:
http://dedalvs.livejournal.com/9550.html 
http://dedalvs.com/books/2009/07/05/beyond-good-and-evil/

Thanks to everyone who participated! I look forward to talking to you all again soon.

TTYU Retro: Gender in job ads, and subconscious bias in language

You don't know what you are saying.

Sure, you think you know. You've chosen the content of what you want to say. You're thinking about what linguists call the "propositional content," or the "message" of what is being said. The fact is, though, that you're saying so much more. The complexity of language carries all kinds of information about social alignment, and the individual's stance in relation to social groups and in relation to larger discourses in society.

Some time ago, I ran across this link through @geardrops on Twitter. I was fascinated, but not at all surprised, given my background in linguistic anthropology. The article talks about a study in which it was demonstrated that job postings contain language that is "gendered," or biased toward either a female or male expectation - and that potential applicants can feel this when they read the postings, and gravitate toward the ones that match their gender. Wow, right? Interesting. Within three minutes of having picked up this link, I ended up in an argument about whether we had left behind bias in the workplace, and whether a person could be considered sexist for writing an ad in this way, and whether or not "gendered" language was just something made up by academics that had no basis in reality. Geardrops' conclusion, which I loved, was this:

"Hey guess what language bias exists and is subtle."

That's right. The social messages in language are not just subtle, they are subconsicous. So let's look at what that means for a second, starting with the question of politeness.

If you ask someone, "You need to ask your professor for a pen. What do you say?" that person will give you an answer, but chances are it won't be exactly what that person would say if you recorded them in the situation. It will be - and this is important - what they think they ought to say. This is a trend backed up by all kinds of politeness research: live recordings will get you different results from what people say they do. In fact, I found precisely this in my own research. When I studied polite and casual forms in Japanese, I asked three teachers how much of each type they thought they were using in the classroom, and each one said they used formal forms most of the time. When I went in, took a videotape, transcribed and counted these forms, it turned out that they were using formal forms 35% of the time.

I'm sure you can see the difference.

The propositional content of what you say is consciously chosen. But for the most part, the manner in which you say it, and the social messages conveyed, are outside of your conscious control.

Can we say that there is "fault" involved, or accuse a person of being sexist, because of what they express in a subconscious manner?

Well, yes and no.

I often imagine language use within a culture as an enormous piece of fabric. Each person's contribution is a tiny thread within that fabric. The color of the fabric varies depending on which part you look at, but each thread will tend to be roughly the same color as the ones around it. We don't speak in a vacuum. The patterns of speech and expression that we use are learned from those around us, and the more closely our color matches the surrounding pattern, the more likely everything is to appear normal. Sexism, racism, and any other -ism that you might care to identify are mostly built into the fabric. If you're a member of an insider group, chances are pretty good that the language use patterns that show bias will be difficult to see. It's the whole "by saying mankind I mean all people" thing. The distinct color of the thread containing the word "man" will be more easily recognized by someone who doesn't match it - i.e. a woman.

I think it's more effective to talk about "gendered language" than "sexist language" because the latter implies intent. Intent is a tricky thing. In our society these days "bias" itself is seen as being wrong - which is I think a good thing - but what it means is that people can get attacked for subconsciously engaging in the fabric of the discourse around them. Should they be blamed? Probably not. Engaged with, probably yes. Every time we question biased language we're acting on the front lines of societal change. Increasing our consciousness of these mostly-invisible markers is the way to get people to notice biases they don't mean to convey, and act to change them.

Here's an important point, though. Social language is not a plus-or-minus proposition. You can go one direction or another on the road, but you're still on the road. We will always, always mark our social position, our posture, relative to others. We will always express our membership in social groups. We will strive to distinguish ourselves from groups that we don't want to be a part of by emphasizing our membership in other groups. I don't see "gendered language" ever going away; I do, however, see it changing.

Language is something that reinforces itself, and at the same time changes itself, every time that it is used.

So to be a positive force for cultural change in the world, think about increasing consciousness - your own as well as that of others. Go easy on yourself - be aware that you yourself are constantly enacting culture and social alignment without thinking, and you won't be able just to "stop." Don't blame yourself terribly if you find yourself doing something you don't want to do - just think through it and try to exert your conscious will to change it. Be willing to engage with others. Be willing to question yourself.

And next time you're looking for a job, be aware of gendered language. Be aware, too, that the person who wrote the ad probably didn't try to exclude anyone. Choose not to let that shut you down.

Change takes time, but it's worth the effort.