I never noticed just how bad so many skin color descriptions were until I had it pointed out to me. Now I notice it every time it comes up. It's not that there's anything fundamentally wrong with...
I never noticed just how bad so many skin color descriptions were until I had it pointed out to me. Now I notice it every time it comes up.
It's not that there's anything fundamentally wrong with describing how someone looks, it's that in so many books skin color seems to be mentioned only if someone is a person of color, and then it's frequently referenced with an often off-putting metaphor -- often candy or dessert-based ("chocolate", "caramel"). Other characters who are presumably white are rarely explicitly conveyed as such, and even if they are we never hear about their "white chocolate" or "undyed fondant" skin. Instead, white characters often get descriptions of their physical attributes while people of color get described by their pigmentation.
That’s because most books written by white authors are about groups of people in which white is more frequent, making it unnecessary to demarcate whiteness. Characters that go against this norm...
in so many books skin color seems to be mentioned only if someone is a person of color
That’s because most books written by white authors are about groups of people in which white is more frequent, making it unnecessary to demarcate whiteness. Characters that go against this norm are required to be singled out because otherwise the reader will just assume they’re white.
This is not necessarily an issue for a particular story.
It may be an issue for most stories to feature almost only white characters. But that evaluation depends on multiple factors.
Yeah, I very much treat it in the same vein as I do something like the Bechdel test: mostly meaningless on an individual level but far more relevant when looked at as a pattern/trend across many...
Yeah, I very much treat it in the same vein as I do something like the Bechdel test: mostly meaningless on an individual level but far more relevant when looked at as a pattern/trend across many works.
As you said, the Hortian satirical part of the comic isn't really the test itself, but how easily it applies across all film media (at the time) despite it being so strict. What I am taking issue...
As you said, the Hortian satirical part of the comic isn't really the test itself, but how easily it applies across all film media (at the time) despite it being so strict. What I am taking issue with is the idea that the test itself was created to be satire because it was presented in comic form. It's founded on Woolf's very much non-satirical observation and it seems like a mistake to retroactively declare the parameters satirical when it feels like Woolf's point was to sincerely point out how low the bar was and writers still weren't hitting it.
The practical use of the test is pretty much covered above otherwise, yeah, no disputes with that.
My issue it that it seems you're suggesting they are retroactively created and designed to be satirical because they were popularized by a cartoon, which seems like a disservice to both Woolf's...
My issue it that it seems you're suggesting they are retroactively created and designed to be satirical because they were popularized by a cartoon, which seems like a disservice to both Woolf's non-satirical observations and the format of comics. The satire in the comic was using the parameters Woolf laid out and showing how easily it applied across all film media, not that the parameters themselves were a satire of something.
That’s okay! Additionally you can translate my two times above comment as: “It’s quite possible that your objection is correct, but maybe consider this other part of my argument which may remain...
That’s okay!
Additionally you can translate my two times above comment as:
“It’s quite possible that your objection is correct, but maybe consider this other part of my argument which may remain sound even in face of this objection.”
So? What, other than it first appearing in a cartoon, makes you think it was satire? Especially since the cartoon derives from comments by Virginia Woolf.
So? What, other than it first appearing in a cartoon, makes you think it was satire?
Especially since the cartoon derives from comments by Virginia Woolf.
This starts to seem like they're really bending over backwards to avoid just. . . hiring more women.
In 2018, screenwriting software developers began incorporating functions that allow writers to analyze their scripts for gender representation. Software with such functions includes Highland 2, WriterDuet and Final Draft 11.
This starts to seem like they're really bending over backwards to avoid just. . . hiring more women.
I'm sure there's a little bit of both. I can see data like that being genuinely revealing to certain authors, and not just for the specific case of gender representation but for broader plotting...
I'm sure there's a little bit of both. I can see data like that being genuinely revealing to certain authors, and not just for the specific case of gender representation but for broader plotting in general, but I can also see it, like you mentioned, succumbing to Goodhart's law and some writers/studios simply using it as a box-checking method. It is trivially easy to pass the Bechdel test by adding a single scene or even line of dialogue; meanwhile, some movies fail it through no fault of their own, and forcing in something to pass it would fundamentally change the story (e.g. Gravity, which only has two characters (one of whom is male), or movies that are intended to focus on primarily male characters and experiences, like Moonlight).
Even so, it's easy to get into the weeds with the Bechdel test and its application to individual examples, when the spirit of the test isn't about critiquing any one specific movie but about highlighting a cultural trend, so unless the software is taking inputs across many scripts, I don't know how much utility it will have.
I strongly hesitate to endorse a sort of "counter-test" given that so many discussions of women's issues are already plagued by placing men's issues as an opposed counterbalance. It just feeds the...
I strongly hesitate to endorse a sort of "counter-test" given that so many discussions of women's issues are already plagued by placing men's issues as an opposed counterbalance. It just feeds the idea that men and women are opposites, and that there's some sort of zero-sum equilibrium that forces gains for one to come at the expense of the other.
The Bechdel test does a good job highlighting the fact that a large number of films either don't have multiple female characters, don't show their female characters interacting, or, if they do interact, showing that it often happens in a very limited context. Those aren't really solved or addressed if we gather data about men as well. Such a test could certainly highlight separate issues (and indeed if you search around you can find myriad variants of the Bechdel test), but it wouldn't really change the issues that the original test surfaces, and it certainly wouldn't negate them.
I'd bet that books from central Africa and Asia single out characters as having white skin, just because white skin is in the minority in those regions.
I'd bet that books from central Africa and Asia single out characters as having white skin, just because white skin is in the minority in those regions.
https://writingwithcolor.tumblr.com/post/96830966357/writing-with-color-description-guide-words-for That whole blog is pretty great for non POC authors learning to write POC.
This reminds me of how Martin Amis wrote a book (I don't remember which) with a black character but didn't say they were black and readers didn't really pick up on it
This reminds me of how Martin Amis wrote a book (I don't remember which) with a black character but didn't say they were black and readers didn't really pick up on it
I was going to make a point by point commentary but arrived at the conclusion that this was meant as satire. I don’t read many books so I have no idea if any of that is true. Maybe this is...
I was going to make a point by point commentary but arrived at the conclusion that this was meant as satire. I don’t read many books so I have no idea if any of that is true. Maybe this is relevant for people that read a lot, and also from certain genres. I don’t know. The author doesn’t provide any context.
I never noticed just how bad so many skin color descriptions were until I had it pointed out to me. Now I notice it every time it comes up.
It's not that there's anything fundamentally wrong with describing how someone looks, it's that in so many books skin color seems to be mentioned only if someone is a person of color, and then it's frequently referenced with an often off-putting metaphor -- often candy or dessert-based ("chocolate", "caramel"). Other characters who are presumably white are rarely explicitly conveyed as such, and even if they are we never hear about their "white chocolate" or "undyed fondant" skin. Instead, white characters often get descriptions of their physical attributes while people of color get described by their pigmentation.
That’s because most books written by white authors are about groups of people in which white is more frequent, making it unnecessary to demarcate whiteness. Characters that go against this norm are required to be singled out because otherwise the reader will just assume they’re white.
This is not necessarily an issue for a particular story.
It may be an issue for most stories to feature almost only white characters. But that evaluation depends on multiple factors.
Yeah, I very much treat it in the same vein as I do something like the Bechdel test: mostly meaningless on an individual level but far more relevant when looked at as a pattern/trend across many works.
No it wasn't. It follows from comments made by Virginia Wolfe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test
Cartoons aren't inherently satirical. There are plenty of serious ones, even if they're tongue-in-cheek.
In this case: what is it satirizing?
As you said, the Hortian satirical part of the comic isn't really the test itself, but how easily it applies across all film media (at the time) despite it being so strict. What I am taking issue with is the idea that the test itself was created to be satire because it was presented in comic form. It's founded on Woolf's very much non-satirical observation and it seems like a mistake to retroactively declare the parameters satirical when it feels like Woolf's point was to sincerely point out how low the bar was and writers still weren't hitting it.
The practical use of the test is pretty much covered above otherwise, yeah, no disputes with that.
Amazing, I had Maus on the mind as well!
My issue it that it seems you're suggesting they are retroactively created and designed to be satirical because they were popularized by a cartoon, which seems like a disservice to both Woolf's non-satirical observations and the format of comics. The satire in the comic was using the parameters Woolf laid out and showing how easily it applied across all film media, not that the parameters themselves were a satire of something.
Accidentally deleted top comment because of mobile.
Anyway quoting the now inexistent:
This doesn't apply to anything I asked about, and it now feels dismissive of the sincerity of the observations.
Please attribute any erratic behavior to my incompetence rather than bad faith. I assure you that is the case.
Fair enough, we are getting into the weeds here. We agree on why it's at least not a great litmus test as-is, at least.
That’s okay!
Additionally you can translate my two times above comment as:
“It’s quite possible that your objection is correct, but maybe consider this other part of my argument which may remain sound even in face of this objection.”
Sorry for being cryptic.
Regarding the deletion it was accidental and this happens often enough that I created a thread about it: https://tildes.net/~tildes/qe1/maybe_its_too_easy_to_delete_comments_on_mobile
Hope it is all clear now!
So? What, other than it first appearing in a cartoon, makes you think it was satire?
Especially since the cartoon derives from comments by Virginia Woolf.
This starts to seem like they're really bending over backwards to avoid just. . . hiring more women.
I'm sure there's a little bit of both. I can see data like that being genuinely revealing to certain authors, and not just for the specific case of gender representation but for broader plotting in general, but I can also see it, like you mentioned, succumbing to Goodhart's law and some writers/studios simply using it as a box-checking method. It is trivially easy to pass the Bechdel test by adding a single scene or even line of dialogue; meanwhile, some movies fail it through no fault of their own, and forcing in something to pass it would fundamentally change the story (e.g. Gravity, which only has two characters (one of whom is male), or movies that are intended to focus on primarily male characters and experiences, like Moonlight).
Even so, it's easy to get into the weeds with the Bechdel test and its application to individual examples, when the spirit of the test isn't about critiquing any one specific movie but about highlighting a cultural trend, so unless the software is taking inputs across many scripts, I don't know how much utility it will have.
I strongly hesitate to endorse a sort of "counter-test" given that so many discussions of women's issues are already plagued by placing men's issues as an opposed counterbalance. It just feeds the idea that men and women are opposites, and that there's some sort of zero-sum equilibrium that forces gains for one to come at the expense of the other.
The Bechdel test does a good job highlighting the fact that a large number of films either don't have multiple female characters, don't show their female characters interacting, or, if they do interact, showing that it often happens in a very limited context. Those aren't really solved or addressed if we gather data about men as well. Such a test could certainly highlight separate issues (and indeed if you search around you can find myriad variants of the Bechdel test), but it wouldn't really change the issues that the original test surfaces, and it certainly wouldn't negate them.
I'd bet that books from central Africa and Asia single out characters as having white skin, just because white skin is in the minority in those regions.
https://writingwithcolor.tumblr.com/post/96830966357/writing-with-color-description-guide-words-for
That whole blog is pretty great for non POC authors learning to write POC.
That is a great link, and undoubtedly useful to any writers out there. It's very clear and helpful!
This reminds me of how Martin Amis wrote a book (I don't remember which) with a black character but didn't say they were black and readers didn't really pick up on it
I was going to make a point by point commentary but arrived at the conclusion that this was meant as satire. I don’t read many books so I have no idea if any of that is true. Maybe this is relevant for people that read a lot, and also from certain genres. I don’t know. The author doesn’t provide any context.
McSweeney's is a satire site.
Okay, then I don’t think it was very funny :P
I think you make some good points. I also think you arrived at them pretty much by yourself. Props to you!