By
On
In Blog posts, Podcast episodes, Writing Diversity
With 0 Comments

Happy Monday, writers!

We might no longer be doing the Doing Diversity in Writing podcast, but that doesn’t make the episodes we produced any less relevant. If you haven’t listened to the three seasons we put out yet, here’s your chance.

The full show notes and list of resources mentioned in the episode I’m sharing today can be found below.

In this episode of Doing Diversity in Writing, we—Bethany and I—talk about two very common pitfalls when representing diverse characters: essentialism and affirmative myopia.

More specifically, we talk about:

  • what essentialism is and what makes it problematic
  • the fact that a lot of stereotypes that persist today are based on pseudo-scientific practices we don’t consider science anymore
  • what affirmative myopia is and why we need to avoid it
  • how the movies Stonewall (2015) and Carol (2015) both fell into the affirmative myopia trap
  • why bringing down the dominant group upholds the structures we are trying to overthrow

Some quotes from this week’s episode:

From Post-Colonial Studies: The Key Concepts by Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin: “Essentialism is the assumption that groups, categories or classes of objects have one or several
defining features exclusive to all members of that category. Some studies of race or gender, for
instance, assume the presence of essential characteristics distinguishing one race from another
or the feminine from the masculine.”

“If we believe people are determined by their biological make-up, we’re basically saying that the way the world functions and our positions and situations within that world can’t really be changed. If existing power relations are in place because there is some inherent logic in our DNA that defines our place and role within society, how do you challenge the status quo?”

“Those essentialised stereotypes, which are often based on science we no longer consider real science, are still running rampant. We still have so many assumptions about the ‘other’ – those with different identity markers – floating around in our collective unconsciousness.”

“This doesn’t mean we can’t have late black people, angry black women, violent Muslims, perfectly styled gay guys and butch lesbians in our work. But, whenever we write a character, we should make sure we didn’t give them these characteristics just because they are gay, lesbian, white, black, Hispanic, Asian, Muslim, young, old, poor, rich, and so on. We need to give them solid reasons and explainable circumstances for why they are being this way or why they are acting that way, one that goes beyond mere biology.”

“If we, in our attempts to elevate those voices by representing them in better ways, fall into the affirmative myopia trap by, for example, negatively depicting those who’ve always been in power, we’re perpetuating the same structures that created that status quo in the first place. We lift one group by bringing another down.”

And here are the (re)sources we mentioned on the show:

You can find this week’s bonus material, The How to Avoid Essentialism and Affirmative Myopia Checklist, in our Diversity in Writing Toolkit, which you can download here.

By
On
In Blog posts, Podcast episodes, Writing Diversity
With 0 Comments

Happy Monday, writers!

We might no longer be doing the Doing Diversity in Writing podcast, but that doesn’t make the episodes we produced any less relevant. If you haven’t listened to the three seasons we put out yet, here’s your chance.

The full show notes and list of resources mentioned in the episode I’m sharing today can be found below.

In this episode of Doing Diversity in Writing, we—Bethany and I—about how representation actually works.

More specifically, we talk about:

  • that representation is about who we make visible and who are rendered invisible because of those decisions
  • why minority voices are automatically amplified when they are represented
  • that representation is not just about who is present within works of fiction but also about HOW they are present
  • why shoehorning diverse characters into your work isn’t the answer
  • Netflix’s Bridgerton showing us how we can reinvent the world without erasing painful histories
  • why it’s so hard to go against existing stereotypes and tropes in our writing (which doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep trying!)

Some quotes from this week’s episode:

“When there’s very little or no representation, or all the representations are the same, that one character, that one characterisation, can be all a reader knows for a long time.”

“It’s not just the case that certain groups of people are culturally absent or not as present, there’s also the fact that those few representations of them out there tend to be stereotypical and potentially harmful.”

“If we want to make a real effort, is it enough to sneak in a single homosexual character or someone belonging to an ethnic minority? Are we doing our bit to change the world by adding one black woman to our very white cast? Or one Muslim family to our otherwise Christian or secular world?”

“Inclusion matters, but representation just for the sake of inclusion isn’t really the answer.”

“There’s more to diversity than race and gender. Don’t think you can’t write diverse characters just because it doesn’t make sense to include a cast of black or Asian or Hispanic characters in your world.”

“Each society comes with its own set of stereotypes for those who are considered ‘other’, and it’s really difficult to counter or break down these different ‘types’ and provide better alternatives.”

“Representation is not only about who we make present, it’s also about how we make them present. Doing representation right means we should think through both steps.”

And here are the (re)sources we mentioned on the show:

You can find this week’s bonus material, The Two Steps of Representation Checklist, in our Diversity in Writing Toolkit, which you can download here.

By
On
In Interviews
With 0 Comments

Last December, my friend Ethan Freckleton, host of The Fearless Storyteller Podcast, sent me a link to the Fierce Womxn Writing podcast, saying ‘I’ve listened to a couple episodes now, and it strikes me as the kind a podcast that you’d be a good guest for’.

Ethan and I had discussed my dream to be on more podcasts to talk about my coaching work, my tarot books, and my attempt to put my coaching into a book (the result of which is the 52 Weeks of Writing Author Journal and Planner), so his suggestion was more than welcome.

What I found, however, was not just a platform I wanted to be on (although I’d love to at some point). I really admired the format, the questions the host asked her guests, and the wide diversity of writers she invited. It resonated so much and on so many levels. I became an instant fan, and I still am.

And I’m ridiculously excited Sara accepted my invitation so I can properly introduce you to the show now.

Sara Gallagher (she/her) is a writing guide who delights in helping adults find their voice and access their creativity. She coaches, teaches workshops, and hosts a weekly podcast called Fierce Womxn Writing where her mission is to inspire you to write more.Read More →

By
On
In Blog posts, Writing Diversity
With 0 Comments


Diversity is a hot topic within the literary world. As a teacher of Gender and Post-Colonial Studies, the question of diversity and its representation within literature is at the forefront of everything I teach, read, and write. Even though the larger part of the canon is still made up of white heterosexual men who write about other white heterosexual men, things are gradually shifting. Self-publishing is doing a lot to alter the gender dynamic: more women are successfully self-published than men, and I have high hopes for self-publishing to open the way for non-white and non-heterosexual writers as well. Next to that, more writers are becoming increasingly aware of the necessity to include a more diverse array of characters in their work.

This last issue is the focus of my new blog series on Writing Diversity.

Each month, I will address the complexity behind the portrayal of diverse characters in our work by diving deeply into a variety of topics, including representation, tokenism, gender, race/ethnicity, sexuality, and so on. This month, I discuss the subject of ‘essentialism’, from what essentialism is to why it is problematic to attribute our characters with essentialist traits.

What is essentialism?

Read More →

By
On
In Blog posts, Writing Diversity
With 8 Comments


Diversity is a hot topic within the literary world. As a teacher of Gender and Post-Colonial Studies, the question of diversity and its representation within literature is at the forefront of everything I teach, read, and write. Even though the larger part of the canon is still made up of white heterosexual men who write about other white heterosexual men, things are gradually shifting. Self-publishing is doing a lot to alter the gender dynamic: more women are successfully self-published than men, and I have high hopes for self-publishing to open the way for non-white and non-heterosexual writers as well. Next to that, more writers are becoming increasingly aware of the necessity to include a more diverse array of characters in their work.

This last issue is the focus of my new blog series on Writing Diversity.

Each month, I will address the complexity behind the portraying of diverse characters in our work by diving deeply into a variety of topics, including essentialism, tokenism, gender, race/ethnicity, sexuality, and so on. In this first post, I will go a little deeper into the question of representation, the two steps representation is made up of, and the reason why it is important to consider both these steps when we bring diverse characters into our work.Read More →