[ SECRET POST #2795 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2795 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Law & Order: Criminal Intent]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Fred Astaire/Ginger Rogers]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Jeeves and Wooster]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Yahtzee/Zero Punctuation]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Markiplier]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Jackie Chan Adventures]


__________________________________________________



08.
[The Parent Trap]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Alexander]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Starsky and Hutch]











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 012 secrets from Secret Submission Post #399.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I think part of the reason this happens, though, is that so very often when a woman or a POC is the main character, that's basically what the book is about. What I mean is -- if there's a POC lead then it will be about overcoming racism while if it's a woman it will be overcoming sexism (and WOC are both) and this permeates EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of the story.

And so because people are so used to a POC's race or a woman's gender as being a huge part of his or her character, when the work doesn't make a big deal of it, people have a tendency to default to white male.

It's why movies with lots of black leads get coded as "black" movies -- because there's the assumption that the film is about the racism that black people face. This is also why I cringe whenever I see a woman as a main character and the show/book/movie has to go all "GIRL POWER" on us.

Now, let me be clear -- I understand that racism/sexism/homophobia are huge and inescapable facets of people's lives given how endemic they are throughout our culture. And I'm a WOC myself. But I would be PISSED if someone tried to characterize my life as a triumph over racism/sexism because those are only things I've faced. But they're not what make me, ME. I've faced sexism and racism but that's not all that there is to me and I wouldn't want those "-isms" to characterize my life.

[likeadeuce]

I think there's a middle ground between 'everything in the book is about the main character's race' and 'the author avoids explicitly mentioning the main character's race in any way and then gets pissy when people don't read it the way he wanted them to.'

I just don't get why Gaiman is so cutesy about it.

[(Anonymous)]

But... he didn't? He left plenty of details in the text for people to pick up on race if they were reading carefully. That's why lots of people did pick up on it. He also didn't get pissy. His reply is very diplomatic considering he's responding to someone questioning him about his own book when they haven't read it very carefully. He doesn't tell them they'we wrong or that they're dumb, he simply says that this assumption might call for some self-examination (which is true) and that they might get further clarification if they read the book again, but more carefully this time (which is also true).

Gaiman hardly pulled an Anne Rice here.

[likeadeuce]

But why should it be a detail we have to read for carefully & look for clues? If Shadow does actually have a consciousness if his own racial identity that differs from what he tells the guard, why does it never come up in his own viewpoint? That's an authorial choice & it's a perfectly valid one but I'm not sure it accomplishes anything that helps the story.

[(Anonymous)]

"But why should it be a detail we have to read for carefully & look for clues?"

It... isn't? I mean, you aren't obligated to read anything carefully if you don't want to. (Though obviously that's going to significantly impact your understanding of whatever it is you're reading.) But if you're asking why it's not stated directly in plain language, i.e. "Shadow is a man of mixed race", then... I don't really understand. Stories often contain details that aren't explicit, that's part of the point in reading them and figuring out what's going on. You might as well ask why Gaiman doesn't come right out and say that Low-Key is the god Loki instead of letting people make that connection for themselves. Or why Gaiman waits to make that Mr. Wednesday = Odin connection. Or why Gaiman doesn't put in a footnote that says, "Mr. Nancy is actually Anansi, a West African trickster god who often takes the form of a spider." Why doesn't he simply tell us that Hinzelmann is the reason why the children of Lakeside are vanishing and that Hinzelmann too is a mythological figure instead of the kindly, helpful man he appears to be on the surface? Why not state upfront what all the mythological identities of all the characters are?

So we circle back to your question.. what does he accomplish by having the readers "read carefully & look for clues?" That's just how books and stories work: some details are plain, some aren't. The discovery and grasping the significance through your own efforts is part of the fun, surely.

[likeadeuce]

I think we just have different interpretations of the book, thanks for your input.

[(Anonymous)]

Why should an author have to write "this character is of the black race" instead of "this character has coffee-colored skin," or "this character has dark brown skin?"

That's kind of the point of this discussion: people overlook what are actually very explicit descriptors in order to keep assuming that characters are white. All "reading carefully" means is "actually paying attention."

[likeadeuce]

Because racial identity is about more than skin tone. Because it's made explicit that people can't tell Shadow's race by looking at him. And because the coffee-color thing is widely mocked in writing about this issue: see here and here just for starters.)

And -- people on this thread ARE actually discussing textual details in the book (the conversation with the guard, the 'sickle-cell' reference) and having different interpretations of what they mean. This is the opposite of "not paying attention."