Interracial Doesn't Have to be Reductive

[Cagivagurl]

we are one species, not one race. A Crow and a Shoebill are both birds, but they aren't the same.

I'm afraid you are wrong. Not my opinion either BTW. There has been a lot of research carried out on the human beings that inhabit our wonderful planet.
I could attach a myriad of papers generated by this research, but in all honesty. I can't be bothered.
It's enough for me that experts in the field of Genome research have established that
We, the human beings are one race...

We are also a species of a much broader group... “Human being” is a biological designation for those of the species Homo sapiens...

Humans are classified as mammals because humans have the same distinctive features found in all members of this large group. Humans are also classified within: the subgroup of mammals called primates....

So human beings are a race... Separate from other members of the Primate family.
Of course you can choose to believe the studies, as I do. Or you can follow your own logic.... I made my decision. You can make yours...

Human beings are all members of the human race. In my humble opinion.

Cagivagurl

 

[Britva415]

EC is in fact, the absolute worst place for a low or moderate profile writer to publish in. Bar none.

Only according to those particular metrics for "worst," which aren't important to everyone.

Funny how AH keeps telling people to write for themselves and not worry about things like ratings, views, favorites (I'm not saying you ever said this to anyone) and then, people whose writing happens to be best for EC because they don't care to contrive a pair of handcuffs for no reason get dismissed.

 

[cadeauxxx]

Where are you from? 1875?

All six of those people are considered "white".

Ashkenazi and Mizrahi Jews exist.

There is a vast range of ethnicities in East Europe that would be considered "white" by American and western standards, whom are not in their respective countries and regions. The Balkan Wars is full of examples of this.

 

[Britva415]

Ashkenazi and Mizrahi Jews exist.

There is a vast range of ethnicities in East Europe that would be considered "white" by American and western standards, whom are not in their respective countries and regions. The Balkan Wars is full of examples of this.

Calling them white doesn't erase their existence.

And we're talking about Friends, so, yeah, American POV matters here.

Friends was not in any way at all a show about interracial friendships or romance.

 

[cadeauxxx]

Calling them white doesn't erase their existence.

LOL tell that Mizrahi and Ashkenazi Jews.

EDIT: I also mentioned East European ethnicities for a reason. Spend some time around around Czech, Ukrainian, and Albanians, and they don't refer to themselves as "white".

 

[Cagivagurl]

There aren't different races of mankind, only one race, different ethnicities, yes. Interracial is a misnomer. The scientific consensus is that race, in this sense, has no biological basis – we are all one race, the human race. Racial identity, however, is very real. We identify as black, white, yellow, red so forth so on.

We are one "Race." The genome sequencing has been completed by experts in their respective fields... Any delineation of that group is by way of ethnicity, not race. People have tried to separate us for years. They use the word race, to segregate people based on religion, location, and of course skin colour.
They incorrectly use the word race, because it makes their assumptions stronger.
The longer people buy into the bullshit about separate races of human beings. The longer we will have to live with the tyranny of racism.
Skin colour doesn't make you better or worse than the person standing next to you.
Their chosen religion doesn't make them better or worse...
Their sexuality doesn't make them better or worse, merely different...
In my opinion only of course.

Cagivagurl

 

[Britva415]

LOL tell that Mizrahi and Ashkenazi Jews.

The ones in America?

 

[cadeauxxx]

Since Friends was mentioned as a diverse cast, I'm curious if anyone else here watched through Miami Vice.

It's main cast was completely diverse. 3 white guys (Crockett, Switek and Zito), 1 black guy (Tubbs), 1 black woman (Trudy) 1 Cuban woman (Gina) and 1 Latino man (Castillo)

Several episodes were based around interracial relationships and the general differences in the vice cops all working together with their cultural differences. All throughout the series, there were plenty of jokes about the differences between Crockett being a southern Florida guy and Tubbs being the big city New York detective who does things differently. Don Johnson and Phillip Michael Thomas had great chemistry and were able to carry the show in it's latter seasons when the quality of writing declined.

Castillo had 3 episodes that explored his mysterious past and related to his wife from Asia. (Golden Triangle Pt 1 and 2 are highlights of the first season). Edward James Olmos owned this role and like the main 2 stars, I'd argue he carried the show a great deal too.

It's widely agreed among fans that Gina and Trudy were the least explored characters, often treated as furniture in the background or made to play undercover prostitutes 3/4ths of the time they had their own plot. There were a few episodes though where Gina has love interests, including an Irishman (played by a young Liam Nesson) and one that explored her Cuban background. It's funny that in the beginning of the series, she is set up to be Crockett's girlfriend, but I guess they become "coworkers who occasionally sleep with each other" as my girlfriend called it.

Unfortunately for Trudy, the one main episode she got as a star ended up being the notorious one where the show jumped the shark (If you watched the show, you know what I'm talking about. It's in season 4). A shame she got stuck with such a bad script, Olivia Brown deserved better.

As for the other two white guys besides Crockett; Switek and Zito were just comic relief most of the time. They were the clowns of the show (The Phil Collins episode exemplifies this).

But still, there were many episodes that explored cultural differences and acceptance for IR friendships and relationships done in ways that were fun.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Only according to those particular metrics for "worst," which aren't important to everyone.

Funny how AH keeps telling people to write for themselves and not worry about things like ratings, views, favorites (I'm not saying you ever said this to anyone) and then, people whose writing happens to be best for EC because they don't care to contrive a pair of handcuffs for no reason get dismissed.

First of all, nothing is inherently best for EC. No one sits down and says, I'm going to write an EC story (yes hyperbole, for all you nitpickers out there I'm sure that indeed one or two people in the entire 26 year history of lit have intentionally written an EC story). Stories go into EC only because they don't fit anywhere else, which is a blatant indictment of the antiquated category system on lit (note to admin: if you'd quit wasting time breaking the profile pages you might be able to update the categories?). EC is simply a euphemism for 'miscellaneous', nothing more. Nobody sits down to write a miscellaneous story, so no story is ever really best for EC. EC is merely a last resort.

Your other point is metrics. You say that people write for themselves and don't care about scores or opinions yet still take care to place their stories where they will get exposure. Well, exposure has nothing to do with ratings and opinions. I write a story. I don't care if it gets a Red H or it gets 1-bombed to oblivion, but if I have the chance for 100 people to see it or 1000 people to see it, I will choose the 1000. It's a completely separate issue from scores and/or pandering to audience expectations. Now I'm not about to troll incest with a non-incest story just to get the views, that's pretty silly, but if I have a story that could either go into EC or say EV, it will go into EV every time. It has nothing to do with the score. In fact, your assertion that a story should go into EC (or any other category) does the opposite of that. It may get less views in that category but it will be better received by those with the 'correct' expectations, actually is essentially pandering. So you are recommending to those claiming not to pander, that they should pander to avoid pandering. You need to straighten out your argument.

 

[Britva415]

nothing is inherently best for EC

Right, so, it's not inherently worst either.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Right, so, it's not inherently worst either.

From the standpoint of exposure, yes actually it is worst, as I have mathematically demonstrated.

From your standpoint, you see it not as worst because your standpoint is still of pandering, not of exposure. And really, making something belong in miscellaneous is not really that, it's merely keeping it out of other places to avoid offending, which is not even going for feedback so much as running and hiding from negative pushback, which is even more neurotic.

Putting a story into category A where it might get 100 views and score 4.5 instead of category B where it will get 1000 views but score 3.5 is blatantly writing for applause and bouquets and is writing from the ego. Going for more views and standing in the line of pushback fire takes guts. It's writing from the heart.

 

[Britva415]

To

your standpoint is still of pandering, not of exposure

Pandering to who? The 900 people who aren't even reading it at all 'cause I'm not interested in making up content for them?

According to your logic, someone who "doesn't want to pander" should just roll some dice to decide what category their story goes into. Posting anal content to the anal category would obviously be "pandering."

So we're on the same page. Exposure is important to you, and not to everyone. As far as the scoring goes, you're projecting. I have no control over and no investment in scores. If you think I"m lucky that I've gotten some stars here and there, then thanks I guess? It doesn't prove anything, just like it wouldn't prove anything if I didn't have any.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

So we're on the same page. Exposure is important to you, and not to everyone.

Agree. People who are afraid of poor scores and negative feedback generally don't like exposure.

Example: A writer writes a lovely romance that does not end in HEA. They are afraid of the backlash that the HEA crowd in romance will surely give them, so they post in EC instead, even though it clearly qualifies for romance. In romance it would have gotten say a 4.1 with 5000 hits in the first week, but in EC it would get a 4.5 with only 1000 hits in the first week. The writer knows this and chooses the score. That's pandering straight up. It's the writer being a scaredy-cat. The writer is clearly not writing to tell their story so much as they are writing to hear people tell them who good they are (or avoid people telling them how not so good they are).

 

[Britva415]

Agree. People who are afraid of poor scores and negative feedback generally don't like exposure.

Example: A writer writes a lovely romance that does not end in HEA. They are afraid of the backlash that the HEA crowd in romance will surely give them, so they post in EC instead, even though it clearly qualifies for romance. In romance it would have gotten say a 4.1 with 5000 hits in the first week, but in EC it would get a 4.5 with only 1000 hits in the first week. The writer knows this and chooses the score. That's pandering straight up. It's the writer being a scaredy-cat. The writer is clearly not writing to tell their story so much as they are writing to hear people tell them who good they are (or avoid people telling them how not so good they are).

So why call me a panderer? It's the exact opposite of what I've been saying I'm doing in EC.

 

[Yarglenurp]

Agree. People who are afraid of poor scores and negative feedback generally don't like exposure.

Example: A writer writes a lovely romance that does not end in HEA. They are afraid of the backlash that the HEA crowd in romance will surely give them, so they post in EC instead, even though it clearly qualifies for romance. In romance it would have gotten say a 4.1 with 5000 hits in the first week, but in EC it would get a 4.5 with only 1000 hits in the first week. The writer knows this and chooses the score. That's pandering straight up. It's the writer being a scaredy-cat. The writer is clearly not writing to tell their story so much as they are writing to hear people tell them who good they are (or avoid people telling them how not so good they are).

I enjoy strong negative feedback about as much as positive ones. They're endearing in a maladjusted puppy kind of way. I've already got my first anonymous commenter who was so displeased from an ending that they felt obligated to write their own sequel in the comments. It was kind of inspiring, in its own weird way. I like to imagine he jerked off to the story, grew ashamed after cumming, and proceeded to seek "redemption" by praying to the god of toxic masculinity.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

So why call me a panderer? It's the exact opposite of what I've been saying I'm doing in EC.

I didn't call you a panderer. I said that the example that you provided was pandering. Big difference. However, if you are indeed following that example as you gave it, yes you are a panderer.

 

[Britva415]

I didn't call you a panderer. I said that the example that you provided was pandering. Big difference. However, if you are indeed following that example as you gave it, yes you are a panderer.

The only example I can find is this one

people whose writing happens to be best for EC because they don't care to contrive a pair of handcuffs for no reason get dismissed

and it's nothing at all like the one you gave. Nor can I see how it could be called "pandering." Quite the opposite - the reason I referred to handcuffs was because you were the one who said to make some up and add them to the story if it would keep the story out of EC. I call that "pandering."

Can you show me what you meant? 'Cause I don't know what I said that you're reacting to.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

The only example I can find is this one

and it's nothing at all like the one you gave. Nor can I see how it could be called "pandering." Quite the opposite - the reason I referred to handcuffs was because you were the one who said to make some up and add them to the story if it would keep the story out of EC. I call that "pandering."

Can you show me what you meant? 'Cause I don't know what I said that you're reacting to.

Sure, I was being sarcastic with the handcuffs.

I also clearly said:

Now I'm not about to troll incest with a non-incest story just to get the views, that's pretty silly

So obviously I choose categories that are appropriate for the content. But if I have a story that is appropriate for say mature and also appropriate for LW, I know that it will score higher in mature but get a lot more views in LW, I will publish in LW. To publish in mature to avoid the lower score is pandering, clear and simple.

And furthermore, to say that something is more appropriate in EC is hogwash because EC is LITERALLY miscellaneous - EVERYTHING is appropriate for EC. If it has enough elements to qualify for anything else than EC, yet you choose EC anyways, you're pandering.

 

[Britva415]

So obviously I choose categories that are appropriate for the content. But if I have a story that is appropriate for say mature and also appropriate for LW, I know that it will score higher in mature but get a lot more views in LW, I will publish in LW. To publish in mature to avoid the lower score is pandering, clear and simple.

So you don't have me saying something that sounds like an example of pandering. Got it. thanks.

**eyeroll**

 

[ElectricBlue]

In romance it would have gotten say a 4.1 with 5000 hits in the first week, but in EC it would get a 4.5 with only 1000 hits in the first week. The writer knows this and chooses the score. That's pandering straight up. It's the writer being a scaredy-cat. The writer is clearly not writing to tell their story so much as they are writing to hear people tell them who good they are (or avoid people telling them how not so good they are).

You attribute everything to pandering or insecurity or blah blah blah, but in reality, I think it's most writers thinking, I don't know where this goes because it's vanilla, not kink, so what the fuck, EC. I don't think it's got much to do with, "Oh, I'll get a better score here," it's more because they couldn't think where else to put it.

The story I cite, for example (Rope and Veil) - the first chapter is in EC because where else do you put a story about a woman with a broken spine and the able bodied man who falls for her? When I wrote it and placed it, none of the things you say are the drivers for category choice went through my head - I was more thinking, "I hope I got this right, because I really don't want to offend anyone with a disability, if I got stuff wrong." As it was, I didn't, and that's why for years, it's been one of my most commented on stories.

When I went on and wrote two more chapters, I put them in Romance, because my beta reader at the time said, well that's what it is, you've got babies and feel good, and nobody dies. That's not pandering though, that's picking a better category - I didn't think the story was Romance at all, until I extended it.

The stats, for the record:

Ch.1 38k views, 32 comments, 50 faves, 4.76/299

Ch.2 12k views, 6 comments, 16 faves, 4.86/123 (typical drop in views - in fact, way more than usual, probably because I changed category)

Ch.3 34k views, 14 comments, 24 faves, 4.81/133 (I cannot explain the very high view count for a third chapter, that's an anomaly in my story file)

This story was published eight years ago, my second year on Lit. I had no idea back then what the category dynamics were, not like I do now. It's the same with a whole bunch of newbies now: EC seems a logical choice, because their story, to them, seems vanilla, not kink. But kow-towing to any other motive? I don't think so.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

You attribute everything to pandering or insecurity or blah blah blah, but in reality, I think it's most writers thinking, I don't know where this goes because it's vanilla, not kink, so what the fuck, EC. I don't think it's got much to do with, "Oh, I'll get a better score here," it's more because they couldn't think where else to put it.

Absolutely. I've done it myself. But that's not what he was arguing. He said ...

people whose writing happens to be best for EC

Which I fully explained in plain terms that nothing is best in EC (it is literally miscellaneous), but I also understand what his real point was, which was that he argued that a story should go where it might be 'well-received' which we all know around here means 'gets a better score', which in turn
really means "I only want people who will applaud me to read this', which is pandering, absolutely.

Pandering to who? The 900 people who aren't even reading it at all 'cause I'm not interested in making up content for them?

Yes. Pandering to these people who will potentially downvote. Absolutely. The proof is right there. How is that not scaredy-cat writing? The heart is never afraid. The ego is. That's how you know.

Of course we always hear the argument "No no no, it's just courtesy to those who might get offended. I'm not afraid of a low score, I'm just being a nice guy." Nahh. It's protecting the score. You can't control if someone else decides to get offended. I have no sympathy for anyone getting offended by fiction, come on. How many times have you picked up a free paperback or a book for a dollar at a garage sale, or from one of those 'community libraries' read the first chapter and said 'meh' and dropped it? People will do that. Big hairy deal. If you run away to a 'safer' category where all of your friendlies will be nice to you, because you're afraid of pushback like that, it's your ego talking. Push your ego aside, write fearless and put it where the most eyeballs can see it (within reason of course). That's my advice every time.

 

[Britva415]

what his real point was, which was that he argued that a story should go where it might be 'well-received'

Cite that, please. Was it days ago, or something? Because, if I did say it, it wasn't part of the current conversation, so, it's out of context.

It's also highly suspicious for you to refer to "his real point," which just shows that I didn't say what you keep saying I'm saying.

 

[Britva415]

How is that not scaredy-cat writing?

You're completely ignoring that I'm writing what I want to write, and putting it in the best place for it because it's - call it "misc" or call it vanilla, idgaf - and it doesn't go anywhere else. You might as well say something like "anyone who isn't writing LW material is a scaredy cat because those readers downvote." It would be just as random and as divorced from reality. Fuck whether they want to write LW material or not.

This is so weird. You keep spinning a narrative which isn't related to what I'm doing or talking about or implying or

... Nevermind. I think I'm starting to figure you out. Even if I don't know why you act like this, though I have my ideas about that, the fact that you do act like this is consistent enough that I'm done assuming good faith.

 

[StillStunned]

I must be pandering wrong, because my EC stories get about as many views as my E&V stories, and far more than most of my SF/F stories, although the ratings in those categories are a bit higher. Only my I/T stories really outperform EC for views.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

I must be pandering wrong, because my EC stories get about as many views as my E&V stories, and far more than most of my SF/F stories, although the ratings in those categories are a bit higher. Only my I/T stories really outperform EC for views.

Similar for me - EC provides more views than most other categories, presumably because that's where your average heterosexual vanilla reader looks. Unless there's a large amount of content that has its own category, it's the obvious place. If you only have a small amount of the special interests that other categories have, you have to take a guess as to whether you can lure more clickers to read in EC, or keep the interest of the clickers elsewhere.

Given that none of us have any figures as to how many clickers actually read stories they click on, but can guess that many nope out rapidly from certain content, it's all guesswork. I do often put content warnings on my stories, eg "Contains British English, bisexuals and lots of booze", because if someone's going to be put off by that, it's best for both of us if they click away before wasting time on a story they won't like. With luck, some other potential readers will be intrigued...