It would be remiss of me to comment on the art of writing without addressing some of the dialogue which surrounds the modern zeitgeist. Our art is, afterall, a reflection of the times. Our work is an additional commentary on our views of the discourse concerning the major topics which shape, mould and build our experiences and thoughts. Some people may view their work as escapism from the arguments of the day but even said escape will reflect the author’s own views of a world free from whatever it is they think currently plagues it the most. 

Haughty introduction aside, today I want to discuss a topic I’ve seen not only in writing but across movies, music and television as well. Especially now, in our global world, there’s been unparalleled migration and integration of people and culture around the world. Our local culture is more varied and diverse than ever before. As such, I think there’s value in paying mind that the people who could pick up your work aren’t necessarily going to be your primary audience. As well, there’s always great lessons to be learned by writing and empathizing with other people’s experiences – especially those far from your own.

And yet, I’m sure some writers are probably worried about criticism and cries of stereotyping if they were to include a diverse cast of characters in their work. 

First, I think receiving criticism is a good thing. I know we’d all like to receive universal praise and adoration for our writing but criticism at least demonstrates a reader is engaged. Not only are they reading something and forming an opinion about it but they are motivated enough to share their thoughts with others. I maintain the worst result for our art is to be ignored and forgotten. Ruffling a few feathers is just kind of expected when you enter a public discourse. Not everyone is going to love what you do and that’s alright. 

And with criticism we can examine our work, find flaws within it and improve our craft going forward.

I do think it is important to try and avoid stereotyping people and cultures. Sure, stereotypes exist for a reason but I don’t think our art benefits from replicating stereotypes – especially lazy or thoughtless ones. We’re in the craft of telling stories and no one wants to listen to characterization that has been so beaten to death that it has formed a generic blueprint. One reason that subversion of stereotypes is received so well is for providing something new and exciting to experience, think about and discuss. 

Now there’s a whole quagmire surrounding the inclusion of minorities and the like in your work. It can feel tiring trying to avoid every single stereotype revolving around an ethnicity – especially when oftentimes they’ll have contradictory ones. I’ve seen people complain about being tired of seeing the black jock stereotype over and over again in high school stories. Yet the moment a black nerd character is introduced, the cries of Steve Urkel copycats ring out. I don’t think these sorts of contradictory complaints, however, are without merit. More than anything, I think this complaint doesn’t spring from the use of a stereotype insomuch as its a complaint about tokenism.

And here’s my little trick. If you only ever include one character of a minority, your readership is going to naturally assume that you – as the author – are presenting your full thoughts of that minority in that one character. Thus, people get more sensitive to how that single character is portrayed and whether they’re contributing to modern issues regarding representation in the media. So how do you get around this?

You include more than one.

Like, it’s hard for people to get twisted into knots about patriarchal representations of women if you have a traditionally girly character in your story who just wants to look pretty and be a loving wife standing alongside a modern, tough-as-nails and independent woman. And the more you show these two characters reacting to situations in their own individual way, the more you create unique characters while also broadening the representation of these communities. 

Now, obviously not every story is going to allow you the ability to include two of every type of person in the world but the more you diversify the primary, secondary and tertiary characters in your cast, the less any one of them has to shoulder the burden of the whole representation of their identity in their characterization. And, of course, while this is a pretty quick and easy way to head off stereotyping criticisms it also rests on the fact that you’re still applying your strong characterization skills to these characters as you do to the rest of your cast. 

So, when you’re thinking of description for your characters and considering how you’re representing people – especially those further from your own lived experience – ask yourself:

Is this the only person of this identity in my story? Is it possible to work in someone else who shares this identity or rework another character – who is markedly different from this one – into the same identity? Finally, are these characters being properly represented as individuals or are they just presented as stock characters with little that makes them interesting or unique?