I've encountered quite a few posts on diversity and representation on social media lately, and I find myself coming away with a few opinions of my own as a response. This post is a loose collection of those responses. I don't think I'll ever have a definite, set-in-stone Thoughts™, because I'm still at the point in my journey where my understanding of good representation is still evolving, and I'm still trying to make sense of my own personal experiences, and the world is also constantly in flux so what I may need one day may not be what I need the next. Basically, take these with a grain of salt, and know that these are just my thoughts at this current point in time. I don't want to box myself in and never give myself an opportunity to change my mind. That said, hopefully there's enough coherence here that shows that my thoughts and feelings are rooted in something consistent.

No Summary Recs?

There's this post going around Tumblr that's causing a lot of different reactions. Some people are complaining that many book recommendations on Tumblr only list the diversity within those books, but don't mention the premise or the summary. Many people vehemently agree that this is an inconvenient way to recommend books, while others feel like this is attacking the call for diversity.

So my two cents: summary, please. I'm all for the summary. Please, give me the summary!

I've seen the reblogs arguing that anyone can simply look up the summary on Google, but I think that's less of an argument, and more of a capitulation that, yes, we do need to read a summary, after all. And I feel like that misses the point that the first few reblogs were making. The point isn't that people are being deprived of summaries. The point is that people expect you to pick up content simply because of certain representation, no other questions asked (see "What more info do you need?"). And that's where I'll be centralizing my response.

Just a disclaimer, my feelings about this stems from very personal experiences, so I understand that others may not have the same feelings. Also, I will mostly be talking about Filipino representation, because I feel like that's the slice of my identity that's most affected by discourse like this.

Filipino Rep and Me

Here's the thing. For me, just because a work is Filipino, it doesn't mean I will feel represented by it. I grew up consuming Filipino dramedy teleserye with themes that were unlikely to apply to anyone I knew, with characters portrayed by actors and actresses who rarely looked anything like me. I'm not saying these aren't valid Filipino stories, only that the Filipino experience is so vast and so diverse, that you can have an entire industry churning Filipino story after Filipino story, and still leave a significant portion of the Filipino people underrepresented and unable to relate.

For me, what happens to characters who represent me is just as important, or probably even more important, than their mere existence. Not gonna lie, sometimes I get more excited when books only go as far as mentioning manila paper, than when they introduce a Filipino-rep character. Because for the former, my brain goes, "Cool, Filipinos exist in this world, let me think of all the awesome things they're up to." But with the latter, I have to brace myself, "Oh geez, I wonder how this character is gonna turn out." After all, it's not unusual for Filipinos to be represented in some unfortunate stereotypical way.

I hate to admit it, but even though I want to see more Filipino representation, I can't help but feel this knee-jerk anxiety whenever something is touted to have it. Because I'm so used to seeing Filipino representation that I don't actually resonate with, that the prospect of being alienated yet again by something that's supposed to make me feel seen can sometimes be just too much disappointment. Or sometimes, I'm in the mood for different types of representation. Sometimes I want stories that acknowledge the poverty and corruption that make life so hard in the Philippines. Sometimes all I want is for Filipino characters to just be. This is why, to me, the story matters, and not just who's in it.

I saw a comment on that post that I can't seem to find again (Tumblr has made great strides recently in their UX, but comment searching is still not one of them), and it mentioned something that really got me thinking. The thing is, sometimes the people who are looking for representation are the ones who are hardest on the work that claims to be representing them. And the comment that I saw said something like, maybe if people knew going into the work what kind of story it will be and whether it's their cup of tea, we'd have a lot less disappointed people. They wouldn't have to tear down the very creators who put so much effort into crafting those diverse characters. Sometimes, even when there's diversity in the work that reflects you, you may still not be the right audience for it.

Anyway, I don't understand how people can misconstrue the desire for a summary and premise to mean that people are against representation. If anything, the desire for a summary and premise is an acknowledgment of representation. It's saying, "Here are books that represent a part of my identity. I understand that this is still a big umbrella, and that there's further diversity within this slice of representation. Help me find which ones I will resonate with." What part of that is against representation? I just don't get the backlash.

So where does this leave support?

In the Philippines, we have this saying, "Tangkilikin ang sariling atin." It basically means, "support our own." Thankfully, I don't believe that supporting a community or a movement is at odds with acknowledging that you have personal preferences. (Unless, of course, your personal preference is not supporting the entire community regardless of the individuals in it, in which case, we're sort of leaving "preference" territory and entering "prejudice" territory.)

As someone who is very picky about any media I consume, I wonder often how I can best support Filipino works. I think that as a whole, there is net positive outcome in having more Filipino representation in the media, more variety in that representation, and more outlets for own-voices. And I don't want my pickiness to hinder that movement.

My general rule is that when I do encounter Filipino works that resonate with me, I put my money where my mouth is and spread the word on social media. When I encounter Filipino works that I don't resonate with, I give an honest review and pick something else that's more to my liking. I talk more in a later section about how I reflect on diverse books before writing a review for them.

And another way you can give support is to be vocal about what you want to see. Because when creators out there see that there is demand for something that they can potentially supply, they will get encouraged to create these works.

Support isn't all or nothing. Sometimes, it's even better to put something you don't like away so that you can devote more energy to another thing you like even more.

Historical Fantasy vs Secondary Worlds

Elliot Brooks is one of my favourite BookTubers, and I watched one of her videos in which she talked about cultural appropriation in Leigh Bardugo's Grisha trilogy. And one question she asks here that really got me thinking is, when people demand something so realistic in fantasy, where does secondary worldbuilding end and historical fantasy begin?

This is a really interesting topic for me, because I write primarily fantasy in secondary worlds. I have seen secondary worlds being nitpicked when it doesn't feel like it has sufficient representation, and that's something I'm very self-conscious about when it comes to my own writing.

I think ultimately, this comes down to language. And a good example that Brooks brings up in the video is the word "kvas," which the reviewer complained about, because in real life, kvas can't really intoxicate you.

I don't know where I've read this anymore, but one concept that's always at the forefront of my mind (especially whenever I'm translating my stories into Filipino) is that all stories are a translation. They are a translation of ideas in your head, pictures in your imagination, into words that you can speak and that your audience can understand. In the case of fantasy, writers use words from our world to convey fantastical ideas. And some words will be better than others. For example, there are cases in secondary worlds where a leader might be denoted by the word 'king,' or they might be denoted by the word 'sultan.' It's because in each case, one word better encapsulates what that leader is, or how that leader functions, in that secondary world. (In the cases when our own words fail, many writers actually just make up words and that's totally fine too!)

This is where I think the reviewer who pointed out the incongruence of kvas has a leg to stand on. Bardugo chose a word from our world, thinking it is the best word that represents this drink in her secondary world, and it turns out it isn't at all. And that caused confusion.

I think when it comes to cultural inspiration for secondary worlds, rooting certain ideas and objects in real world vocabulary can be a bit tricky. To me, it signals that as a writer, you've decided to choose this particular word as the best way to convey to your modern-day audience what the picture in your head means. And it can be very jarring when you use that word in ways that contradicts the real-world concept. I think this is when thorough research can really come in handy; because sometimes, the word you think makes your world seem more "authentic" may actually make your world seem silly to those who are more familiar with its connotation.

Reviewing Diverse Books

I watched another video by Brooks where she talks about honesty in reviewing diverse books. I agree with most of her points in this video, and like I said in the first section of this blog post, whenever I encounter a diverse book that isn't my cup of tea, the best thing I can do is to review it honestly.

That said, before reviewing, I take some time to consider aspects of diverse books that I probably wouldn't think about when reviewing undiverse books.

What do I mean by this? Well, whenever I pick up a diverse book, I don't expect diversity to just manifest as set dressings and character costumes. Whenever I pick up a diverse book, I almost expect my reading ability to be challenged in some way, especially when I'm reading outside of either my or mainstream North American culture. In many cultures, the very style of storytelling is different, and I think that when we start to consider this, that's when we start to really engage on a deeper level with diverse books.

For example, many Asian narratives don't follow the three-part or four-part narrative structure we're so used to here in North America. Although Spirited Away is a really popular movie, I've heard people say they felt lost the first time they watched this movie, that they didn't really have a sense of where it was going. Another example is when author Ellen Oh mentioned that some reviewers found the formal conversations between characters in her books unrealistic. Yet apparently in Korean culture, people who aren't close to each other do speak in a more formal manner.

So, for me at least, when I pick up a diverse book and I find that there's something about it I don't like, I really try to examine whether this is because the writing is terrible, or because the author is pulling from conventions unfamiliar to me. After all, can we really call something diverse, if all the diversity exists only on the surface level, acting as a simple dress-up for Western stories and Western perspectives and Western values that we're already familiar with?

And you know, there are many times when even after giving the book as much consideration as I can, I still decide it's not my cup of tea. And that's fine. Reiterating my point in the first section, sometimes it's more productive and supportive to spend time on the things you actually do love, than to mull over the things you don't.

Publishing Trend

Now I do want to go on a bit of a tangent here, because Elliot sort of drops a comment or two about publishing companies using diversity as a trend. And I want to go a little deeper into that.

Although I agree that publishing companies should handle diversity with more seriousness than simply treating it as the next marketing gimmick or a checklist to tick off, I do want to unpack some of the assumptions that people are making when they make comments like, "This diverse book is bad and the publisher only published it because it has diversity."

First, I feel that people assume that the book is undeservedly taking up the space of some other more deserving undiverse book. I understand that publishing is a business, and that there's a limited space for stories out there, and that each spot is very valuable. But in all likelihood, if you really think about it, there are many, many -- and I mean tons -- of terrible undiverse books out there as well. So it's just as likely that the book the publisher would have published instead of a terrible diverse book, is a terrible undiverse book. That's why I don't really understand when people call for books with less diversity, as if somehow that will make them automatically better.

And that's exactly the second assumption I think people are making. That when they don't like a diverse book, they assume it's because of the diversity. But there are many things that can make a book awful. The writing, the plotting, the characterization, the inconsistent world building -- any of these can exist in undiverse books as well. So I don't understand why people assume that these problems arise specifically when there's diversity in the book. Yes, characters can be cardboard cut-outs and stereotypical, but maybe that's just because the writer did a terrible job, not because the character is Asian or disabled, you know what I mean? Do people think that if diversity were to disappear from the book, that suddenly the writing will glow-up? I definitely think this is a writer problem, not a diversity problem.

I don't know too much about the traditional publishing industry, but I think where publishing companies may be contributing to the problem is if they are skimping on the editing of diverse books. If they're trying to get these books out the door as fast as possible, and they're ignoring all the additional editing that an undiverse book would have gone under, then yes, that's a problem. Diverse books need just as much attention and care and polish that undiverse books get.