Violence against women has been a common problem for millennia, much like war and politics. It stands to reason it would be a common topic to write about.

Dude. What part of "in this fantasy world black people just don't exist because that's my personal fantasy vision" is NOT fucking racist?

Don't get me wrong. I don't think there's anything wrong with a story set in a place where there happen to only be white people. In an isolated village or whatever that makes perfect sense. But there's a difference between "in this setting, these characters have no reason to come into contact with people from other ethnic backgrounds that aren't what we would see as white" and "actually only white people exist in this world because white is the default normal for humanity"

You know it's kind of a little fucked up to treat "a world with only white people" as an acceptable fantasy and concept to promote as totally normal. Right?

Also. Humans are a type of great ape, and great apes evolved in Africa. There are no naturally occurring great apes in the low-sun temperate climates where pale skin developed in humans.

If your goal was to prove people complaining about diversity aren't racist assholes, you are really not helping get that across at all.

And then what's the explanation of how humanity came to be in the first place?

Any worldbuilding that suggests white people were the originals and everyone else came later is both completely inaccurate to how humanity actually evolved, and uncomfortably in line with deeply racist thinking from the 19th century to explain the different human phenotypes.

If you want to us "oooh just evolution!!" as an explanation then actually follow it. Darker skin is the default setting for humans.

I think it is uncalled for to suggest that the only people who care about seeing diversity and representation are "shored up in politics" to the point of being a "lost cause", and that the only possible answer to a desire for diversity and representation is tokenistic lip service (which is how I am charitably interpreting what you mean when you say "agenda driven media").

Unthinking tokenism for diversity points and substituting the presence of representation for an actual compelling plot or characterization IS a problem that crops up a lot in subpar modern media. It's become part of the wider trend of publishers and producers and such going for formulaic trash that meets algorithms to be most likely to rake in viewers and money, rather than promoting art that is actually trying to say or convey something (even just something so simple as "an interesting story that doesn't read like a barely fleshed out Standard Narrative Arc from a how-to book on writing").

But that isn't the same as representation and diversity - and wanting to see that representation and diversity - being inherently tokenistic or money-grabbing. I, and I'm sure many other people who appreciate diversity in stories am as tired as anyone else of seeing books and media promoted on their supposed diversity points alone, without any attention paid to the actual plot or characterization. People who belong to minority groups shouldn't be reduced to stereotypical Representations of That Group, we are all whole people who deserve to be acknowledged and presented as such.

I also really fucking hate the way booktwitter, which is full of the most idiotic brownie-points chasing assholes with only the most surface level understanding of social justice or activism, has impacted the publishing industry and the way people approach stories. As if everything is down to problematic vs wholesome, and any exploration of nuance or complexity or anything is "problematic" and deserves to be canceled. I loathe that shit.

In such a setting there shouldn't be any white people, as pale skin didn't develop until fairly recently.

Lol, why is this getting downvoted? If you are so concerned with realism and logic, you have to understand that the only setting where people haven't traveled far enough away from one another for long enough to develop different racial attributes is one where white people have never come into existence.

People down voting this are REALLY not helping their case that they totally aren't racists for hating diversity in books.

>In their rush to have contemporary diversity in their setting they fail to consider why such diversity exists. Not because it cannot, but because interesting world building and stories come with answering why it's there.

This, this is it exactly.

I think it depends on what the story is going for.

Colorblind casting in a story like Princess Bride or Stardust, where the entire thing is a completely fantastical escapade that isn't supposed to have any realistic worldbuilding, absolutely. Or even something like Bridgerton, where the period setting is really just elaborate set dressing for a story that isn't supposed to be even remotely grounded in real historical context.

In a context where the worldbuilding of how and where different populations came to be is important to the story, instead of colorblind casting it would be nice to see some acknowledgement that different ethnic backgrounds have some meaning for the people who come from them. For example, the Six of Crows duology has a diverse cast whose backgrounds matter and their existence in the main setting of Ketterdam makes sense with it being a merchant hub. This is a good way of bringing in diversity that doesn't feel thoughtless and tokenistic.

I think it's better to acknowledge that where people come from and how they look actually does matter in the course of their life and can't just be brushed over and ignored in a serious fantasy story that cares about other aspects of worldbuilding.

I think AI could maybe replace trashy fiction which is already just formulaic nonsense for a cash grab, but I suspect it would never actually replace proper novels.

I had never heard of it before this post. I'm pretty sure the classic Canadian novel is actual The Stone Angel by Margaret Lawrence.

I don't really care about dream analysis, but thanks.

I consider love of Jung to be something of a red flag for rightwingers that are into the absolute bullshit that is Jordan Peterson-style pseudoscience and theorizing. This is admittedly perhaps unfair of me. But Jung (and Freud), pioneers as they were in their field, are fairly... how to put it... they aren't exactly up to date on modern psychoanalysis, with many of their ideas shown to be unscientific and flawed.

I see. My apologies for being rather dismissive, I didn't know where you were coming from on this. I will mention that those authors are all in the field of history and anthropology and archaeology, so they address somewhat specific knowledge bases.

I do encourage you to read at least the Dawn of Everything, which is written for a general audience. Or any of the rest that you found interesting!

Is it that odd to point out how bizarre it is to make a big deal about standard academic convention?

"The Growth of Philosophic Radicalism" by Elie Halevy

"Pintupi Country, Pintupi Self" by Fred R Meyers

"A Society without Fathers or Husbands" by Cai Hua (in multiple languages)

"The Great Lakes of Africa" by Jean-Pierre Chretien has a 50-page bibliography

"Porcelain: A History from the Heart of Europe" by Suzanne L Marchand

"The Dawn of Everything" by David Graeber and David Wengrow has a 60 page bibliography, though admittedly that is two people (and it isn't actually an academic text, it's written for a general audience)

"A History of the Arab Peoples" by Albert Hourani

"Rituals of War: The Body and Violence in Mesopotamia" by Zainab Bahrani

I will confess I haven't read Aion but it is quite normal for academic texts to have extensive bibliographies, so unless there's something really unusual about it I'm not sure why you're making such a big deal about Jung doing what people who write academic books do.

>You must feel guilty of devotional thinking if your first reaction is to accuse others of it.

"I know you are but what am I???" Really. That's really your go-to response? Lol

Like I said. Look at the bibliography of any academic monograph, particularly in the social sciences. There will be reams and reams of references to books and articles read by the author.

That's what academic work is. Lots of reading.

... most academic writers, I would assume?

What is with this weird fawning devotion to Jung, of all people?

This is a very good way to put it.

🤣🤣🤣

I was intrigued by where you're going with all this, including your unique take on defining racism, until this:

>(That's my own insight, not shared by anthropologists or sociologists. In fact I've been working hard to get sociologists to talk to me about it and they won't. And this is odd because normally, my emails to university professors get results. For some reason - maybe because racism IS a dangerous issue, and one over which you can very easily lose your job - this is not a topic they wish to address with me.)

Dude what the actual fuck. I don't. Why would anyone think this is an appropriate and non-ridiculous way to behave.

Any form of reading requires you to exercise your imagination and use your brain, which is beneficial.

This is a weird phrasing.

The Bible isn't specifically what inspired all the beautiful music. The religion of Christianity and the many localized pre-Christian religions that became absorbed into Christianity and were an influence on the adoption of many Saints' Days and other religious festivals, including Christmas, inspired an immense body of beautiful music.

The same is true of other religious traditions. Both Islam and Judaism have beautiful music traditions, to name a couple of other major world religions, as do probably many or perhaps even most other religions.

Huh. I have literally no memory of that.

Most of what I remember is the creepy grooming stuff, the scene where Time Traveller dude threatens a teenager who had been too aggressive in pursuit of also-then-teenage-Clare and compares Clare's sex appeal to "being a kitten that doesn't know the sharpness of its claws" or smth, the magical daughter who controls her time travel abilities, and the scene where Time Traveller Dude's ex kills herself in front of him.

When the heck did this happen? It's been a long time since I read the book, but I don't remember Clare having a notable best friend or ever cheating on time traveller dude.

>Her "bestfriend" was out taking her children and Clair's daughter out (for ice-cream I think), and she had sex with her "bestfriend's" husband in the dining table; a table that had cheerios that the kids (including hers) were eating and of which she had to later pick off of her hair in the bathroom. She showed no remorse for that, and it was also not the first time she did it with her "bestfriend's" significant other; same guy, but as boyfriend.

I... don't remember this part at all. But also, isn't the biggest scumbag in that situation the significant other?