I saw a post condemning the use of food/minerals to describe shades of brown/black skin and I'm just--
Okay, so. I tell you my character Mary has brown skin. What's the first thing you think of?
This?
Or this?
"But ONF," you might say, "That's not fair. If you're telling me a character is brown, then OBVIOUSLY I'm going to think of a brown person and not a brown object."
Which, hey, totally fair. Let's try that again. I tell you Mary is brown. Do you picture this?
Or this?
"But ONF," you say, "that's not fair. That's what adjectives are for. You could say 'Mary has light brown skin,' or 'Mary has medium brown skin,' and then we, the reader, would know what you meant."
Would you though? Would you?
Let's say Mary has medium brown skin.
This is medium brown.
So is this.
But surprise! I was thinking of this:
Which brings me to my next point: undertones. The way brown skin looks is heavily dependent on the person's undertone. Thinking that every light/medium/dark brown person is the same shade of light/medium/dark brown is why you see drugstore makeup brands that have fifteen shades of pale yellow/pink on the shelf and three dark brown ones. But I promise you, it's not true.
But how do you capture the richness and variety of brown skin tones in writing?
Wait for it...
...Food and minerals! That's right, folks! What better way to quickly and accurately convey color than to compare it to a pre-existing thing almost everyone in your reading audience will have seen or interacted with?
"Mary's medium-brown skin glistened in the light." BORING.
"Mary's ochre skin glistened in the light." HOT.
Now, this won't apply 100% of the time, especially if you established earlier in the story what shade of brown the character's skin resembles. I don't need to be reminded every instance that 'Sean's skin is the cool brown of dark chocolate.' You can just say 'dark skin' after that, that's fine.
Be mindful of your character's mindset, too, when choosing how to describe brown (or really any skin tone in general). What brown things are likely to be top of mind for them? Ex: a farmer might think of fresh tilled soil or an Ayrshire, a business person might think of his oxfords.
Or maybe your character really doesn't care much for the other person/isn't super observant/isn't terribly imaginative and they really would just say "Bob had brown skin."
That's fine too! But for the love of god, don't feel like you need to limit yourself to bland-ass descriptors because someone on Tumblr told you to.
(TBH feeling like you need validation from strangers on Tumblr before you make decisions in your personal/creative life is THE WORST way to exist, but that's a topic for another rant.)
-Signed me, an Actual Black Person™ (Nars Macao or MAC NC50 for reference)
(But friendly reminder black/brown people aren't a monolith (for that matter NO people are a monolith) so if you ever see someone claiming to speak for ALL black/brown people they're full of shit)
3 notes
·
View notes
really fucking sick and tired of people who really fucking love the eddie book jumping on people who don't like or are even remotely critical of it's posts and like crusading their opinions around from the top of their high horses and shoving it down our throats.
if you like the book, great! that's awesome! love that for you! i am genuinely glad that you were able to find good in it and enjoy it!!
but not everyone did, and not everyone is going to agree with you. so, instead of going on some grand crusade where you find every single post that includes anything even remotely negative or negative adjacent or even neutrally critical and spending ALL this time and effort trying to provide unwanted rebuttals to every single thing, maybe you should just stay in your lane and find people who DO like the book and chat about it with them.
because i can PROMISE YOU, none of us appreciate it when you come onto our posts and start accusing us of "hating on" the author or "being rude" about her and her work and RIDICULOUS shit like that.
being critical of something and pointing out it's flaws is NOT inherently hating on it. i, frankly, do not know where people got that notion, but it's not fucking true so can we fucking quit assuming it is? and, critiquing something is also NOT the same as saying this is shit and it sucks and the author is a piece of garbage. again, where the fuck that came from is beyond me. you can be critical of something and still enjoy it. as soooo many of you love to point out, it's not perfect, why should it be perfect? so D U H. of course that means criticism can and should arise???
also. hot take (by which i mean ice fucking cold because it's NOT a fucking hot take), but going around toting FALSE facts as part of your "defense" does not make you or your argument look good. you, like the author, should maybe do a basic fact check first. 🙃
tldr, if you like the book, that's genuinely great, but stay in your fucking lane and stop seeking out posts from people who didn't like it to start shit in the notes.
97 notes
·
View notes
some rando on tiktok said that dsmp lore and the dsmp in general should be gatekept from anyone that started watching after like spring 2021 and lowkey i wanna just
Apparently it’s “disrespectful to actual fans” to try and talk about old lore even if you went back and watched those streams or videos, and I’m legitimately a little confused. Doesn’t that take away any kind of sense of community in this, well, community? What’s the use of keeping content from people if they want to talk about it or, God forbid, consume it? I understand not wanting people to talk about stuff they don’t know about, but I should be allowed to say “C!Phil was a bitch for killing his son” without getting some random TikToker in my dms threatening to doxx me
2 notes
·
View notes