I have read a number of comments by people of color discussing how they (and children they know) are hurt by stereotypical descriptions of non-white characters that look at those people as types, not as individuals. These critics were pointing out that writers who rely on shorthand common descriptions like “black eyes” (or obsidian!), rather than really looking at people and thinking about what they look like, are perpetuating stereotypes in ways that can be harmful or painful for some readers.

Black eyes, though specifically mentioned in these discussions, are hardly the most egregious example, but it’s part of a larger pattern.

So even though romance heroes with black eyes are (sadly) mostly white, I cringe whenever I see that description now.

Perhaps it’s not surprising to see such descriptive tics in romance, since, like other genres, it often trades in types (and I don’t mean that as a criticism–one of the pleasures in reading it is coming upon old friends in new forms).

Would it be a terrible solecism to refer to their eyes, casually, as black? Particularly since I’ve known from an early age (thanks to my science-inclined older brothers) that humans do not have true-black eyes?

there was a boy in my class whose eyes were so dark that we could not distinguish between the iris and the pupil.

I have seen two guys like this recently on the Metro. Interestingly I noticed it because they were both white and so it was pretty startling to see eyes that dark. And thinking about it now, I have noticed it more with guys than women, and I am an equal opportunity people watcher.

I do agree though, that the term “obsidian” is rather cliche and often used to describe people of colour. And having noticed eyes like this recently, I would also have to say that they didn’t look very obsidian at all. Hmm, what might a better descriptor be?

What about the fact that, whatever adjective you use, human beings do not have black eyes? (Supernatural beings are another matter)

I have to disagree with this. When I was in elementary school, there was a boy in my class whose eyes were so dark that we could not distinguish between the iris and the pupil. I would call those black eyes.

As for (a), yes, some folks are using the expression “I want to have babies with this book”, but I have no problem with it. I think it’s cute, actually.

As for (c), yes, there are a lot of promotions and contests going on, but it would be pretty churlish of me to complain about freebies.

The real rant is (b) obsidian. I am sick of it! I like the notion, below, that it is a “careless descriptive cliche”.

Liz :

What about the fact that, whatever adjective you use, human beings do not have black eyes? (Supernatural beings are another matter).

One of my academic interests is children’s literature, and a number of critics there have pointed out that “black” eyes are often used in stereotypical depictions of people of colour (e.g. Debbie Reese who writes a great blog on American Indians in Children’s Literature). Romance, on the other hand, seems to be full of white guys with black eyes, but it is still a careless descriptive cliche.

I think c is your real rant, but b is mine for the day.

Reply

Edit

MoveModerateSpamDelete

1) Build a fort with them.
2) Tear out the pages and use them to make a papier-mache, life-sized figures of my heroes with whom I can have my book babies.
3) Build a trebuchet on my roof and launch copies of my book at passers by, laughing maniacally whenever I bean one in the head or butt.
4) Take them all out for a nice meal but skip out on the check so they have to pay.

Gotta love those parent teacher conferences. It’s always good to find out exactly which family secrets have been plastered in the school hallway for all the world to see.

Writing that reminded me that I should try to get you to read the Beggars books at some point…I think you’d find them interesting. I’m afraid I can’t think of any way to stretch them into being romances, though.

Oh, and I’ll go with C. What do we win?

At least they can be amusing. *g*