Character and Cultural Criticism: The Way We Talk About Media

In the wake and through the ongoing attacks on the AAPI community, I wanted to acknowledge that racism against Asian and Pacific Islander communities in America is absolutely real and constantly being faced by these groups. I wanted to say that at the top before I dive into this discussion as I dive into a lot in this article that deals with Asian stereotypes.

There are lots of ways to analyze fiction, but there are two that get confused a lot when talking about historical fiction. Both are valid, but they are distinct, and it's important that they are distinguished so we can have productive conversations.

I'll use an example from Outlander (surprise surprise!) to illustrate the differences when talking about historical fiction. Recently I read the section in Voyager that introduced Yi Tien Cho, or Mr. Willoughby, and it really got me thinking about this topic, especially after getting the chance to discuss it in Outlander Book Club. Sometimes the discussion would halt because there were two different conversations being had, and, while both are valuable, they are distinct, so I wanted to flesh them out.

The first thing I would like to illustrate is a historical and character-based interpretation of these events. For example, Jamie refers to Willoughby as "the Chinaman" repeatedly. It's cringey to our 2021 ears -- and should be -- but it makes sense within the context of the book and the times. It makes sense for the character of Jamie and the time he is from.

A critique through this same lens is in the character of Claire and her treatment of Yi Tien Cho. Claire refers to him as "the Chinese," again, deeply cringey to our 2021 ears, but this is where a conversation can happen about whether of not Claire as a character would do this. Personally, I think this is out of character for Claire.

I believe that she has strong empathy and understanding about people. I think Claire sees an inherent dignity in all human beings regardless of race that would induce her to call someone by their name rather than a moniker that reduces them to their country of origin.

She has also been through the Civil Rights movement in America, and with an African American best friend, I believe she would have learned a lot in that time. So historical or not, it's out of character for Claire to be racist in that way. There could absolutely be evidence to suggest that Claire would behave that way that I haven't found, but the point is that the critique is centered on character, and incorporates personality and history.

Then there is critique that has to do with how the book itself deals with race, in this case, how the character of Yi Tien Cho is drawn and fleshed out, not just in how characters treat him. He is introduced by tumbling in, a bit of a stereotype of a Chinese person drawn from Chinese circuses. Not great, but in itself, not the end of the world. He also has a foot fettish, relating to historical depictions of Asian men's sexuality as perverse. It also seeks to immaculate Asian men by focusing sexual attention away from a more traditionally manly and heteronormative idea of sexuality. Also problematic.

Moreover, his height is treated as a constant joke, again a stereotype that he should be taken less seriously because he is short. Once more a stereotype of Asian men. His place as comic relief is not inherently wrong, as Asian characters can be any part. However, given years and years of Asian men in particular being reduced to comic stereotypes (Breakfast at Tiffany's, Sixteen Candles), it rings a bit off.

There is also the fact that his name is replaced at all. People of color have a long history of being forced by white culture at large to change their names, and through that often deny their cultural heritage, to make it easier on white people to pronounce their names. It just furthers the idea that the burden is on people of color to form themselves to white culture, and to make people feel more comfortable, when that is not their job. This is another perfect place to highlight the differences in the type of criticism.

For the character of Jamie, it makes sense that he would be fine telling Yi Tien Cho to change his name. For the world in which the book Voyager exists, it’s another problematic example of internalized racism that needs to be called out and examined.

Yi Tien Cho is also the only Asian character in the story, making the entire burden of representation placed on him, and with such a caricaturish depiction, it is deeply problematic. All of that together creates a racist depiction of an Asian character in the broader context of where the novel exists and where we as readers live.

The distinctions between these styles of criticism may seem nebulous at first, but they are unique and important.

The first two were character discussions. The third is discussing the real-world context and ramifications of what's in a story. Both are valid, interesting, and necessary, but one can't be used to negate the other. What I mean is that it is less compelling of a reason to say that Claire shouldn't say "the Chinese" because it is bad on our 2021 ears than that she wouldn't do that because of her character traits. It also means that the criticism of Yi Ten Cho's depiction can't be erased by saying "it was how it was back then."

That isn't the conversation. The two are different, and it's helpful in discussion to remember that.