Women in SF&F Month Banner

I’m giving away one book of the winner’s choice for Women in SF&F Month today! Since there were some US-only giveaways earlier this month, this giveaway is for everyone else (though there are a few caveats given international shipping).

Here’s how it works: You can choose your own adventure from the books/authors featured this month available on Kennys Bookshop, and I will ship the winner the book of their choice.

This giveaway is open to anyone on the list of countries that Kennys will deliver to except for the US. That list of countries is as follows:

Ireland, United Kingdom, Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Channel Islands, Chile, China, Columbia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Faroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Gibraltar, Greece, Greenland, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon, Lichtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tanzania, Thailand, Turkey, UAE, Zambia, Zimbabwe

The winner can choose any book from the other giveaways this month or any book written by one of this month’s guests provided it is available from Kennys and costs no more than €30. That does mean your first choice might not be an option, but it looks like they have books by many of this month’s guests and all three of the books from this month’s giveaways.

If you need a refresher on what this covers, here is a list of this month’s guests:

This month’s previous book giveaways were as follows:

Other than that, the giveaway rules are basically the same as usual.

Giveaway Rules: To be entered in the giveaway, fill out Fantasy Cafe’s Winner’s Choice Giveaway Google form, linked below. One entry per household and the winner will be randomly selected. Those from any country Kennys will deliver to except for the US are eligible to win. The giveaway will be open until the end of the day on Tuesday, May 13. The winner has 24 hours to respond once contacted via email, and if I don’t hear from them after 24 hours has passed, a new winner will be chosen (who will also have 24 hours to respond until someone gets back to me with a place to send the book).

Please note email addresses will only be used for the purpose of contacting the winner. Once the giveaway is over all the emails will be deleted.

Enter the Winner’s Choice Giveaway

Women in SF&F Month Banner

Today’s Women in SF&F Month guest is Kate Elliott! Her work includes the epic fantasy series Crossroads, the space opera series The Sun Chronicles, and the young adult fantasy series Court of Fives, to name a few of her many books. Her next novel, The Witch Roads, is described as the “fantastic first in a new duology…filled with rich worldbuilding, political intrigue, and themes of class and family secrets” in a starred review on Library Journal. Her newest book will be released on June 10, and the conclusion to this epic fantasy series, The Nameless Land, will follow on November 4. I’m thrilled she is here today to discuss facing questions about whether or not to keep writing and why in “If This Can’t Make Me Cry Anymore: Thoughts on Writing and Quitting.”

Cover of The Witch Roads by Kate Elliott Cover of The Nameless Land by Kate Elliott

About The Witch Roads:

Book 1 in the Witch Roads duology, the latest epic novel by fan favorite Kate Elliott..

Status is hereditary, class is bestowed, trust must be earned.

When an arrogant prince (and his equally arrogant entourage) gets stuck in Orledder Halt as part of brutal political intrigue, competent and sunny deputy courier Elen—once a child slave meant to shield noblemen from the poisonous Pall—is assigned to guide him through the hills to reach his destination.

When she warns him not to enter the haunted Spires, the prince doesn’t heed her advice, and the man who emerges from the towers isn’t the same man who entered.

The journey that follows is fraught with danger. Can a group taught to ignore and despise the lower classes survive with a mere deputy courier as their guide?

If This Can’t Make Me Cry Anymore: Thoughts on Writing and Quitting
Kate Elliott

What is the artist’s journey? Why do creative people create what they do? How do they persist in creative work over years and even decades? When different individuals face a diverse array of barriers, obstacles, and (sometimes) sudden, catastrophic shock, what methods do they use to overcome these situations? How do they keep working?

Some people never have the time, chance, or opportunity to fully rise to the art and vision that exist within them. Entire books have been written about institutional and cultural barriers that block artists. Virginia Woolf’s A Room of One’s Own is a long essay written in the early 20th century about barriers for women trying to make art. Ursula Le Guin’s “The Fisherwoman’s Daughter” deals with similar themes from the perspective of the late 20th century, and Toni Morrison’s The Source of Self Regard: Selected Essays, Speeches, and Meditations, published in 2019, provides an essential look into the Nobel Prize–⁠winning Morrison’s thinking about art and culture.

But I want to talk here about work and art on a personal level.

To be clear, sometimes circumstances force a person to stop making art (whatever sort of art they may be creating). An artist may decide they need to take a break, or a pause, or even quit altogether if that seems to be the path they need to follow at any given time. Sometimes death or exceptional hardship make that decision for them.

But in other cases, artists struggle with the question: Should I keep working? And if so, why?

Why do we artists (in the largest sense of the word artist) do the work we do, often with little return or under great stress or surrounded by people or a society that tells us we ought not to do it, that we aren’t worth it, or the work isn’t worthwhile enough, that we ought to spend our time on something else? What if we start telling ourselves those same things? What of the stresses and strains across a career, which may be a career of rising success, or of success followed by a fall, or of failure followed by success, or (most commonly) a fairly modest but hopefully relatively steady creative journey that lasts a lifetime? Why do some people give up, or burn out, while others plug on?

The song “Black Swan” by Korean pop group BTS speaks to one aspect of this question: “They say my heart isn’t beating anymore, When I listen to music.”

The song was inspired by the Martha Graham quote: “A dancer dies twice—once when they stop dancing, and this first death is the more painful.” In “Black Swan,” the members of BTS ask themselves what happens if music no longer touches them:

If this can’t make me cry anymore
If this can’t make my heart tremble anymore
Maybe I’ll die like this

How can people go on creating in these circumstances? How can they find their way back?

A few writers I know have enjoyed pretty smooth sailing throughout their careers, but on the whole most writers I know have trudged through ups and downs. Martha Wells famously thought her career was over before breaking out into an international bestseller (and forthcoming Apple TV+ series!) with the Murderbot books. Malinda Lo published four YA novels, eked out another small deal while assuming these would likely be her final books, and then won the National Book Award for Last Night at the Telegraph Club. Other writers have had huge, splashy debuts and then more or less slipped away into obscurity soon afterward.

I am sure there are writers who are slackers and don’t work hard, and treat writing as a game, but I don’t know those people. The writers I know work hard, and often meet with poor sales and less publicity, and occasionally with modest success or a major triumph. But we keep working. Why? That’s the question I keep circling back to. Why?

I’ve had my ups and downs in publishing, and suffered through a couple of serious setbacks, and kept plugging along. My first published novel came out in December 1988, and I never thought of quitting even when a deal or a hope went wrong and I had to regroup. I always kept going, often through sheer cussedness and because I still had so many books I wanted to write.

In Spring 2022, for reasons I won’t go into detail about, I had a very upsetting publishing experience with FURIOUS HEAVEN (The Sun Chronicles 2). The experience was so discouraging and debilitating that it left me with a flinch reflex toward book three of the trilogy. By which I mean, every time I ventured to think about book three, I flinched. This is not a conducive emotion for productive writing.

For about a month, that spring, I thought I might as well stop writing. “What was the point, after all these years and so many books?” I asked myself. Was it worth it? If the thought of writing a book whose plot and characters I knew and loved made me flinch, why was I writing at all? Maybe it was better to just quit.

That’s a grim word: Quit.

But there I was, drained of hope and any sense of a future, of anticipation, for my art. This dreadful feeling ground on for weeks. “Is my lifelong love for story and writing finally over?” I wondered. I had thought I would never be over it.

As a last gasp, I poked through old folders. I always have a hodge-podge literary storeroom filled with fragments and partials and “first 5000 words” of possible stories and novels. Oftentimes I will write 5000 words of a “thing” and then a year later come back to it, when I need a break from my contracted work, and decide I should write it differently, from a different angle or with a different point-of-view character, because I’ve changed my mind about the character but not the setting, or the setting but not the characters. This ferment goes on constantly in my head. It’s part of how I keep things fresh.

So that April, 2022, I found scraps of a thing I had tried poking at from several different angles, and I poked at it again, with a new point-of-view character and some vague alterations of setting, although I wasn’t yet clear on the details of the setting. More or less, I began hiking into unknown territory.

And strangely, it was kind of fun. It was definitely more encouraging than flinching. So I wrote a little more. I showed the early chapters to my writers’ group, and they proved to be kindly enthusiastic. I thought to myself: “There is something sparking here, something that reminds me of why I write.”

But book three sat there, under contract, waiting. Publishers waiting. Readers waiting. Characters and plot waiting. Yet I flinched again. I was still hurting, it seems.

I finally said to myself, “Let me just write this other thing for a little while more, another week, a month at most.” Let’s call it “priming the pump.”

I started writing onward into the wilderness of a fantasy novel in a world I didn’t really know and with characters I was making up as I went along (I don’t normally work quite like this, but that’s a different essay). And something astonishing happened. The book kept going, and it kept going, and it kept going. In fact, it was rather as if a vision with the weight of a grand piano had dropped out of the sky and fallen into my head, a complete novel I hadn’t even known I had in me.

I wrote 240,000 words in six months. The story flowed out of me. What I realized was that I had given myself permission to make the love of writing the most important thing at this moment in my life, when I needed that as the driving force for my art. Had I kept trying to push against the flinch, I wouldn’t have written it. I wouldn’t have written anything. Is the Sun Chronicles book three delayed because of this? Yes, it is. But book three is half done now, and for all I know, I’d never have touched it if I hadn’t allowed myself to let the love and mystery of whatever art is, whatever compels me to write, to lead what I was doing.

Reader, I sold it, and revised it rather extensively. It became a duology: THE WITCH ROADS and THE NAMELESS LAND, coming this year, in June and November 2025, from Tor Books.

When people ask me what THE WITCH ROADS is about, I can talk about plot and character and world-building, and I’m happy to do so because I think it is a cool story and I adore the characters and setting.

But what I really want to say is that THE WITCH ROADS is the book that reignited my love of writing during a terrible period when I wondered if I should just quit.

And maybe that offers one answer (among many) to my question. Artists keep working because, so often, art is a gift.

Photo of Kate Elliott by April Quintanilla
Photo Credit: April Quintanilla

Born in Iowa, Kate Elliott grew up in rural Oregon, where she learned early to clean out stalls and pitchfork manure, thus preparing her for adult life. She’s written epic fantasy (Crown of Stars, the Crossroads trilogy, Black Wolves), space opera Unconquerable Sun (gender-bent Alexander the Great in space), young adult fantasy (the Court of Fives trilogy), alt-history fantasy (Cold Magic), science fiction (the Novels of the Jaran, the Highroad trilogy), two novellas (Servant Mage and The Keeper’s Six), and even a few short stories (most recently in the collection The History of the World Begins in Ice). Fantasy duology The Witch Roads arrives in June and November 2025 from Tor Books. She answers the question “Where should I start with your novels” here (boy band style). You can find her on Bluesky at kateelliottsff.bsky.social

While not writing, she’s either paddling outrigger canoes or spoiling her schnauzer Fingolfin, aka High King of the Schnoldor.

Women in SF&F Month Banner

This year’s Women in SF&F Month ends this week with one more guest post and an international giveaway. Thank you so much to last week’s guests for their excellent essays!

Before announcing the rest of this year’s schedule, here are last week’s guest posts in case you missed any of them.

All guest posts from April 2025 can be found here, and last week’s guest posts were:

In addition to The Adventures of Mary Darling giveaway with Pat Murphy’s guest post, there is still time to enter The Book of Atrix Wolfe giveaway that accompanied the cover reveal of The Essential Patricia A. McKillip. (US only for both giveaways.)

The month comes to a close with one more guest post and an international (non-US) giveaway. This week’s guest and feature are as follows:

Women in SF&F Month 2025 Schedule Graphic

April 28: Kate Elliott (The Witch Roads, The Spiritwalker Trilogy)
April 29: Winner’s Choice Giveaway (International, non-US)

Women in SF&F Month Banner

Today’s Women in SF&F Month guest is Lindsey Byrd! She is the author of On the Subject of Griffons, a fantasy novel about a woman who ends up working with her deceased husband’s former mistress to seek a magical cure for one of her children. The Sun Blessed Prince, her next novel, is the first book in an epic fantasy duology with romantic elements that features a prince and an assassin with opposing gifts who might be able to put an end to a war. I’m thrilled she’s here today to share some thoughts on the “not like other girls” trope and discuss two female characters in her soon-to-be-released novel—which is coming out on May 1 in the UK and May 6 in Canada!

Cover of The Sun Blessed Prince by Lindsey Byrd

About The Sun Blessed Prince:

A battle-weary prince meets a reluctant assassin. But could their bond end their war?

SEPARATED BY WAR, UNITED BY FATE…

Prince Elician is a Giver. He can heal any wound and bring the dead back to life. He also can’t be killed, so is cursed to watch his country wage an endless war.

Reapers can kill with a single touch. When one attacks Prince Elician near a hotly contested battlefield, but fails, the Reaper expects a terrible punishment. Instead, Elician offers him a chance at a new life and a new name on enemy territory. Cat, as Elician calls him, hadn’t realized he could ever find something, or someone, to make life worth living — until the prince. Yet Elician is unaware that his enemy plans to turn his kindness against him until danger engulfs him in turn.

As the pieces of a deadly plot come together, featuring abduction, treachery and forbidden magic, tensions escalate at court and on the battlefield. The fires of conflict burst into new flame — but can those who wield the powers of life and death find peace?

Whenever I hear the phrase “not like other girls” about a character in a book it’s usually accompanied by a rolling of the eyes and a huff or great sigh of disdain. The accompanying dialogue is something to the tune of “I was reading a book and this girl was just insistent on being not like other girls.” The offending character perhaps even makes the claim herself, insisting how she’s unique and special. She doesn’t wear dresses, she drinks, she likes to go to fight club or has any number of traits that set her aside from the traditional “feminine.” If it isn’t how she presents herself physically, then it’s her mental state. She doesn’t chase boys, she has no interest in child rearing, or she abhors any type of presumed gender role.

Audiences have love/hate relationships with these characters. While some see them as wish fulfilment, the embodiment of everything they themselves wish they could do if not held accountable to the societal norms placed on them, others (quite loudly) consider them tacky, annoying, or out of touch. Fandom circles, in particular, can be ruthless when it comes to any female character, but the use of the “not like other girls” trope can engender additional vitriol.

I confess, as a young writer first developing my craft — I was terrified of writing female characters because of the backlash they often receive. If not outright vitriol, then pure silence in the comments section certainly makes it loud and clear that audiences prefer to read about their male favourites over the female co-stars. And, as a young writer, I was more prone to writing wish fulfilment characters in general. Self-insert, Mary-Sue, sister-fics and the like were a therapeutic form of self-comfort. Unhappy with my life beyond fiction, these characters were written specifically to make me feel that: if only the [insert special event] happened, then I could be a hero, and would receive praise, glory, love and affection too!

But very quickly, it became obvious: such characters were not to be written about or posted in public because no one wanted to read it. It was so unrealistic — even the random internet strangers knew better than to cater to it. And as a young writer, I internalized that any girl who dared to break the mould of acceptability was not to be written about. The male characters were the only ones that were truly of interest. This internalized misogyny breached past the Rubicon of just “not like other girls” to ensure that I felt that all female characters in general should be used sparingly in my writings.

It would be years before I even confronted that thought process and what it actually meant.

For weeks now, in preparing this blog post, I’ve rolled around the notion of what “not like other girls” really means and who is impacted by it. I think it’s relatively safe to say that everyone wants to feel special and important at some point in their life. That there is some unique identifier within you that makes you stand out and worthwhile. Whatever the hardships that you have faced, you overcame them, and the way you overcame them made you strong.

When someone else (particularly a man) says “Wow, you’re not like other girls,” though, it creates a kind of strange social dissonance where your personal status is now being judged by a metric of a whole gender. A gender which presents itself in a myriad of beautiful and often disparate ways. Which girls are being discussed? From which race and social class or culture of origin? Because perhaps the actions of that individual are perfectly normal in their own community, or perhaps this enforced othering is a mechanism through which “other girls” can be disdained. This is particularly true in cases of white “normativity” in writings, and when white culture is used to create a separation or a judgment on non-white women and their behaviour. Are they not like other girls because they’re not white or white-woman enough? Which group are they being compared against? And does this factor into how they’re being judged in the first place?

Several books (and fandoms) do celebrate the “not like other girls” characters once the character in question has proven herself to be “one of the good ones.” Here, because they have adopted the more masculine actions and responses to certain situations, while simultaneously proving themselves to not be too “obnoxious” in the process (a fine line), the female character can be praised for being heroic. She managed to overcome her fragile femininity to become a hero. She could play with the big boys and hold her own. This female character can thus be praised in canon for her accomplishments in the superior gender field without betraying her obvious womanhood. It’s a strange dichotomy, highlighting one set of behaviours over another and squishing gender somewhere uncomfortably in the middle for good measure.

These female characters, though, face the double-edged sword of never quite being masculine enough or feminine enough. Their womanhood is often called into question as they justify their masculine traits. Natasha Romanoff in the MCU, for instance, both caters to her feminine sexuality while also emphasizing the masculinity of brutal murder and violence. She also, very controversially, was revealed to be unable to have children and her womanhood and ability to be a proper woman was thus called into question. Her trauma over her not being able to have children was infuriating for those who didn’t want to consider such things, as well as another sign of her womanly body being used against her. As much as she played in the masculine: it was impossible to forget she was a woman dealing with woman issues at the end of the day.

So long as the narrative distracts the reader from the fact the “not like other girls” character is a woman, by and large she’s successful. The sword-fighting badass character can be congratulated and celebrated, only until the attention returns to the fact that she is a woman at the same time. The Aryas are to be congratulated over the Sansas, for the Sansas can never hide their femininity, and should she manage an act of heroism, it is always failing to quite meet the same mark as other more accomplished male characters. When used like this, the trope is specifically making a point to highlight one gender’s perceived traits over another, and to ensure the audience knows which one (the masculine) is superior.

I struggle with all of this.

I am no longer a young writer, nor am I someone desperate to make sense of why (during a difficult childhood) I always felt left out. My childish yearning to say my differences made me special and therefore I couldn’t be like “those other girls” did not in fact take into consideration what those other girls might have been feeling. For I suspect, now as an adult, they likely felt quite similar.

Everyone has a right to the feeling that they personally are unique and not like the people around them, but by insisting that is the case — and using gender as the barometer on which those differences are judged — it flattens the experiences of all those others within that gender. All those times a fellow girl felt or did exactly the same thing.

In The Sun Blessed Prince, there are two very different female characters that take up a lot of time on page: Fen and Adalei.

Fen exists in a place of longing and yearning and development. She is a child, filled with the black and white thinking of a child, but she is desperate to be taken seriously as an adult. She wishes to express her individuality, but she equally hates the fact that she is different from the people she wants to be like. She feels as though she is not like other girls, and yet — she is exactly like other girls. She is filled with the same uncertainty, confusion, and longing to fit in as her peers. Her rebelliousness and even her bigotry are black and white because as a child — that’s how she can perceive the world. In black and white. Only as she matures does that binary begin to fade, and with it: the self confidence that comes with accepting herself for who she is.

To Fen, she is not like other girls. She feels othered and outcast. She feels like she will never fit in. However, she is exactly like all her peers, facing the same feelings of grief and uncertainty, struggling with her body and how she fits in it. Her worries and concerns and her uncertainty are entirely normal, as are her desires to do something. When she is told her limitations, she questions those that placed the limitations on her in the first place because she feels she can do better. This is an entirely natural reaction, and though she makes mistakes: her mistakes follow her journey into womanhood in a progression that does not highlight how unique she is, but just how bitterly normal a coming of age truly is. Grief, despair, longing, joy, and surprise are all a part of the process. She may not feel like she is like other girls, and yet she is. And it is that understanding, I feel, that helps provide nuance to the trope. Not quite a subversion, but rather an understanding that what someone feels and what someone is can be two very different things.

Adalei’s story is quite different. Already a full-grown woman, she has no progression or march towards an uncertain end. She knows who she is and what she wants. She is, also, a lady in every sense of the word. She runs her household, she participates in domestic crafts, she engages in politicking but in a quiet and reserved manner. She is fully aware of her body and her appearance and the impact these may have on others. She also has reached the point of her life where she has been hardened to the cruel words of others.

When Fen professes a desire to wield a sword, she implies her desire to actually, physically, commit to taking an action that has a tangible result. Take sword, hit thing, win. Adalei refrains. Her desire for tangibility is far more subtle than that. She’d prefer to take her time, and this preference is not a weakness. Women who do not fight are not fragile meek characters. There is depth and nuance to their struggles, and there is a strength that must be appreciated. To be a lady means to take command of an entire household and manage it, to be aware of every task being conducted under the roof and to ensure that any plans made are conducted exactly as the household requires. Adalei does this not only for her house, but for her country. She has no need for physical strength and prowess, but this in no way makes her inferior.

To disdain women who do not fight is simply to disdain women.

Not all women fight with their fists, and failure to wield a sword does not make someone any less of a hero.

The “not like other girls” trope is never going to go away. However, I do hope that readers and writers alike can add nuance to it. What is the purpose of the character, what is the author trying to convey, and also: who is the author writing for? Are they writing for their own inner child? Someone else’s inner child? Or are they truly displaying a deep disdain for the feminine?

I personally would reject any notion that the feminine is something to be discounted. But I also would reject the idea that the “not like other girls” trope is inherently bad. Subverting the trope, or even calling attention to it in the narrative itself, can help provide perspective within the text that may be helpful. And perhaps, in this way, these discussions about self-doubt and insecurity can help address the internal fears and concerns readers have. Perhaps, even in some cases, help them heal. That in itself would be worth writing for.

Photo of Lindsey Byrd Lindsey Byrd grew up in New York before moving abroad for graduate research studies. She is an amateur birder and enjoys going for hikes to take photos of nature. She enjoys all forms of speculative fiction, and is an avid researcher of history. She currently runs the Youtube channel and podcast “Lindsey Byrd in Writing is Hard!”

Women in SF&F Month Banner

Today’s Women in SF&F Month guest is Mia Tsai! Her debut novel, Bitter Medicine, is a xianxia-inspired contemporary fantasy book featuring a magical calligrapher descended from the Chinese god of medicine and a half-elf security expert working at the same agency. The Memory Hunters, her second novel coming out on July 29, is the first book in a science fantasy duology featuring an archaeologist and her protector that is described as a “mind-bending queer adventure for fans of Inception, Arkady Martine, Samantha Shannon, and Emily Tesh, asking: who has the right to remember?” I’m excited she is here today to discuss creating new settings without real-word prejudices in “Conflict and Discrimination in Secondary Worlds.”

Cover of The Memory Hunters by Mia Tsai

About The Memory Hunters:

A reckless archaeologist uncovers an earthshattering heretical secret in this mind-bending queer adventure for fans of Inception, Arkady Martine, Samantha Shannon, and Emily Tesh, asking: who has the right to remember?

Kiana Strade can dive deeper into blood memories than anyone alive. But instead of devoting her talents to the temple she’s meant to lead, Key wants to do research for the Museum of Human Memory. . . and to avoid the public eye.

Valerian IV’s twin swords protect Key from murderous rivals and her own enthusiasm alike. Vale cares about Key as a friend—and maybe more—but most of all, she needs to keep her job so she can support her parents and siblings in the storm-torn south.

But when Key collects a memory that diverges from official history, only Vale sees the fallout. Key’s mentor suspiciously dismisses the finding; her powerful mother demands she stop research altogether. And Key, unusually affected by the memory, begins to lose moments, then minutes, then days.

As Vale becomes increasingly entangled in Key’s obsessive drive for answers, the women uncover a shattering discovery—and a devastating betrayal. Key and Vale can remain complicit, or they can jeopardize everything for the truth.

Either way, Key is becoming consumed by the past in more ways than one, and time is running out.

Conflict and Discrimination in Secondary Worlds

Let’s be honest: People will fight over anything.

And that’s interesting. Conflict drives stories at every level, and we as the audience want to know how the characters will or won’t resolve those conflicts. Secondary world fantasies, especially epic fantasies, often have conflicts at the personal and international scale. It’s one of the hallmarks of epic fantasy—there’s an oppressed people, and a hero arises to triumph over the oppressors, and triumph results in change not just for the hero but for their people and their country.

In times previous, authors often leaned on historical conflicts for inspiration. The War of the Roses, or the Trojan War, or any number of moments in our world where the wagon wheel hit a pebble in the road and bounced out of its rut. I could go on about how our concept of secondary world fantasy has been, until recently, very colonial and West-centric, but I’m going to hit my own pebble in the track and talk about building secondary worlds without importing real-world conflicts.

How do you write about other cultures and oppression without relying on stereotypes? This is a question I’ve gotten at a lot of Diversity 101 panels, both in person and online. And it’s a 100-level question for sure; the easiest and quickest answer is to stop thinking about other cultures as homogeneous entities. Inspect that question further, however, and problems arise. What do you mean by other cultures? What do you mean by oppression? Whose cultures and whose oppression? Whose point of view are you taking when you ask about other cultures and oppression? A writer’s point of view, for sure, but that’s still a point of view.

I’ve answered this question more in depth before; when I did, I leaned on breaking down the assumption that groups of people hold the same ideas and that individuals in those groups are interchangeable. People disagree. This holds true no matter what group you’re talking about, whether it’s a fake nation in D&D or the people in your neighborhood. Writers can’t even agree on how to write! And also, this is fantasy. We make everything up. Why should there be racism or bigotry? They don’t have to exist if we don’t want them.

But, as the first sentence says, people will fight over anything. The challenge, then, is to build that secondary world without the parts we dislike. For example, I think racism and bigotry don’t have to be default states in speculative fiction. My worlds generally run without those two, though when writing in contemporary settings where the world is ours, just with magic, it’s not possible to avoid racism and bigotry because of how our world’s history has shaped us. And if you’re thinking, “Why, I can for sure write a contemporary world without racism and bigotry!” I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you, plus millions of gallons of white paint.

What remains, then, when creating conflict in a secondary world? For me, I look at my world’s resources and technological level to give me ideas. It’s very possible, for example, to have a secondary world that never had racism or colorism; I have no interest in importing a history of chattel slavery or a caste system. The absence of racism and colorism means there’s less white supremacist scaffolding. It doesn’t mean that there’s a utopia with resource and technological equality and a classless society, however, so those are two areas where non-real-world conflict can be created.

New technology creates imbalance automatically because not all people will have access to that technology. We must always ask questions about various technologies and who benefits from them, as well as who does not. If you’re working in a world that is industrializing but does not have the full distribution network set up, you then have a resource-rich area and a resource-poor area. When I’m world building, I think less about adding and more about answering questions. If resources are distributed by train, which resources would have long enough shelf lives to be transported? What kind of production scale results in having enough product to necessitate freight rail? Who is doing the work to create so much product, and who is driving the trains and laying the tracks?

Immediately, class and labor issues appear. What follows are more questions about who is doing what and whether those people are compensated. The presence of resources like textiles (cotton, linen, wool, silk) and luxury foods (sugar, tea, coffee, chocolate) mean that the writer must think about whether they want the accompanying issues, especially when production scales up. The textile industry is especially labor intensive. Cotton, wool, and linen aren’t just harvested; they must be grown and tended to by people with specialized knowledge. If the people in your world can purchase their clothes instead of making them, then textile mills and clothing factories exist. (Ah, the textile mill, famously free of child labor, dangerous machinery, toxic chemicals, and industrial waste!) If mills and factories exist, then there need to be people to build, operate, and service those machines, as well as workers and managers or bosses.

In just thinking about what clothes people are wearing and how easy it is to get them, we’ve unlocked the potential for multiple conflicts and discriminatory practices. This is the writer’s playground, and we have not touched upon real-world issues like racism. We have just created a class of people who have enough money and time to demand premade clothing. Are these people going to be high, middle, or low class? What cultural meaning is assigned to people who can purchase clothes as opposed to making them? Is this a society where the makers are venerated, or is it a society that largely forgets whose labor has created the product? What are the clothes used for, and how do those uses fit into and create culture?

I don’t want to ignore another facet of this work. The bird’s eye view, the meta view, also plays an important role in determining what your world’s biases are. Some people might say this is the writer avoiding getting canceled, but I see it as the writer being as clear as possible about what the conflict is. The writer has to figure out what others will project onto the world. Accounting for an infinite number of interpretations is not our job as writers, but making sure that the conflicts we build aren’t easily mapped onto real-world conflict is (unless your aim is to map it onto the real world, but that is a different blog post). Is your world the fantasy version of the Sneetches, or is your world’s conflict grown organically from the people inhabiting it?

The central conflict in my upcoming book, The Memory Hunters, is about access to information. Within the area between the ocean and a mountain range called the Spine, there are specialized knowledge workers who can “dive” into the genetic record of the past to excavate memories and expertise lost during an event called the Decade of Storms and its aftermath. Those people, called memory hunters, grant huge advantages to others who have access to them. Prominent memory hunter families have, since the Decade, become extremely wealthy on the backs of their discoveries; they also sell their services to those seeking answers from the past, ranging from family disputes to design specs for vacuum-tube radios. That wealth has allowed them to build long-term housing in places unlikely to be flattened by hurricanes.

The ability to dive is not prevalent at all in the southern part of the Spine or on the coasts, and thus the people living there are at a disadvantage in a world founded on the bones of the past that also has ancestor worship as its religion. Ancestor worship developed as a grief and trauma response to all the people displaced, lost, and killed during the Decade, and the memory hunters can give glimpses of passed relatives to those who ask. The memory hunters, however, are unwilling to head to where storms routinely wipe out entire communities, and so the inequality continues to perpetuate as time goes on and more and more people are lost (and more memories are found and enshrined in museums absent their cultural contexts). With this foundational inequality, I was able to expand my world into one where classism and xenophobia are used to discriminate against others.

I find that in world building, the existence of the most mundane objects can reveal so much in terms of a world’s history and culture—while also shedding light on assumptions made by the writer. And I think this is where I have the most fun, if one can call creating conflict and discrimination in a secondary world fun. But, like I said, people fight over anything. I’d rather create my own path than set my world into highly constraining wagon ruts. Doing this is hard work and requires so much thought and consideration. But it’s also disruptive. It’s fresh and showcases how deeply you build. And it’s very, very rewarding.

Photo of Mia Tsai
Photo Credit: Rebekah Chavez Wynne, Wynne Photography
Mia Tsai is a Taiwanese American author and editor of speculative fiction. She debuted with Bitter Medicine, a xianxia-inspired contemporary fantasy. Her next novel, The Memory Hunters, is forthcoming from Erewhon Books on July 29, 2025. She lives in Atlanta with her family, pets, and orchids. Her favorite things include music of all kinds and taking long trips with nothing but the open road and a saucy rhythm section.

Women in SF&F Month Banner

Today’s Women in SF&F Month guest is Linsey Miller! Her work in young adult speculative fiction includes “A Helping Hand” in the horror anthology The House Where Death Lives, “Give Up the Ghost” in the Lambda Award–nominated anthology Being Ace, the Lambda Literary Award–nominated dark fantasy novel What We Devour, and the fantasy novels in the Mask of Shadows duology (Mask of Shadows, Ruin of Stars). Coming out on June 3, her next book, That Devil, Ambition, is a standalone YA fantasy novel described as “an incredibly fresh, twisty love letter to dark academia…with a body count.” I’m delighted she’s here today to explore what it means to do the right thing in “A Descent into Kindness.”

Cover of That Devil, Ambition by Linsey Miller

About That Devil, Ambition:

From Lambda Literary Award finalist Linsey Miller comes this thrilling stand-alone fantasy about the lengths we’ll go to get ahead—an incredibly fresh, twisty love letter to dark academia…with a body count.

Perfect for fans of A Study in Drowning by Ava Reid, Gallant by V. E. Schwab, and All of Us Villains by Amanda Foody and C. L. Herman.

There is only one school worth graduating from, and it creates as many magicians as it does graves…

First in his class and last in his noble line, Fabian Galloway’s only hope of a good future is passing his elite school’s honors class. It’s only offered to the best thirteen students, and those students have a single assignment: kill their professor.

If they succeed, their student debt is forgiven. However, if an assassination attempt fails or the professor is alive at the end of the year, the students’ lives are forfeit.

And dealing with the professor, a devil summoned solely to kill or be killed, is no easy task.

Fabian isn’t worried, though. He trusts his best friends—softhearted math genius Credence and absent-minded but insightful Euphemia—to help. After all, that’s why he befriended them.

As the months pass and their professor remains impossibly alive, the trio must use every asset they have to survive. Or else failure will be on their academic records—and their tombstones—forever.

A Descent into Kindness

I like kindness. Nice characters. The sorts of characters who wouldn’t get a second glance if lined up beside their grittier, darker, flashier counterparts with sarcastic one-liners and smoldering gazes. Kindness is relegated to secondary characters who can offer an empathetic ear or healing touch to the lead because we often equate kindness with boringness. A kind character will always do the kind thing. The predictable right thing.

And “the right thing” is what I love exploring.

It’s more common in middle grade and young adult novels. There’s a misconception that kindness and optimism, that striving to create a better world by being kind, is childish idealism. Often, characters will learn some lesson about how everyone around them is living their own life and deserves some grace. The kind thing is what most readers would expect, and some of my favorite examples are the Circle of Magic series by Tamora Pierce, Lirael by Garth Nix, and Raybearer by Jordan Ifueko. The Goblin Emperor by Katherine Addison is one of the only recent(ish) books I’ve read featuring a truly earnest character continuing to be kind in the face of cruelty that is neither about how his choice to do so is a mistake nor written for a younger audience. The characters in these books do not meet cruelty with cruelty. It’s cathartic.

Then, of course, there are the (often revenge-driven) stories about good people who decide that the only way through cruelty requires a specific level of violence. Killers and manipulators grapple with the moral quandary of bystanders’ deaths for the sake of their ultimate goal, and usually that goal is one that fits within the readers’ ethics—killing murderers, nobles, tyrants, and gods. Isn’t removing someone who actively chooses to do harm a kindness? These characters are not “good,” but they are doing a kindness for the world by eliminating entrenched corruption. They have decided that killing a few is acceptable for either justice or progress.

Cover of Mask of Shadows by Linsey Miller Cover of What We Devour by Linsey Miller

In my debut novel, Mask of Shadows, Sal was an assassin out for revenge who had seen the horrors of their world firsthand and decided to remove the source, like debriding a wound. They were driven by both selfish and unselfish goals in equal measure. In my last standalone fantasy, What We Devour, Lorena is kind. She works as an undertaker, tending to the dead to spare others the task, and she agrees to be arrested to keep her lover’s family safe. Then, she decides that the kindest act of all is to welcome in a magical apocalypse.

Sal and Lorena have calculated the cost of souls, their own included, and decided that they are willing to be cruel and ensure the deaths of the corrupt upper classes and their families to allow a kinder world to rise from the ashes. It is not what many readers would consider to be the ethically correct thing, but it’s something we can forgive. Vengeance and wanting a better world are understandable.

The main characters of That Devil, Ambition are not out for vengeance or a better world but themselves. Fabian, Credence, and Euphemia are three best friends on the cusp of adulthood and graduation who must kill the devil summoned to teach their class in order to receive tuition waivers. If they fail, the devil will kill them.

And they agreed to this! They matriculated knowing the cost of the school, the deals of their loans, and the requirements of the tuition waivers. They did not have to study magic. They did not have to pursue the waivers and could have just paid back the money. They are young, ambitious, and even though they might possess kindness that would lead to them creating better worlds after graduation, they are not primarily motivated by what most morality systems would consider “good.” As the weeks of term go by and their devilish professor remains alive, they must decide what lines they are willing to cross in order to graduate debt-free.

(Alright, maybe contemplating crime to pay for student loans is still understandable and forgivable, but it is not the narrative-standard calculus of souls we’re accustomed to.)

There is a certain ferality to it that is usually reserved for anti-heroes and beloved villains. The trio is kind; they each sacrifice something of themself to protect another. They believe that they are capable of changing the world for the better as educated magicians, and so, aren’t they justified in their selfishness? If they are certain they will accomplish morally good things, then aren’t all of their actions good? If they minimize the harm and destroy themselves in body and soul first before anyone else, then is the end result not worth it? Are they not kind?

Dozens of books have made me really dig in to the meaning of kindness and forced me to shed my own morality while reading, but here are a few favorites that made me ask, “Is a character selfish and morally gray if they become the bloodiest, cruelest version of themself so that no one else needs to get their hands dirty, or is that simply kindness in its most base form, like a sheep in wolf’s clothing?”

So Let Them Burn by Kamilah Cole
The Traitor Baru Cormorant by Seth Dickinson
The First Sister by Linden A. Lewis
The Merciful Crow by Margaret Owen
The Spirit Bares Its Teeth by Andrew Joseph White

Photo of Linsey Miller by Tara Welch
Photography by Tara Welch
Once upon a time, Linsey Miller studied biology in Arkansas. These days, she holds an MFA in fiction and is the author of the Lambda-nominated What We Devour. Her other works include the Mask of Shadows duology, Belle Révolte, The Game, the first three books in the Disney Princes series, That Devil, Ambition, and various short stories. She can be found in Texas writing about science and magic anywhere there is coffee.