Ladies and Gentlemen,

As some of you know I'm in the process of writing a Science Fiction novel, and I'm happy to tell you that it's nearly finished. No guarantee that I'll be able to get it published, of course, but I'm nearing the point where I can start the process of trying to do so.

Anyway, one of my characters is elucidating a plan about making gradual changes to human society over a long period of time. The idea is that massive changes can be made if they are done slowly. Or, even if they cause significant resistance at the time, that resistance will fade over time. After all, what children grow up with is what they assume is normal, even if they are viewed by the old as revolutionary technologies or scandalous morals.

I wanted to make a simple analogy for readers to more easily understand this viewpoint without the need for complex explanations, so I have written this sentence:

In the space of a couple of generations in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, America went from a nation in which racial segregation was the norm for large parts of the country to one which elected a black President.

I fully realise that this is the sort of topic which can enflame pubic opinion among Americans, so I wanted to run it by you guys to see if you think the wording is OK as it stands, or needs altering to make it more accurate or less controversial (if it is).

Please note that this is supposed to be an easily understood example of how a society can both change and (largely) accept change over time. I'm not trying to comment on the nature of that change (whether it was a good thing or bad), but simply state that it happened.

In other words, this sentence is supposed to be drawing on factual historical precedence to illustrate a point. If it instead grabs the attention of some readers and causes them to focus on it rather than the idea it is designed to illustrate, it will prove unsuitable to its purpose.

Just looking for opinions here, and suggestions if you think the wording should be tweaked.

To me, the phrase "late 20th century" suggests the period starting around 1970. Since Jim Crow laws were outlawed in the 1960s, I could see someone finding your phrasing somewhat inaccurate. My 2 cents.

How about gay marriage if your sci-fi is in the future? Then you could say in one generation in the early 21st century gay marriage went from unthinkable to a normalized status throughout the country. You get the example, plus readers in the present will internally acknowledge 'Yah that's going to happen'.

That could work. Or he could just swap out the word "late" for the word "mid" with the sentence he already has. Depends if he wants the whole change to have already happened in the reader's own experience.

Fair point, I'll switch it to mid 20th century. Thanks.

Neal, within the novel I actually give 2 examples of how massive changes to society can occur and be accepted. The other is the development and institution of a particular technology which has changed the face of human society, which is by this point firmly established in the book. So I wanted to give one example which would be firmly within the experience of my readers as well, which the civil rights movement is since it is history.

Works for me, myself, I think the "gay example" would work even better.
In a shorter period of time we went from the 60's where being homosexual was kept in the closet, never spoken of, and insults seemed the norm. Then along came some seemingly slow changes, in what now seems like a short time we have gay marriages and gays on virtually every tv show, making our way rapidly towards wide spread acceptance. My own kids talked about openly gay kids in high school where it was pretty much no big deal to anyone, that shows your point of the young being brought up as the change being perfectly normal to them.

Yep, it would certainly fit the bill. However, human sexuality and orientation is a topic thoroughly covered in the book already, whereas there has been no mention of any civil rights issues. I suppose the reason for this is that the civil rights movement is ancient history whereas sexuality is and always will be current. Like I say, this is simply a one line to illustrate a point, not anywhere near a major topic.

I think that Heck Tate has the best approach. It's far more grounded to use an example that is real than one that might be real in the near future. And as it appears to be a quick and clear example used as an analogy to the story, it really doesn't want to involve a series of steps. Segregation to President is snappy.

And if gay marriage were inevitable, why is it such a big political issue? Surely there are people who are working hard to ensure that it is not (and others who may believe it is but are far from happy about it).

Javelin, if you are a budding SF writer, have you seen Charlie Stross' blog? Last year he did a series of posts about how he sees the industry working: Common Misconceptions about Publishing - as a reader it was quite eye-opening, to be honest.

Thanks Danvion, I'll give that a careful read.

I recommend it to everyone. A snippet from the first entry:

Charles Stross wrote:It struck me, reading the comments on my various postings about the Amazon v. Macmillan spat in January, that many people don't have the first clue about how the publishing business works — or even what it is. Publishing is a recondite, bizarre, and downright strange industry which is utterly unlike anything a rational person would design to achieve the same purpose (which I will loosely define for now as "put authors books into the hands of readers while making a profit, to the satisfaction of all concerned"). So over the next few blog entries I'm going to make some notes about what's going on ...

Misconception #1: The publishing industry makes sense.