First Elsa and now Captain America too? NOT EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE GAY

[Tryhard]

saying "just write [minority] characters like you would any other character!" is silly and dismissive of the experience of minorities. it basically means writing minority characters as you would a majority, or in this case gay characters as you would straight characters, or in many cases black characters as if they were white. it's bad writing.

things like sexuality and race, like it or not, define to a greater or lesser degree who you are in a given social context, and that goes for heteronormative people as well. what a lot of people don't seem to realise is that heterosexuality is an important aspect of straight characters, even if unconsciously or unnoticeably (it's The Norm! after all). you need to understand where characters are coming from and how it affects them. it's even more frustrating when people tote the opinion that "THEY SHOULD JUST HAPPEN TO BE GAY DON'T THROW IT IN EVERYONE'S FACES" like it's the ultimate progressive approach, when really it totally misses the mark and buys into what their approach purportedly nullifies.

obviously, if you write a character that just happens to be gay, it's fine, it's not like it's necessarily badly written or even that you'll misstep how your character would act in certain situations, but it's really a very basic take on minority characters that works well for inclusion but isn't immediately representative of real life. also, don't confuse what i'm saying with asking for people to make really melodramatic pieces about the LGBTQ+ Struggle^TM or needing characters to be stereotypical, just that people have to understand that even if you aren't a minority, things like your gender and your sexuality and your race have an effect on who you are as a person, be it to yourself or in the eyes of others, and that it's just something that people can't place their fingers on with "normal" characters because it's not something we take into account in the first place when it comes to them.

i mean, i can vouch, as a person of the LGBT+ persuasion, that my sexuality has had a deep impact in my development as a person for reasons that are probably obvious to y'all.

mmm, okay. but how would you suppose they write them? it is commonly said (and perhaps you would take issue with this as well) that "you wouldn't know that they are gay/lesbian/transgender".

I'm not discounting that the identity is hugely important to people, but characters are different from people, and often far less nuanced and complex. how exactly does a straight character relay their identity? I'd wager that almost all are bad writing by your standards.

[peener weener]

mmm, okay. but how would you suppose they write them? it is commonly said (and perhaps you would take issue with this as well) that "you wouldn't know that they are gay/lesbian/transgender".

I'm not discounting that the identity is hugely important to people, but characters are different from people, and often far less nuanced and complex. how exactly does a straight character relay their identity? I'd wager that almost all are bad writing by your standards.

it depends on character and context and tone and loads of other things, so there isn't really a universal rule for this kind of stuff, but if you're writing a personality first and then ascribing it with an identity instead of working both together, the character might come off as wonky.

characters relay their identity in tonnes of different subtle ways that are usually not even obvious to the writer, and i'm not saying what i proposed isn't hard, because it is, it's very very difficult, but you can see identity in all manner of things like character interactions or core tenets of their character (their ideas about masculinity, as an example).

honestly though, i think it's mostly the position people take that i find issue with, not even the writing itself lmao.

Edited May 27, 2016 by fuccboi

[Tryhard]

okay, I can see that. "just make a character and slap an identity on it" is pretty wayward, yes, but unfortunately its also the type of thing that is impossible to be empathized to such a degree because most writers simply don't know how it is

I think what they're (at least i am when i say something similar to it) trying to say is "make an actual character, not just a stereotype, and yes, they will have differences from the majority, and it does shape them... but you may not have the experience to show that"

Edited May 27, 2016 by Tryhard

[peener weener]

okay, I can see that. "just make a character and slap an identity on it" is pretty wayward, yes, but unfortunately its also the type of thing that is impossible to be empathized to such a degree because writers simply don't know how it is

I think what they're (at least i am when i say something similar to it) trying to say is "make an actual character, not just a stereotype, and yes, they will have differences from the majority, and it does shape them... but you may not have the experience to show that"

i think that's fair enough, i can feel it, and i even said so in the post, but i don't think that's exactly what a lot of other people were expressing in this thread lol (or at least, a much less nuanced version of that). the way someone else i was talking to earlier put it is that it's "level one advice" and i kind of agree with that, i think.

edit: congratulations for being the most reasonable person in this thread though lmao

Edited May 27, 2016 by fuccboi

[Integrity]

the way i see it (correct me if i'm wrong gui) is that it's not that "write them like they're just PEOPLE" is bad advice, and it is actually good advice, but it's held up by some people to be the ideal standard of writing. rather than having nuanced characters who are able to focus on problems specific to their identities, the ideal standard would be for sexualities/genders/ethnicities/etc. to be interchangeable.

essentially, the problem isn't the advice, which is Good, but that the advice which is Good is held up as The Best rather than as a "start here and work up" kind of thing, you know?

which leads to things like blah a few pages back saying "it's just this simple" when no, it really isn't this simple - it doesn't mean minority characters must be different, but that insisting that this axiom should be followed is swinging too far in the opposite direction, which is better overall but still not ideal

Edited May 27, 2016 by Integrity

[Rapier]

The problem with this, I think, is people will probably think an artist is merely catering to a subset of people regardless of their actual intent by it existing in the first place.

And even if they do include character x because group x requests it... creators should have freedom to do whatever the fuck they want, and if they want to appeal to the minority and diligently do so, so be it. That is not wrong. In fact, I'd argue complaining about how they're just appealing to group x is actually just as much 'creative intervention'.

How is that a problem? If you agree that an artist should do whatever they want with their work, then they should do whatever they want independently of how others read them.

Also, for the second part, I thought someone would interpret what I said that way. Hence why I added:

I do not see how other means of social conscientizing about LGBT people and minorities are not just as effective, and I don't see why we can't simply rely on artists that wish to adhere to the movement instead of forcing others to do the same. (...)

Bolded the part where I enforce that creators having freedom to do whatever they want is exactly what I've argued for. Also, I ask again, why can't we simply rely on artists that wish to adhere to the movement instead of interfering on the creative proccess for others to do the same?

I mean, think how troublesome Lord of the Rings would be if Tolkien was forced to change the cast for a fat young white male hetero hobbit with poor eyesight, a black skinny female hobbit that is gay, an old asian fat male hobbit who is bi and has autism, and a middle-aged female hobbit who has to use wheelchairs.

Instead, it is more reasonable to allow authors to make stories about LGBT/black/asian characters, or characters who have some sort of condition or handicap, in accord with their original idea, its structure and intent.

[Tryhard]

maybe not, i am presuming to speak for other people to be fair

[Crysta]

it's possible to pull off a character not like you if you employ a little bit of "what would I do" mixed in "what my experience taught me"; male writers/directors presumably do it with their female characters all the time, though with varying degrees of success.

[peener weener]

the way i see it (correct me if i'm wrong gui) is that it's not that "write them like they're just PEOPLE" is bad advice, and it is actually good advice, but it's held up by some people to be the ideal standard of writing. rather than having nuanced characters who are able to focus on problems specific to their identities, the ideal standard would be for sexualities/genders/ethnicities/etc. to be interchangeable.

essentially, the problem isn't the advice, which is Good, but that the advice which is Good is held up as The Best rather than as a "start here and work up" kind of thing, you know?

which leads to things like blah a few pages back saying "it's just this simple" when no, it really isn't this simple - it doesn't mean minority characters must be different, but that insisting that this axiom should be followed is swinging too far in the opposite direction, which is better overall but still not ideal

this is good too, A1 shit bubba

Edited May 27, 2016 by fuccboi

[Crysta]

I mean, think how troublesome Lord of the Rings would be if Tolkien was forced to change the cast for a fat young white male hetero hobbit with poor eyesight, a black skinny female hobbit that is gay, an old asian fat male hobbit who is bi and has autism, and a middle-aged female hobbit who has to use wheelchairs.

How would he be forced to do that?

If the black skinny female lesbian hobbit coalition decided to complain and he decided he wanted to change it accordingly, would you be upset with that?

[Loki Laufeyson]

okay, I can see that. "just make a character and slap an identity on it" is pretty wayward, yes, but unfortunately its also the type of thing that is impossible to be empathized to such a degree because most writers simply don't know how it is

I think what they're (at least i am when i say something similar to it) trying to say is "make an actual character, not just a stereotype, and yes, they will have differences from the majority, and it does shape them... but you may not have the experience to show that"

i think that's fair enough, i can feel it, and i even said so in the post, but i don't think that's exactly what a lot of other people were expressing in this thread lol. the way someone else i was talking to earlier put it is that it's "level one advice" and i kind of agree with that, i think.

edit: congratulations for being the most reasonable person in this thread though lmao

the way i see it (correct me if i'm wrong gui) is that it's not that "write them like they're just PEOPLE" is bad advice, and it is actually good advice, but it's held up by some people to be the ideal standard of writing. rather than having nuanced characters who are able to focus on problems specific to their identities, the ideal standard would be for sexualities/genders/ethnicities/etc. to be interchangeable.

essentially, the problem isn't the advice, which is Good, but that the advice which is Good is held up as The Best rather than as a "start here and work up" kind of thing, you know?

which leads to things like blah a few pages back saying "it's just this simple" when no, it really isn't this simple - it doesn't mean minority characters must be different, but that insisting that this axiom should be followed is swinging too far in the opposite direction, which is better overall but still not ideal

Since you lot are basically arguing the same thing in different ways, yeah. What seems to be the real issue, is that you have two camps: One who is yelling that things dont need to be gay or depicting minority to be good media and "why do we even need to do that?" and people who arent happy with current representation and think its just "not good enough." We all know the problem with the former camp. The latter camp is the one i find really frustrated with because it seems to totally ignore baby steps. Nothing changes overnight and people have to start somewhere. And not everyone is really good at writing nuances in characters. (see video games lmao) Making good characters in general is difficult. I actually dont like the argument that making "minority characters is not hard" because it is. Im bi, and im trying to write a lesbian character. Would it be easier if she were straight? No, actually it wouldnt. But her being lesbian is a part of her character.

i dunno, im rambling at this point lmao.

[Integrity]

Bolded the part where I enforce that creators having freedom to do whatever they want is exactly what I've argued for. Also, I ask again, why can't we simply rely on artists that wish to adhere to the movement instead of interfering on the creative proccess for others to do the same?

I mean, think how troublesome Lord of the Rings would be if Tolkien was forced to change the cast for a fat young white male hetero hobbit with poor eyesight, a black skinny female hobbit that is gay, an old asian fat male hobbit who is bi and has autism, and a middle-aged female hobbit who has to use wheelchairs.

Instead, it is more reasonable to allow authors to make stories about LGBT/black/asian characters, or characters who have some sort of condition or handicap, in accord with their original idea, its structure and intent.

dude, there's a huge fucking difference between what the majority wants and what you seem to think they want. that whole tolkein thing is just scaremongering shared around privileged circles (using the term unironically) to spread fear about minority inclusion, not the view of any significant portion as far as i'm aware. EDIT: he says, the Straightest, Whitest Guy

and yes, in a few generations we probably will be able to rely on people to write/draw/etc characters from a wider spectrum but the time hasn't come yet

Edited May 27, 2016 by Integrity

[Rapier]

How would he be forced to do that?

If the black skinny female lesbian hobbit coalition decided to complain and he decided he wanted to change it accordingly, would you be upset with that?

bolded is what matters because choice is what I'm arguing for. He could change it accordingly if he wished to.

dude, there's a huge fucking difference between what the majority wants and what you seem to think they want. that whole tolkein thing is just scaremongering shared around privileged circles (using the term unironically) to spread fear about minority inclusion, not the view of any significant portion as far as i'm aware. EDIT: he says, the Straightest, Whitest Guy

and yes, in a few generations we probably will be able to rely on people to write/draw/etc characters from a wider spectrum but the time hasn't come yet

You missed the point entirely (which is freedom on the creative proccess x having elements enforced on you to follow X and Y, and I am arguing for the former, if you have not noticed).

Also, I recommend rereading before speaking the nonsense that I'm against minority inclusion, which I'm not. What I've said in regards to minority inclusion was this: "Instead, it is more reasonable to allow authors to make stories about LGBT/black/asian characters, or characters who have some sort of condition or handicap, in accord with their original idea, its structure and intent". tl;dr, let authors include minorities as they wish, in accord with how they see their work, instead of forcing them to appeal to a political agenda.

The point of the Tolkien example that I gave wasn't "hey we can't portray minorities so let's not portray them!!", but "hey, if some authors want to make a story about four male white hetero hobbits, leave them. If some authors want to make a story about two gay guys who go to a mountain, leave them. If some authors want to write a love story about a handicapped girl who will die of cancer, leave them. It is detrimental to interrupt their creative proccess with elements that we want to enforce".

Edited May 27, 2016 by Rapier

[Crysta]

You didn't answer the first question, though.

[Rezzy]

the way i see it (correct me if i'm wrong gui) is that it's not that "write them like they're just PEOPLE" is bad advice, and it is actually good advice, but it's held up by some people to be the ideal standard of writing. rather than having nuanced characters who are able to focus on problems specific to their identities, the ideal standard would be for sexualities/genders/ethnicities/etc. to be interchangeable.

essentially, the problem isn't the advice, which is Good, but that the advice which is Good is held up as The Best rather than as a "start here and work up" kind of thing, you know?

which leads to things like blah a few pages back saying "it's just this simple" when no, it really isn't this simple - it doesn't mean minority characters must be different, but that insisting that this axiom should be followed is swinging too far in the opposite direction, which is better overall but still not ideal

A lot of it goes with the saying "write what you know".

It's like a writer trying to write a show about D&D, when they have in fact never played D&D or any table top RPG. In the best of cases, they are simply out of their element and true D&D players will pick them apart, since they get so many things wrong. In the worst cases, they will merely crank the stereotypes up to eleven, in their attempt to portray your standard D&D player.

[Integrity]

A lot of it goes with the saying "write what you know".

It's like a writer trying to write a show about D&D, when they have in fact never played D&D or any table top RPG. In the best of cases, they are simply out of their element and true D&D players will pick them apart, since they get so many things wrong. In the worst cases, they will merely crank the stereotypes up to eleven, in their attempt to portray your standard D&D player.

"write what you know" is generally good advice but i think it gets taken too far - i've seen a long of tumblrs shared about how people actively shouldn't try to write anything that they are themselves not, regardless of connections or research. despite not being gay myself, i'm confident that i could write a believably gay character (as in one whose gayness factors into their characterization) between research and talking to friends. otherwise, i'm just left with "hey, write cis straight white men."

i guess "write what you know" is a lot like "they're just people gosh" in that it's a good starting point but it gets used as a defense for too much when education is a better long-term solution

EDIT: i should just sign all my posts itt ", he says, the Straightest, Whitest Guy"

Edited May 27, 2016 by Integrity

[Rapier]

You didn't answer the first question, though.

Public pressure can do wonders, and creators need to sell their merchandise to said public. Isn't that (public backlashing) what happened to Dead or Alive 5?

edit: also, editted my last post because I was ninja'd

Edited May 27, 2016 by Rapier

[Res]

There's also the issue that there are already a lot of LGBT+ writers/actors, but they're not given enough focus/funding.

So to take the Tolkein example, you wouldn't force Tolkein to rewrite LotR, but you might look to adapt another existing piece of work.

[Rapier]

A lot of it goes with the saying "write what you know".

It's like a writer trying to write a show about D&D, when they have in fact never played D&D or any table top RPG. In the best of cases, they are simply out of their element and true D&D players will pick them apart, since they get so many things wrong. In the worst cases, they will merely crank the stereotypes up to eleven, in their attempt to portray your standard D&D player.

changing my focus a bit:

I disagree with this. It is not because we can't portray something perfectly that we shouldn't write about it. Many sci-fi authors write about physics stuff that makes people who work with physics iffy because there is a limit to how much knowledge you can earn with autodidacted research, but their works manage to be overall successes and the physics issues tend to be nitpicks. I know that we're speaking about people instead and how this can negatively affect minorities, but the thing is that an appeal to perfection is not reasonable, necessary or even desirable, since it stops people from even trying.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Rapier

[-Cynthia-]

People who make the 'inconsistent characterization' argument with regards to sexual orientation seem to have the perspective that sexual orientation is fixed, despite many real world examples to the contrary. They also seem to think that a character cannot be bisexual unless they display an attraction to both genders, which seems flawed as many real world bisexuals only 'appear' to display attraction for one gender. Why are we holding characters to a different 'standard' than the real world?

These points have been brought up before by others in the thread, but I thought they needed repeating.

[Rezzy]

"write what you know" is generally good advice but i think it gets taken too far - i've seen a long of tumblrs shared about how people actively shouldn't try to write anything that they are themselves not, regardless of connections or research. despite not being gay myself, i'm confident that i could write a believably gay character (as in one whose gayness factors into their characterization) between research and talking to friends. otherwise, i'm just left with "hey, write cis straight white men."

i guess "write what you know" is a lot like "they're just people gosh" in that it's a good starting point but it gets used as a defense for too much when education is a better long-term solution

EDIT: i should just sign all my posts itt ", he says, the Straightest, Whitest Guy"

changing my focus a bit:

I disagree with this. It is not because we can't portray something perfectly that we shouldn't write about it. Many sci-fi authors write about physics stuff that makes people who work with physics iffy because there is a limit to how much knowledge you can earn with autodidacted research, but their works manage to be overall successes and the physics issues tend to be nitpicks. I know that we're speaking about people instead and how this can negatively affect minorities, but the thing is that an appeal to perfection is not reasonable, necessary or even desirable, since it stops people from even trying.

It's not an absolute rule, and a good writer can write outside their experiences, but Sutor, ne ultra crepidam is literally older than feudalism. I just feel many bad writers try to tackle things they have no idea how to handle, and it shows. You can have nontraditional characters, but it can take more skill to pull off well.

To go with the sci-fi example, a good writer without a scientific background will give you just enough information to move the story forward. A bad writer will go into so much frivolous detail that it's just technobabble.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Rezzy

[Rapier]

It's not an absolute rule, and a good writer can write outside their experiences, but Sutor, ne ultra crepidam is literally older than feudalism. I just feel many bad writers try to tackle things they have no idea how to handle, and it shows. You can have nontraditional characters, but it can take more skill to pull off well.

To go with the sci-fi example, a good writer without a scientific background will give you just enough information to move the story forward. A bad writer will go into so much frivolous detail that it's just technobabble.

And shouldn't this be enough for an author who wants to write a LGBT/black/female character? That is, unless they want to write how it is to be a gay person on a given setting and make some sort of "discovery-conflict-acceptance" or whatever story of it. If it does have the psychological theme and a bigger focus toward a certain element that a character possesses, then yes, the writer will need an almost "cirurgical" handle (forgive me for the reference, I blame Steve), but if the fact that he is gay/bi is just one trait then it shouldn't demand so much research and skill, just like most sci-fi movies do about sci-fi.

I mean, it depends on the amount of focus and relevance that an element will have in the story.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Rapier

[Rezzy]

And shouldn't this be enough for an author who wants to write a LGBT/black/female character? That is, unless they want to write how it is to be a gay person on a given setting and make some sort of "discovery-conflict-acceptance" or whatever story of it. If it does have the psychological theme and a bigger focus toward a certain element that a character possesses, then yes, the writer will need an almost "cirurgical" handle (forgive me for the reference, I blame Steve), but if the fact that he is gay/bi is just one trait then it shouldn't demand so much research and skill, just like most sci-fi movies do about sci-fi.

That's certainly a better way to do it. I've just grown of token gay characters getting the Soleil treatment.

To go on a different tangent. I feel a medieval world could explore the LGBT life of an crown heir. Say the crown prince does not find women attractive, but feels it's his duty to find a wife, to continue his dynasty. I think that subject would be a bit adult for Disney, but I could see that getting fleshed out very well as a Support chain for a FE character.

England alone has quite a few monarchs who may have been LGBT, William II (almost stereotypically so), Richard I (maybe), Edward II (probably), James I (probably)

[solrocknroll]

bolded is what matters because choice is what I'm arguing for. He could change it accordingly if he wished to.

You missed the point entirely (which is freedom on the creative proccess x having elements enforced on you to follow X and Y, and I am arguing for the former, if you have not noticed).

Also, I recommend rereading before speaking the nonsense that I'm against minority inclusion, which I'm not. What I've said in regards to minority inclusion was this: "Instead, it is more reasonable to allow authors to make stories about LGBT/black/asian characters, or characters who have some sort of condition or handicap, in accord with their original idea, its structure and intent". tl;dr, let authors include minorities as they wish, in accord with how they see their work, instead of forcing them to appeal to a political agenda.

The point of the Tolkien example that I gave wasn't "hey we can't portray minorities so let's not portray them!!", but "hey, if some authors want to make a story about four male white hetero hobbits, leave them. If some authors want to make a story about two gay guys who go to a mountain, leave them. If some authors want to write a love story about a handicapped girl who will die of cancer, leave them. It is detrimental to interrupt their creative proccess with elements that we want to enforce".

Just to make this clear, you're referring to Brokeback Mountain and The Fault in Our Stars for your other examples? Or did you just come up with those concepts for the argument?

[Rapier]

Just to make this clear, you're referring to Brokeback Mountain and The Fault in Our Stars for your other examples? Or did you just come up with those concepts for the argument?

I remembered those stories to come up with those concepts, but I wasn't talking about them.