A hopefully non-controversial thought on character diversity in media.

[MeatMachine]

EDIT: I guess it also depends on the plot of the story. If we're talking about a TV show that is about a young transgendered person trying to find their way in the world, I wouldn't be nearly as judgemental on that as I would a generic sitcom that just has a transgendered character as part of the cast. This is an important distinction to make when talking about diversity, in my opinion.

Why should a story with trans characters be about being trans? There's no reason why the default must be adhered to.

Should? Default? I don't consider either of those. I just don't think that hyperfocusing on 1 aspect of a character's identity is interesting unless the point of the plot is to explore that particular aspect. It just seems really easy for writers to turn otherwise interesting diverse characters into caricatures, which ultimately acts as a disservice to inclusivity. You can blame it on poor writing, but I think it is often just as much a poor sense of direction.

Maybe it's just a matter of personal taste... I know what I like, and what I don't like, and there are loads of examples of diverse casts that I love, and diverse casts that just come across as insultingly simplistic and uninspired.

This very forum is nominally about games, but has trans users, for example. If a film about this place was made, but wasn't specifically about being trans, should the trans users be removed from the film?

No, that would be idiotic. Omitting people for diversity is about the only thing more pointlessly stupid than shining a spotlight on them for no other reason BUT their uncommon traits. Treating people like exotic zoo animals is not a huge step up from treating them like a disease.

Identity politics is always stupid; nobody really cares, but when the topic is brought up, everybody thinks that everyone else cares way too much.

 

[CaitSeith]

When do we start demanding the same for, err, "non-diverse" characters?

Who says no one is? Jim Sterling has complained for years about Ubisoft recycling the same personality for the main character in their games for a long time.

 

[Paragon Fury]

Oh, Zhukov.
You can try and put it as nicely and non-controversially as you can and you'll still get flooded with responses like "I don't have a problem with diversity however here is all the problems I have with diversity".

I agree with both of your main points. It's nice to see yourself reflected in media, and I think media should make more of an effort to reflect more people.

I sort of think of it this way, if aliens were trying to figure out what our demographics were like just by our media, they would probably assume women were something like 17% of the population of the world and that the world was mostly made up of white dudes and it's just not.

And as an aside, I really hate how bland white guy is business as usual but anything else is PANDERING AND THEREFORE EVIL.

The thing is; when you look at why white is seen as the default and WHY most things conform to what is seen as hetero-normative and don't seemingly "give" to other groups very often, it just becomes a boring, standard demographics win - whiteness and male-centered heteronomativity have the largest potenial market penetration in the world.

Most forms of media in the world are consumed by primarily by the various "white" ethnic groups, and even when other groups consume it white ethnic groups have no real groups that dislike them as a "race" for lack of a better word - whereas blacks, latinos, arabics, asians etc. all have groups around the world that vehemently hate them.

Ironically, the "white bread" analogy works too well here - white people are kind of bland and almost tasteless, but we don't really offend anyone and we go well enough we just about anything that we're accepted damn near anywhere.

As for the male-centered heteronormative focus...well. Unfortunately for our LGBTQ friends, it has to be accepted as fact that heterosexuality is the SOP for the human race - LGBTQ groups ALL COMBINED just barely constitute more than a statistical anomaly in the human animal.

And outside of the West, LGBTQ is not...popular to be diplomatic. So going too hard on it or making it to big a focus has a pretty big chance of cutting your potential market down.

For it being male centered - well, its' actually something kind of funny that I think most psychology and sociology students get exposed to relatively quickly, especially if their professors give due diligence.

In essence, the argument for having more "female" fanservice is logically sound. But because of the dumb way the human mind and society works, going more heavily on the MALE fanservice is actually the way to get a bigger part of the market, rather than going 50/50 or working more towards females.

The reason being is that male fanservice nets you heterosexual males (large group), lesbians (minor group) and scores you a notable amount of heterosexual females as well (for reasons a little dry to go into here). Whereas the reverse only gets you heterosexual females (large group), gay males (minor group) and almost nothing else (as heterosexual males are almost completely "immune" or uninterested for the most part).

It sucks, but hey, green makes the world go round, and the current system makes A LOT of green.

 

[the December King]

a) Can we agree that people derive enjoyment from heroes that reflect an aspect of themselves?


b) Is there any reason to deny or begrudge that small pleasure to people who get it less often?

a) There is definitely an appeal to a shared trait in a protagonist.

Often this can simply be uncertainty, or an initial start to a journey (like being inexperienced, and having to learn the ropes together). But there is also the 'bad-ass', the mysterious entity, the cocksure, etc. and these can also have their appeal (as usually they, too, encounter some sort of obstacle that causes reflection, or some other process that then can be related to by, ostensibly non-heroic, observers).

b) I would never do so.

However, if it makes a character less reflective of me, in a context where such a feature is desirable, I am not obligated to enjoy or champion it.

 

[Phasmal]

Snip.

I'm just going to agree to disagree there. I just don't buy "this is the way it always worked therefore this is the way it works best".

(Especially with games, which now cost waaaay too much to make so really could do with broadening it's audience).

But still, I realise I've kinda veered off topic from what Zhukov was trying to talk about (identifying with traits in characters which aren't necessarily gender/race/sexuality), so I'll just stop there.

OT: That's also why I enjoy Sailor Jupiter so much. She's a lot like me, personality-wise.

Spoiler: We share so many interests!

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Honestly, as a trans person I'd like to see more trans representation. But at the same time, it needs to be halfway decent? Plenty of ways you could tell a trans character's story. I have more than a few ... one of them even involves a train service access tunnel and a struggle with another homeless person in the pitchblack conditions of a rodent infested hellhole beneath Central station.

Ahhh, nostalgia ... where you carried a empty beer bottle as a makeshift weapon. Point is, plenty of tales to be told, that scarily are representative of something like Outlast. There are few things more frightening than being in pitch black, knowing some stranger is there with you, knowing you can't run or you'll hurt yourself or get lost. Surrounded by rodents, broken glass, and discarded construction supplies. But those stories rarely get told. I can totally see something akin to the American McGee's Alice if you wanted to focus on the far higher incidents of poverty, deprivation, and isolation.

But if you made that game people would scream 'SJW agenda' ... despite being real stories. Apparently even non-fiction storytelling can be an agenda on its own now rather than; "Holy shit, some of the stories these people have is amazing. Totally worthy of reproduction in a constructed narrative format." If you told that story as to match a far greater incidence rating depending on the specific demographic ... someone will scream; "This happens to other people, too!" Because apparently missing the point of; "Yeah, and it happens to these people more often..." isn't enough to tell a good story with a transgender protagonist.

But that's just the thing, you should be able to have a trans character just as a character, and not have retards screaming at you. There's more asians than caucasians in the world, so the idea of 'tokenism' seems maladjusted. Surely to not be 'tokenistic' 1/7th of all videogame characters should be Indian if it disregards nationality as a setting.

Where the hell is my Dance, Dance, Bollywood Revolution? (I actually really, really, really want to play that game). Say what you like, it would be a marathon. Some of those songs and choreographed dance sections are fucking long. Songs bordering on 45 minutes long featuring impeccably dressed, very active people. Dancers who go through a confusing number of wardrobe changes, somewhere in the ballpark figure of 10 to the power of 5.87 million.

That seems like a fun game. There is something uplifting and joyful of just watching Bollywood. It's impossible to be sad while watching it. Confused, maybe. But never sad. Why is he suddenly wearing blue jeans, with an unbuttoned red silk shirt and boots at his own wedding? Who knows? Just go with it.

 

[Namehere]

The very first rule of writing: "Write what you know." Assuming you accept that there are any rules at all. If you're in a majority of the population and you know life as that, you will write most of your focal characters that way because it's what you know best and this is the focus of the story and where the most scrutiny will be applied.

And while we're on the subject, what happens when someone who isn't 'insert group here' attempts to 'write for' that group? Attempts to give a voice to that group? Often what happens is backlash from that very group, regardless of how effective the effort was.

Anyone can make all the threads they like about diversity, but it won't influence a writer in the slightest. If it's all that easy I urge those making these threads to get out there and make those characters. Write well out of your cultural area of expertise. If you can do it, great. But most people can't, especially not without dedicated study that frankly most starving artists don't have time for and most successful one's are busy continuing their successes which usually didn't come from that sort of study. It's just the breaks.

The most political of arguers in this thread should be well aware that such a call, to a writer, sounds mostly like: "Stop publishing white writers!" add what ever gender/sexual identity qualifiers you like. The reason for that is because if a specifically white writer attempts to write in ethnic groups other then his/her own, they are often accused of 'appropriation' or somehow misrepresenting that group. It happens all the time, regardless of how reasonable the complaint is. This makes most writers who aren't bigots and seek to make their way legitimately, entirely shut out these discussions. This isn't an art discussion this is a political discussion. And eventually either people are going to give it up or create quotas. That is the only apparent outcome of such discourse. Nobody knows and understands everybody. And these diversity discussions always boil down to media saturation.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The very first rule of writing: "Write what you know." Assuming you accept that there are any rules at all. If you're in a majority of the population and you know life as that, you will write most of your focal characters that way because it's what you know best and this is the focus of the story and where the most scrutiny will be applied.

And while we're on the subject, what happens when someone who isn't 'insert group here' attempts to 'write for' that group? Attempts to give a voice to that group? Often what happens is backlash from that very group, regardless of how effective the effort was.

Anyone can make all the threads they like about diversity, but it won't influence a writer in the slightest. If it's all that easy I urge those making these threads to get out there and make those characters. Write well out of your cultural area of expertise. If you can do it, great. But most people can't, especially not without dedicated study that frankly most starving artists don't have time for and most successful one's are busy continuing their successes which usually didn't come from that sort of study. It's just the breaks.

Er, if that was true then there'd be no speculative fiction. Hell, there'd not even be love interests for the heroes of a different gender. Everyone would write books about writers.

 

[Namehere]

The very first rule of writing: "Write what you know." Assuming you accept that there are any rules at all. If you're in a majority of the population and you know life as that, you will write most of your focal characters that way because it's what you know best and this is the focus of the story and where the most scrutiny will be applied.

And while we're on the subject, what happens when someone who isn't 'insert group here' attempts to 'write for' that group? Attempts to give a voice to that group? Often what happens is backlash from that very group, regardless of how effective the effort was.

Anyone can make all the threads they like about diversity, but it won't influence a writer in the slightest. If it's all that easy I urge those making these threads to get out there and make those characters. Write well out of your cultural area of expertise. If you can do it, great. But most people can't, especially not without dedicated study that frankly most starving artists don't have time for and most successful one's are busy continuing their successes which usually didn't come from that sort of study. It's just the breaks.

Er, if that was true then there'd be no speculative fiction. Hell, there'd not even be love interests for the heroes of a different gender. Everyone would write books about writers.

I'm going to write about Atlantis! Is a far cry from... I'm gonna set this story in Hong Kong. What do I know about Hong Kong? A little more then Atlantis. See the difference? I'm not going to have an Atlantian tell me that I'm writing them wrong. A guy from Hong Kong might take offence, especially if I know fuck all about Hong Kong beyond it's name and the food's different from North America.

There are plenty of poorly written stories. Usually a big issue is that a writer doesn't know what they're writing about. I give you Sci-Fi and particularly space opera, where the science just doesn't mesh, even when it could. Nobody knows everything and everyone. Write what you know. Getting the colour of a chair wrong, getting warp physics screwed up isn't such a big deal, compared to having a main character whose a bag of bad stereotypes or just rings hollow because you don't know how to write a Harlem resident from the 1950's any more then how to write one from today.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

Fun fact: Nick Fury was originally a white guy, these days, it would be hard to picture him as not Samuel L. Jackson. This is the power that diversity can have, even a simple race switch, which is often lauded, of course, still backed up by a personality that people can care about.

Spoiler

When a nuanced character would seem generic as a white dude, changing him also changes the way in which people view him and can serve to amplify those nuances.

This can also work in reverse, take the siren trope, a typically female character that uses seduction to accomplish her goals... now imagine that character as a guy, you don't see that everyday. All of a sudden what's overused and tired is now a little more interesting.

Is it lazy writing? You bet, but in the scope of most Hollywood blockbusters and AAA video games, the bar is pretty low.

I also wonder how much of this is "pandering" and how much is just the writers sick of doing stories about white dudes over and over again.

 

[happyninja42]

Yeah, The D-Word.

When people advocate for diversity in fictional characters they tend to approach their argument from a doing-good-deeds angle, often sprinkled with a little think-of-the-children. Representation, sending a message and such.

I vaguely agree with those points, but I don't know enough about the subject to offer any insight and it's not what I want to address here. I want to take a much simpler approach.

Basically, can we all agree that people generally enjoy seeing fictional heroes that reflect aspects of themselves?

I can agree with that. And given that most of the women I know, when they express a favorite or preference for one protagonist over another, they usually mention female protagonists. They tend to favor Labyrinth over Dark Crystal for example, the cartoons they enjoyed tended to be female protagonist ones versus male, etc. So yeah, I would say that, as a whole, we tend to find it easier to empathize, and identify with a protagonist that is similar to us on basic levels, compared to a protagonist that isn't.

However, this enjoyment can come from almost any character trait. For example, I am a rather taciturn and soft-spoken person. As such, I got a bit of a kick out of Mad Max: Fury Road which starred a hero who barely speaks and tends to mutter, grunt and mumble his way through what dialogue he does have.

Was Max's manner of speech the most important part of the movie for me? No, not by a long shot. Would I have still enjoyed the movie if the hero was otherwise? Yes, almost certainly. But Max being as he was did increase my enjoyment of the movie.

I see no reason to deny that small enjoyment to others who may not get to experience it as often as me or begrudge them when they do get it.

I also agree here. As someone who is named Wesley, a name that appears VERY rarely in pop culture media, I am especially sensitive to characters who have my name. Is it the only reason I enjoy them in media? Hell no, not by a long shot, but I do admit to a bit of personal cheering squad for that character, to see them succeed and thrive, to overcome and persevere, more than the other characters. Why? Because they have my name. And I can think of...I think 3 examples, of a protagonist with my name. And each of those examples are some of my personal favorites in their respective shows/movies.

And I also prefer to root for male characters (though race doesn't really matter to me too much in this regard), when it comes to protagonists, especially in games. It's easier for me to self-insert when I'm playing a male character, and thus I identify with them more readily. But I can just as easily enjoy a story/game that focuses on a female character, or a character who is drastically divergent from my personal identity. Several of the characters in the show Sense 8 for example, are my favorites, despite having anything in common with them other than 1. We're both human and 2. Like having sex with women.

For me, it all depends on the writing. I don't personally care, as a 40 year old, cis gender, heterosexual white male, what the ethnicity/gender/sexuality/etc of the protagonist is, in and of itself. I just give a shit if you write a good story, and write good characters. You want to gender flip the whole thing? Fine by me, I have zero invested stake in the characters, and you changing it doesn't retroactively ruin something I enjoyed originally.

So yeah, do what you want with the characters. Gender flip Thor, gender flip Iron Man, racial flip Heimdall, etc. I don't care, make them enjoyable characters, and I'm 100% fine with it, even if the reason for it, is simply to force some diversity into the popular tapestry. I don't care. They're all fictional characters. It doesn't matter what happens to them.

But if you write a shit character, don't think I'm going to be forgiving simply because you were being diverse. A shit character, is a shit character, no matter what their history/background is.

 

[King Billi]

The very first rule of writing: "Write what you know." Assuming you accept that there are any rules at all. If you're in a majority of the population and you know life as that, you will write most of your focal characters that way because it's what you know best and this is the focus of the story and where the most scrutiny will be applied.

And while we're on the subject, what happens when someone who isn't 'insert group here' attempts to 'write for' that group? Attempts to give a voice to that group? Often what happens is backlash from that very group, regardless of how effective the effort was.

This is a good point though for certain instances I don't think it is really that big of a deal.

If certain individuals want to read knowledgeable in depth accounts of people like them there are plenty of renowned literary authors who have written about it, usually autobiographical or true life inspired.

Within the realm of popular entertainment however, Hollywood films or television, video games or superhero comics, which I think this thread is focused on at least most of the posters here are, such a strict focus isn't essential. A LGBQ/minority character doesn't need to champion their "cause" at every opportunity, they're a person like any other, they just need to be there to give their respective audience someone to identify with.

 

[Namehere]

The very first rule of writing: "Write what you know." Assuming you accept that there are any rules at all. If you're in a majority of the population and you know life as that, you will write most of your focal characters that way because it's what you know best and this is the focus of the story and where the most scrutiny will be applied.

And while we're on the subject, what happens when someone who isn't 'insert group here' attempts to 'write for' that group? Attempts to give a voice to that group? Often what happens is backlash from that very group, regardless of how effective the effort was.

This is a good point though for certain instances I don't think it is really that big of a deal.

If certain individuals want to read knowledgeable in depth accounts of people like them there are plenty of renowned literary authors who have written about it, usually autobiographical or true life inspired.

Within the realm of popular entertainment however, Hollywood films or television, video games or superhero comics, which I think this thread is focused on at least most of the posters here are, such a strict focus isn't essential. A LGBQ/minority character doesn't need to champion their "cause" at every opportunity, they're a person like any other, they just need to be there to give their respective audience someone to identify with.

It is relatively easy for a writer used to working on characters to write a homosexual character. Even easier from a critical stand point when it is of the same gender as that writer. It's hard to take into account the increased cases of abuse between Lesbian partners compared to gay partners, and it's even harder when your a male writer who might be accused of a defamation campaign in the case of that exploration or over fetishising lesbians. It is not impossible but difficult and often the controversy becomes bigger then the story itself. Like the controversy over the lesbian character killed off on The Walking Dead.

How much time does a writer invest in studying alternative lifestyles for a story that doesn't focus on them? How much of your screen time do you want occupied by that theme rather then the story itself? How do you work that all into pacing?

As deep as we like to think movies are, they're usually shallow compared to more developed television properties. That was why I thought making the Star Trek reboot into movies, from the get go, was a mistake. It gave no time to redevelop the characters and meant their past iterations were a necessary crutch. But even on television, the added time to explore a theme over multiple episodes of twenty to forty five minutes a piece, still demands an eye to pacing and practicality.

Race, particularly when working in a modern rather then futuristic or anachronistic period, is even more challenging, because it isn't a single issue. Culture is where the rubber meets the road, a sure sign of how unimportant race is but isn't. Two men, a rich black man and a poor black man, both from the same city but opposite sides of the tracks so to speak, go to collage. Their similarities, outside of race, are forged in that schooling period, but everything else about them is different. If you don't know the city they're from and you can't trace definitions between one man and the other outside of their skin colour, the exorcise is entirely wasted. You end up with a set of two dimensional characters predicated principally on numerous stereotypes, most academic stereotypes because it's all you can nail down. It isn't about championing anything, it's about writing a New Yorker or a Georgian or Californian, rather then this or that minority. Your born a minority but your raised in a community and each one has subtle and dramatic impact. A writer only knows so many people, so many communities and impacts.

 

[Pseudonym]

Well, this thread is going exactly the way I was trying to avoid.

No matter how one approaches or frames the topic it seems people are determined to trot out the same points they do every time.

*sigh*

Fuck it.

In all fairness, what did you hope for? For everyone to just nod, agree and call it a day? End of thread on page one? It shouldn't be shocking that people try to present whatever grievances they have that this thread does seem to subtly refer to, the way they feel is the most relevant. What is perhaps shocking is how poorly some ot those people manage to do so.

On topic. Whilst having charactars I identify with is nice and all, it really doesn't carry things that far. It might be a superficial hook but I'd prefer it if one thing is done well, possibly to the exclusion of other themes, than to have five charactars with thematically clashing charactar traits just so everyone identifies with someone. I don't think I can really identify very much with any charactar in apocalypse now but I really like it. But when for example a show introduces a charactar who is really into philosophy, me also being into philosophy doesn't immediately help matters unless the content is explored just a tiny bit. Thane from mass effect 2, for example, at some point quotes Leviathan (an influential work on political philosophy by Thomas Hobbes) and compares the description he quotes to a situation in the mass effect universe. This is nice for me to see. What is not so nice is to see a charactar who is meant to be totally deep but who at no point has any substance to back that up or substance which the writers obviously don't grasp. A good example was a scene from star trek where a charactar (Tom Paris, I think) says he read Moby Dick because he liked the ocean. A friend of mine watching started laughing and told me that he wouldn't expect the charactar to get through Moby Dick at all. Too boring and not even really about the ocean. The point is, depth is more important than identifiability.

One way or the other, when talking about black people, women, LGBT people, etc in media I don't think the issue is just having somebody to identify with to make it more fun, as much as it is about acknowledging they exist. Star Trek would probably not be much different as a show if all the charactars where white men (or if all of them where black women, for that matter), but since it plays in a hypothetical future where discrimination issues are supposed to have been solved somehow, it is nice to see that reflected by a varied cast.

Now there is an issue you touched about letting other people have something nice, which is a good point. I don't like horror or marvel movies bad or halo 4 but if other people like that stuff, good for them and not my problem. People might not get so uppity about the occasional 'diverse' charactar just for a live and let live reason. If they can't even muster that, they should possibly admit to themselves they have a problem with these 'diverse' charactars beyond just poor execution.

 

[WindKnight]

Leaving how great being represented can feel (seriously, go back and read moviebobs column about a black dude geeking out cause he found a boxset of the one 80's/90's cartoon where 'he' metaphorically got to BE lion-o, optimus or whoever), there's also new perspective, new ideas, as well as stuff you're not used to.

Heck, a lot of people look back fondly at the first anime they saw (whether they knew it was anime or not) because it WAS different and diverse.

Compare X-Bomber bombing in Japan because it was familiar and old hat, and it doing gangbusters in the UK as starfleet because the kids watching it had seen nothing like it before.

 

[Saelune]

Fun fact: Nick Fury was originally a white guy, these days, it would be hard to picture him as not Samuel L. Jackson. This is the power that diversity can have, even a simple race switch, which is often lauded, of course, still backed up by a personality that people can care about.

Spoiler

When a nuanced character would seem generic as a white dude, changing him also changes the way in which people view him and can serve to amplify those nuances.

This can also work in reverse, take the siren trope, a typically female character that uses seduction to accomplish her goals... now imagine that character as a guy, you don't see that everyday. All of a sudden what's overused and tired is now a little more interesting.

Is it lazy writing? You bet, but in the scope of most Hollywood blockbusters and AAA video games, the bar is pretty low.

I also wonder how much of this is "pandering" and how much is just the writers sick of doing stories about white dudes over and over again.

I just want to add, that Fury was made black in the comics first, and also had his backsory altered.

I feel it is worth noting since SLJ being cast as Fury did not bother me the way other castings have because well, it wasnt the movie turning Fury black, and Jackson is the perfect actor for Ultimate Fury...and unlike some actors, is a tried and true, and good actor.

 

[Thaluikhain]

One way or the other, when talking about black people, women, LGBT people, etc in media I don't think the issue is just having somebody to identify with to make it more fun, as much as it is about acknowledging they exist. Star Trek would probably not be much different as a show if all the charactars where white men (or if all of them where black women, for that matter), but since it plays in a hypothetical future where discrimination issues are supposed to have been solved somehow, it is nice to see that reflected by a varied cast.

Hey? A homogeneous cast (and guests stars) would have totally undermined the premise. You can't really have a show about humanity should welcome all groups and then exclude them all...you can have X-Men movies that do that, but they aren't going to have the same cultural relevance as Star Trek did a couple of decades later.

Especially given the time Star Trek was made, back when you just didn't have Japanese and Russians and black people in roles like that. MLK wrote a letter to the actress playing Uhura telling her that her being on the show was really helping the civil rights movement, the first female African-American astronaut cited her as an example. The makers of the show made a deliberate decision to portray a future where issues like that had been fixed. They didn't do it perfectly, but it was an honest attempt and a lot better in many ways than much contemporary (or even modern) stuff.

You can't have a hamfisted story about racism between one guy painted black on one side and white on the other and another guy the other way around if you don't have a racially diverse cast. You can't have a line where Chekov says to Uhura and Sulu that he remembers reading about racism in history books if everyone in the show is white.

 

[maninahat]

I like diversity. But not when it's done just to have diversity because at that point it becomes pandering (see every Marvel comic for the last 7 years or so).

"Pandering".

Ever ask yourself why it's only called pandering when it's aimed at someone else?

"Here's a Stock Default hero"
"Very good, carry on.
"Now here's a hero who differs slightly from the default."
"PANDERING!"

Like I said in the OP, if someone out there gets a little buzz out of Ms Marvel being a Muslim kid or whatever, I see no reason to begrudge them that buzz.

[Edited in a futile attempt to try to avoid the usual buzzwords.]

No. The problem is with Marvel these new characters character trait is "THEY'RE BLACK!/MUSLIM/ASIAN/GAY!" And that's really all these new characters amount to. Nothing. I like different heroes, but when they don't seem forced or unnecessary.

Kamala Khan is a great example. Plain character, easy for people to project themselves onto. She's honestly quite boring and just there to be the token Muslim. Now, DC did it right by creating Simon Baz and giving him a good backstory and character arc, and not allowing his religion/race to be his only defining trait.

Kamala Khan's defining trait is that she is a geeky marvel fan girl. Her religion and ethnicity colours her character, such as the fact that she feels the need to hide her outgoing superhero activity from her conservative family, but to say it is her only defining character trait implies you don't even read her comics.

 

[King Billi]

The very first rule of writing: "Write what you know." Assuming you accept that there are any rules at all. If you're in a majority of the population and you know life as that, you will write most of your focal characters that way because it's what you know best and this is the focus of the story and where the most scrutiny will be applied.

And while we're on the subject, what happens when someone who isn't 'insert group here' attempts to 'write for' that group? Attempts to give a voice to that group? Often what happens is backlash from that very group, regardless of how effective the effort was.

This is a good point though for certain instances I don't think it is really that big of a deal.

If certain individuals want to read knowledgeable in depth accounts of people like them there are plenty of renowned literary authors who have written about it, usually autobiographical or true life inspired.

Within the realm of popular entertainment however, Hollywood films or television, video games or superhero comics, which I think this thread is focused on at least most of the posters here are, such a strict focus isn't essential. A LGBQ/minority character doesn't need to champion their "cause" at every opportunity, they're a person like any other, they just need to be there to give their respective audience someone to identify with.

Snip

I will admit that I'm approaching this whole issue with purely popular fiction/genre fiction in mind wherein two dimensional characterisation is largely the norm and characters either do fall into blatant stereotypes or individuals so undefined they could represent anybody.

It isn't very common that a new television show will begin with all its characters personalities and backstory precisely defined from the outset, often they're just defined enough to fill their role in the story and a further fleshed out over time depending on the direction of the story and the influence on various different writers. Of course this approach can lead to characters coming across negatively if a writer doesn't write them well due to a lack of knowledge of a particular characters heritage but is that any excuse not to try? It can also go the other way wherein a talented writer can raise a character up beyond their stereotypical origin and provide a profound commentary on an important issue within society that would likely never have been expected in the beginning. Have you never seen or heard of such a thing before.

Even if a character never really features such a representation in their given medium it doesn't mean they are without worth. Have you ever heard of fan fiction, fans can extrapolate many things from a given character based on the slimmest of justification given in story or change them outright to better reflect their own experiences, all just because they were given someone to identify with in the first place.

I apologise, you seem able to speak much more eloquently on this subject than I can and I feel like I'm rambling, I just hope I'm making some sense of my thoughts.

 

[maninahat]

So what are you asking about?

My entire point was

a) Can we agree that people derive enjoyment from heroes that reflect an aspect of themselves?

and

b) Is there any reason to deny or begrudge that small pleasure to people who get it less often?

Seriously. That was my entire point. As the title says, I was hoping it wouldn't be a contentious one. But alas.

It's a simple point I agree with. As a kid growing up, I was basically Milhouse, and I remember having those moments where I'd find a new character to be really relatable, just because they wore glasses as well. That was a nice thing to have. I grew up in a time where glasses normally meant you were a dorky, weak nerd. It's why Clark Kent looks the way he does. But then you had Real Ghostbusters, where one of the guys had glasses and shot ghosts with science. Or you had the Wild Thorn-berries, in which the hero is a ginger girl with glasses, freckles and braces. Why didn't anyone complain about her character being pandering?