The concern I have isn't whether the character should be included, it's how they should be included, mainly.McMarbles said:
Diversity in Fiction - Question
- Thread starter kitsunefather
- Start date
New ?Star Wars: The Force Awakens? trailer sparks racial backlash (dated 11/04/15) [http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/new-star-wars-the-force-awakens-trailer-sparks-racial-backlash-0]Catnip1024 said:
'Star Wars' boycott hashtag calls film 'anti-white' (dated Oct. 20, 2015) [https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2015/10/20/star-wars-force-awakens-twitter-boycott-backlash/74260778/]
Internet trolls call new 'Star Wars' movie 'anti-white' (dated October 21, 2015) [http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/20/entertainment/star-wars-trailer-boycott-anti-white-feat/index.html]
Twitter trolls urge boycott of Star Wars over black character (dated Tuesday 20 October 2015) [https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/20/twitter-trolls-boycott-star-wars-black-character-force-awakens-john-boyega]
By the way, The Force Awakens came out December 18, 2015 [https://www.google.com/search?q=The+force+awakens+release+date]
So it was at least months before people saw his acting or heard the dialogue.
is being white and/or straight dude relevant to every plot and/or character arc a white and/or straight dude is in?Canadamus Prime said:
(The and/or was me naturally finding it appropriate, not taking the piss btw
)
No, that's the point. Unless it's vital to the plot don't draw attention to it. Make the character black, a woman, LGBT, whatever, but don't shove it in the audience's face unless, like I said, it's vital to the plot or a character arc. For example say you have a major character who is homophobic and as part their arc they overcome their homophobia. In this case it'd be important to have a gay character to assist in that arc and the audience would need to know that that character is gay. Even then you don't want to be obnoxious about it.Xsjadoblayde said:is being white and/or straight dude relevant to every plot and/or character arc a white and/or straight dude is in?Canadamus Prime said:
(The and/or was me naturally finding it appropriate, not taking the piss btw
Any character that has any importance to the plot, diverse or otherwise, should be a fully fleshed character and not simply a caricature. As for their diversity, if it is relevant to the plot, then sure, make a big deal out of it, make them special and important. Otherwise, they should just be another character, otherwise it has the feel of tokenism.
I'd say the easiest way to create "diverse" characters (which really depends on where you're coming from) is to just do the complete opposite of what Marvel has been doing recently. Don't make token characters for the sake of looking good and if you can't help that, then at least know who to write compelling stories rather than just propagandizing to your audience.
I believe you are confusing descriptive traits with character traits. What does any of those traits tell me about a person's character? Who they are as a person? If the core characteristics of Dr Marlow is that he is meticulous, wry and urbane, how much of that changes if he is White, Black or Hispanic? Or if the good doctor were a woman or transexual?kitsunefather said:
I too would like to reiterate that flat, token characters add very little to the fabric of the story. Over-shilled Mary Sues tend to detract from a story. Do People of Colour not deserve a nuanced, well-characterized representation rather than a power fantasy caricature? I think part of the blowback for characters like token characters is that they have nothing else about their character than superficial traits like gender, sexuality or race. Good characters have life and meaning, the audience must become emotionally invested in them otherwise they will simply stop consuming that media.
Another part is that many authors write what they know. This is unsurprising since it can very hard to write well a culture or circumstance which the author has very little real knowledge about. How well can most authors write about the travails of an exiled Javanese Prince who seeks to reclaim his kingdom from his treacherous uncle? How well would they know the geopolitical situation of the Spice Islands during the reign of the Majapahit Empire? Or a tale about a Brahmin's forbidden love for a Dalit woman during the Maratha Confederacy? Both are simple stories but placing them in a time and culture changes the milieu significantly.
Let me give you an example from the anime Black Lagoon. Its cast of characters is startlingly diverse but no one makes a big deal out of it. They are compelling because of who they are, not where they are from or who their preferred bed partner is. Just among the recurring characters, Revy is Chinese American, Dutch is African American, Benny is Jewish American, Rock is Japanese, Bao is Vietnamese, Watsup is Thai, Chang is from Hong Kong, Shen Hua is Taiwanese, Roberta is Colombian, Balalaika is Russian, Sawyer is British, so on and so forth. This is often used to give them flavour not as the cornerstone of their personality.
Incidentally, the most recent episode of DC's Legends of Tomorrow showcases exactly what I find most wrong about diversity in fiction. To sum up, the episode is about the Legends recruiting a new character, Zari, who is being targeted by a water controlling supervillain. At one point in the episode she basically says "Oh BTW, I'm Muslim" and then... that's it. Other than one point later on in the episode where she uses an Arabic word for no reason the entire episode nothing about being Muslim effects anything she does whatsoever. This is very very bad, it smacks of tokenism, if it wasn't going to effect her behavior, appearance, or actions the fact that Zari was Muslim shouldn't even have been mentioned. Now, there's every chance that Zari being Muslim will be of some significance to her character in the future, but in that case it shouldn't be mentioned until it actually becomes relevant, even if it's only an incidental thing. For instance, if another member of the team offers her some pork she should THEN say something like "Nah, I'm Muslim", only if it's directly relevant to something the character is doing or experiencing should such a thing be mentioned at all.
An example from the same show of diversity that was handled properly would be Sara Lance, who is Bisexual. This actually effects her as a character from the get go because she's seen sleeping with men in the past, when it comes up it's from lesbian lover at the time, and Sara is seen sleeping and flirting with women and sometimes men regularly afterward. Sara being Bisexual is a trait central to her character that actually influences her actions and behavior, NOT just a token trait thrown in for the sake of having it as Zari being Muslim has been thus far.
As a matter of fact, the writer should avoid any "BTW, I'm X" moments unless the audience has already witnessed evidence of that trait and the character is simply explaining to another character who hasn't already seen that evidence that they have that trait. The character should simply just DO things that demonstrate that trait, like a gay character just sometimes seen trying to hook up with men and let us figure it out, don't have him turn to another character and go "hey, I'm gay." If the writer has to go "hey, I'm X" to demonstrate that a character has a trait the character shouldn't have that trait to begin with, and if the writer is simply determined to give a character that trait they should wait until they can just show that they have that trait instead of say they do but otherwise not mention it until then.
In other words, Show, Don't Tell.
Let's also be honest here, unless the work is created and designed specifically to cater to a particular race, creed, gender, etc. like say a movie on the Civil Rights movement trying to cater to African Americans, the vast majority of diversity in fiction isn't even there to draw in the particular race, creed, gender etc. that it showing. The diversity is there to shut up the political correctness crowd to avoid controversy, who are the ones the writers are actually trying to draw in.
An example from the same show of diversity that was handled properly would be Sara Lance, who is Bisexual. This actually effects her as a character from the get go because she's seen sleeping with men in the past, when it comes up it's from lesbian lover at the time, and Sara is seen sleeping and flirting with women and sometimes men regularly afterward. Sara being Bisexual is a trait central to her character that actually influences her actions and behavior, NOT just a token trait thrown in for the sake of having it as Zari being Muslim has been thus far.
As a matter of fact, the writer should avoid any "BTW, I'm X" moments unless the audience has already witnessed evidence of that trait and the character is simply explaining to another character who hasn't already seen that evidence that they have that trait. The character should simply just DO things that demonstrate that trait, like a gay character just sometimes seen trying to hook up with men and let us figure it out, don't have him turn to another character and go "hey, I'm gay." If the writer has to go "hey, I'm X" to demonstrate that a character has a trait the character shouldn't have that trait to begin with, and if the writer is simply determined to give a character that trait they should wait until they can just show that they have that trait instead of say they do but otherwise not mention it until then.
In other words, Show, Don't Tell.
Let's also be honest here, unless the work is created and designed specifically to cater to a particular race, creed, gender, etc. like say a movie on the Civil Rights movement trying to cater to African Americans, the vast majority of diversity in fiction isn't even there to draw in the particular race, creed, gender etc. that it showing. The diversity is there to shut up the political correctness crowd to avoid controversy, who are the ones the writers are actually trying to draw in.
In my opinion diversity (or, when appropriate, lack thereof) should be a function of the story in direct proportion to the setting the story takes place in and around. Put in a less convoluted way: if the world is diverse, the characters a player interacts with should be also - if a world is not particularly diverse, then the characters the player interacts with should reflect that instead. Example? In a world like our own, where there are all kinds of people that have widely differing sexual preferences, gender identities, religions, political affiliations ect. there should be a fairly significant amount of diversity (doesn't have to hit every note, but there should be a wide range) in characters, because that represents the world. If the scope of the setting is very confined, however, even in a diverse *world* - say "a town in Iceland" then obviously it makes a lot less sense to have a huge amount of diversity. It isn't an excuse to have none at all, but unless that particular "town in Iceland" is also a social experiment with representatives from all the world's cultures... no one is going to be too shocked that certain elements will be absent while others are predominant.
Since we're talking fiction, in purely made-up worlds the amount of world / area diversity is the purview of the creator. It is entirely their choice as to how diverse they want the make up of the setting to be, but their job should still be to represent it accordingly. I do think more diverse settings and stories and characters have better potential to connect with a more diverse audience, but not every work of fiction needs to appeal to every single potential contact point.
A personal example of this everyone's probably familiar with here is The Witcher. The main character is too strongly masculine for ***my personal tastes*** (please don't debate me on this minor matter of personal preference I won't be defending it) for me to really connect with the story. Not everything has to be 'for me' however and the game itself looks pretty great and the story - as I watched it over my husband's shoulder (he loves the series) is very compelling. It may be that other players, like myself, are 'missing out' on it because of a disconnect either with gender or race or another factor, but that's not something the people who gave us that series could really do too much about without making their art entirely other than what they obviously intended. And that's okay. I think other games, like Bioware's Mass Effect and Dragon Age series, offer a lot more diverse connection points for more players without sacrificing their stories - but that doesn't make them better stories, they are just modular enough to flex in that way, and they lose out on some specifics in the process of being that - so there is a trade off too.
Since we're talking fiction, in purely made-up worlds the amount of world / area diversity is the purview of the creator. It is entirely their choice as to how diverse they want the make up of the setting to be, but their job should still be to represent it accordingly. I do think more diverse settings and stories and characters have better potential to connect with a more diverse audience, but not every work of fiction needs to appeal to every single potential contact point.
A personal example of this everyone's probably familiar with here is The Witcher. The main character is too strongly masculine for ***my personal tastes*** (please don't debate me on this minor matter of personal preference I won't be defending it) for me to really connect with the story. Not everything has to be 'for me' however and the game itself looks pretty great and the story - as I watched it over my husband's shoulder (he loves the series) is very compelling. It may be that other players, like myself, are 'missing out' on it because of a disconnect either with gender or race or another factor, but that's not something the people who gave us that series could really do too much about without making their art entirely other than what they obviously intended. And that's okay. I think other games, like Bioware's Mass Effect and Dragon Age series, offer a lot more diverse connection points for more players without sacrificing their stories - but that doesn't make them better stories, they are just modular enough to flex in that way, and they lose out on some specifics in the process of being that - so there is a trade off too.
Not to mention murdering basically defenseless villagers and fighting space Neo-Nazis isn't really an equivalent discussion.Silvanus said:
Well, I think it obvious that it is better that any character...period, be well done.
But sometimes we have to take what we can get. It is probably better to have token characters representing everyone than being not represented at all. As long as they are not a punching bag for bigotry, like a stereotypical thuggish black character that is solely meant to be shitted on for being that negative stereotype.
But then some people might have different definitions of token. Plenty of characters who could just be turned into something else and not matter. Not talking established characters, but rather maybe if you are making a character for something and their ethnicity is not important, why not make it something besides white? I mean, a story set in Japan or Africa it might be weird, but one set in the US, or a fictional world not bound by our rules, why not?
I play DnD, I usually DM. Many characters I make them independent of their race (and I mean race, human, elf, dragonborn etc) and then might make them something less common to add some variety. Sure, I could have just made them a white human man, but thats boring. Does it really make that much a difference if the Inn Keeper is a Human man, or a half-orc woman?
But sometimes we have to take what we can get. It is probably better to have token characters representing everyone than being not represented at all. As long as they are not a punching bag for bigotry, like a stereotypical thuggish black character that is solely meant to be shitted on for being that negative stereotype.
But then some people might have different definitions of token. Plenty of characters who could just be turned into something else and not matter. Not talking established characters, but rather maybe if you are making a character for something and their ethnicity is not important, why not make it something besides white? I mean, a story set in Japan or Africa it might be weird, but one set in the US, or a fictional world not bound by our rules, why not?
I play DnD, I usually DM. Many characters I make them independent of their race (and I mean race, human, elf, dragonborn etc) and then might make them something less common to add some variety. Sure, I could have just made them a white human man, but thats boring. Does it really make that much a difference if the Inn Keeper is a Human man, or a half-orc woman?
Well, that was lousy, yes. I thought the third (sixth) film was lousy, and that Anakin was a terribly written character too. On the other hand, a) I was a kid at the time (of 2 / 5 at least, can't remember when 3 / 6 came out) so kind of let things slide, and b) this was before people started proposing boycotts at the drop of a hat.Silvanus said:
It is when you are supposed to have been brought up entirely as a space Neo-Nazi and are supposed to have been brainwashed by them from youth. It is when you are one of them - I mean, if you are having doubts about things, what sort of overly presumptuous dick do you have to be to assume that every other one of them is completely happy?altnameJag said:
A character's race, gender, sexuality, etc. should only be highlighted if it moves a specific arc along. If oppression is the main theme of the story, or if it's important to that particular character's arc or something down those lines, then it would be a good idea put a spotlight on it, so long as it's done well. Otherwise, it's not a good idea.
Personally, I like the way Spiderman Homecoming did it, in that Peter seemed to be the only white guy in the whole school, but nobody cared and no mention was made of it, so it was only something you'd notice in retrospect, so it felt very natural.
Personally, I like the way Spiderman Homecoming did it, in that Peter seemed to be the only white guy in the whole school, but nobody cared and no mention was made of it, so it was only something you'd notice in retrospect, so it felt very natural.
Yep, it's totally cool to depict all straight white males as chiselled jawed Marines or bespectacled nerds because straight white males are evil and deserve it you see.McMarbles said:
I mean, no? They're space nazis, and he spent a huge chunk of the movie trying not to interact with them at all. Hell, he only snuck back on to the star system destroying super weapon to rescue one of his two friends. Every time he fought the FO before that, they were shooting at him, his friends, and/or random civilians, and they were wholly unconcerned with murdering captives they attacked out of the blue.Catnip1024 said:
So I'm sorry he didn't blow his chance of escape by trying to start a popular uprising in the hanger bay when he was leaving with Poe, and I'm sorry he didn't try and hug it out with the traitor dude, and I'm sorry he didn't try to engage Captain Phasma in reasoned debate while they were rescuing Rey from the planet destroying super weapon. Maybe Space Opera isn't for you?
Back on topic: I'd settle for media to have to justify having white make characters at the same rate as having any other character really. Either having to explicitly justify their existence in the narrative, or not having to justify any of them. To use The Force Awakens and Rouge One, you just had humans of various biomes and accents and genders hanging around. Nobody justified anything, no "you fight good for a woman", they were just around, doing their thing. And got away from the "Princess and/or slave" thing from the earlier movies.
You could go too far the other direction and end up with Harry Potter where not only do most characters have a family tree, but after Harry's generation marries almost every major character has the *SAME* family tree. Basically everyone is descended from or married into the family of the Peverell brothers from the story of the Deathly Hallows.kitsunefather said:
The entire story is basically just a conflict between extended family, with a few outsiders being unfortunate enough to get in the way.
At the end of the day, a writer's chief responsibility is to tell a compelling story. There are a lot of ways to do that, but one of the ways is to tell the story from a fresh or original perspective, so designing characters as people from often unrepresented groups will potentially offer an easy way to generate this. From a purely neutral perspective, diversity matters just so that you can tell a better story. It allows so many more options, views, tricks, and meat. Heck, someone mentioned Spiderman Homecoming: that story builds in a great little twist towards the end, and it works entirely on exploiting the audience's preconceptions about race. It couldn't have happened if they went the way the comics did and made every character white.
From a less neutral perspective, diversity matters because fiction is rife with lazy stereotypes, generic protagonists and a whole bunch of biases. This is a natural result of the above issue, with writers not thinking enough about how to produce their characters. OP brings up lots of hardboiled literature, which is a genre full of negative depictions of foreigners, homosexuals, women; basically anyone who isn't the tough as nails, manly white hero. These guys exist to serve as negative comparisons to the magnificence of our anti-hero lead. Most modern interpretations of these hardboiled stories have to either shine a light on the inherent prejudice, write it out, or replace it with something kinder. Diversity by way of shortcuts is not diversity at all, and should be avoided.
Finally, I advise writers these basic tips to not fuck up writing race into their stories:
* Unless you have a narrative reason, don't mention a character's race. Writers have a bad habit of trying to work diversity into their story by describing lots of non-white characters. The problem with this is that they do this selectively, always quick to point out when a character is asian, but never points the white ones. The result is weird "spot the minority" type descriptions which treat racial minorities as exceptional, when the narrator is aiming to do the opposite. If there is no reason to mention a character's race, do not mention a character's race. If you are going to mention a characters race, have a reason to do so. It doesn't have to be a big one, the reason could simply be that you want to tell a joke about it, or to inform the reason for why they do something, or to reflect on the kind of the world the protagonist lives in. In Rivers of London, the narrator indicates he is black through a satirical remark about how he's worried about being used as a token by his employer. In Worm, the protagonist mentions another character is black for the first time, when she becomes conscious of his race as they walk through a white neighbourhood. JK Rowling never mentions the race of her characters (though she leaves obvious clues) because there is no need to.
* Never, ever emulate someone's accent within the dialogue. This still happens, where a character suddenly starts "Talkin' in
a reg-eoon-al accsunt loik?" It's annoying to read, it's patronising, and it implies that anyone who doesn't have their words spelt phonetically must be speaking implausibly perfect received pronunciation. Unless your Irvine Welsh, don't do it. Just describe the character as having the accent - we can imagine the rest.
* Be wary of your inspirations. So you've seen a cool person or character elsewhere and you want to work them into your story. Great! That is until someone points out to you that your character is acting in a very stereotypical manner. It happens all too often where I criticise descriptions of "larger than life blackman" and "silent, smart Asian woman", only for the writer to point out they've based them on real people they know. The reader hasn't met these people so won't accept that defence. If you want these characters, acknowledge within the story the fact that they are behaving like a stereotype (which is a small step towards subverting it). The Thick of It has several stereotypical angry Scotsmen in it (based on real people) but subverts it by having those characters know full well they are acting stereotypical, and are in part playing up to it to their advantage. Alternatively, avoid the stereotype entirely and rewrite the character.
From a less neutral perspective, diversity matters because fiction is rife with lazy stereotypes, generic protagonists and a whole bunch of biases. This is a natural result of the above issue, with writers not thinking enough about how to produce their characters. OP brings up lots of hardboiled literature, which is a genre full of negative depictions of foreigners, homosexuals, women; basically anyone who isn't the tough as nails, manly white hero. These guys exist to serve as negative comparisons to the magnificence of our anti-hero lead. Most modern interpretations of these hardboiled stories have to either shine a light on the inherent prejudice, write it out, or replace it with something kinder. Diversity by way of shortcuts is not diversity at all, and should be avoided.
Finally, I advise writers these basic tips to not fuck up writing race into their stories:
* Unless you have a narrative reason, don't mention a character's race. Writers have a bad habit of trying to work diversity into their story by describing lots of non-white characters. The problem with this is that they do this selectively, always quick to point out when a character is asian, but never points the white ones. The result is weird "spot the minority" type descriptions which treat racial minorities as exceptional, when the narrator is aiming to do the opposite. If there is no reason to mention a character's race, do not mention a character's race. If you are going to mention a characters race, have a reason to do so. It doesn't have to be a big one, the reason could simply be that you want to tell a joke about it, or to inform the reason for why they do something, or to reflect on the kind of the world the protagonist lives in. In Rivers of London, the narrator indicates he is black through a satirical remark about how he's worried about being used as a token by his employer. In Worm, the protagonist mentions another character is black for the first time, when she becomes conscious of his race as they walk through a white neighbourhood. JK Rowling never mentions the race of her characters (though she leaves obvious clues) because there is no need to.
* Never, ever emulate someone's accent within the dialogue. This still happens, where a character suddenly starts "Talkin' in
a reg-eoon-al accsunt loik?" It's annoying to read, it's patronising, and it implies that anyone who doesn't have their words spelt phonetically must be speaking implausibly perfect received pronunciation. Unless your Irvine Welsh, don't do it. Just describe the character as having the accent - we can imagine the rest.
* Be wary of your inspirations. So you've seen a cool person or character elsewhere and you want to work them into your story. Great! That is until someone points out to you that your character is acting in a very stereotypical manner. It happens all too often where I criticise descriptions of "larger than life blackman" and "silent, smart Asian woman", only for the writer to point out they've based them on real people they know. The reader hasn't met these people so won't accept that defence. If you want these characters, acknowledge within the story the fact that they are behaving like a stereotype (which is a small step towards subverting it). The Thick of It has several stereotypical angry Scotsmen in it (based on real people) but subverts it by having those characters know full well they are acting stereotypical, and are in part playing up to it to their advantage. Alternatively, avoid the stereotype entirely and rewrite the character.
That's funny... I didn't get a notification that you had quoted my post.Silvanus said:
Fair enough, but at it's roots it is the same question, as in, "why did you make a character (x)?"