Diversity in Fiction - Question

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

While not racist, is it not a bit ethnocentric? In a fantasy universe where other colors of human exist (Lando Calrissian [http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Lando_Calrissian]), why is Boba Fett suddenly Maori is a question asked by people I think who are somewhat biased. We never see him without his armor. Hell, he could have been an alien for all it matters.

Because of the original actor's voice? James Earl Jones [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Earl_Jones] will forever be the literal voice of Darth Vader. No one batted an eye when Vader's mask came off and it was a white man.

... well, I did. But we're talking about the general public.

Incidentally, I think certain people would have been happier that he was an alien than a real life human of color. And that speaks a lot about these people who yell "whites are being discriminated against!" five times per one real life, non-white human in a movie.

As I recall, we see him plenty in the prequel trilogy. Most notably when he chases Obi-Wan (?) to the clone planet and gets chopped into pieces in front of his son. We see the clones, all of whom are Hispanic like he is. That would be enough to allow people to ask questions, if it wasn't for that pointless bit of Star Wars trivia I picked up somewhere that let me know they had widened the recruitment from purely clones.

First off, the actor is Maori, scottish and Irish.

Secondly, while Jango Fett was primarily shown in the Prequels, his Son (the only clone that was aged regularly and raised as a son) Boba was shown without his helmet.

But more importantly... Why are there questions to be had at all? There isn't anything magical in the soil of Africa that made people black. There is nothing in the air that made Eurpoeans pale. It's about climate and generations of adapting to it.

Why are there humans of different shades in Star Wars? Because these humans came from different planets, that would have different conditions that would cause the human organism to display certain phenotypes due to generations of environmental conditioning.

That's the Science in Science Fiction.

My personal question for when ever these questions come around is that we can whole heartedly accept that an identical human species sprung up in Galaxies far removed from ours, but we believe that they would have none of the adaptive mechanisms we have here on earth? Can't we just admit the biases we have instead of trying to seem like we're just being logical? Because it makes no sense when it's broken down.

 

[Catnip1024]

First off, the actor is Maori, scottish and Irish.

Secondly, while Jango Fett was primarily shown in the Prequels, his Son (the only clone that was aged regularly and raised as a son) Boba was shown without his helmet.

But more importantly... Why are there questions to be had at all? There isn't anything magical in the soil of Africa that made people black. There is nothing in the air that made Eurpoeans pale. It's about climate and generations of adapting to it.

Why are there humans of different shades in Star Wars? Because these humans came from different planets, that would have different conditions that would cause the human organism to display certain phenotypes due to generations of environmental conditioning.

That's the Science in Science Fiction.

My personal question for when ever these questions come around is that we can whole heartedly accept that an identical human species sprung up in Galaxies far removed from ours, but we believe that they would have none of the adaptive mechanisms we have here on earth? Can't we just admit the biases we have instead of trying to seem like we're just being logical? Because it makes no sense when it's broken down.

Oh well, my bad. Whatever. Also, yes, clearly I meant Jango Fett. My nerd trivia ain't quite up to scratch.

There are questions to be asked if people (wrongly) assume that the black guy is supposed to be a direct clone of the Maori guy. Because that would be wrong logically. It would be wrong if anybody except a virtually exact lookalike played the part.

I think you then went off on the wrong track with the subsequent bit.

 

[Silvanus]

Most notably when he chases Obi-Wan (?) to the clone planet and gets chopped into pieces in front of his son.

I know this is a pointless correction to make, particularly since I don't even particularly like the movie, but Jango Fett died on Geonosis, whereas the planet on which the clones were created (which I assume you were referring to) was Kamino.

Geonosis was a major Separatist planet, and didn't have anything to do with clone production (as far as I know).

I obsessively memorise details about fictional universes, even ones I'm not terribly invested in.

 

[Catnip1024]

I know this is a pointless correction to make, particularly since I don't even particularly like the movie, but Jango Fett died on Geonosis, whereas the planet on which the clones were created (which I assume you were referring to) was Kamino.

Geonosis was a major Separatist planet, and didn't have anything to do with clone production (as far as I know).

I obsessively memorise details about fictional universes, even ones I'm not terribly invested in.

That does ring a bell. Full points for quibbling...

Yeah, I never actually rewatched the prequel trilogy, so it's a little vague.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Oh well, my bad. Whatever. Also, yes, clearly I meant Jango Fett. My nerd trivia ain't quite up to scratch.

There are questions to be asked if people (wrongly) assume that the black guy is supposed to be a direct clone of the Maori guy. Because that would be wrong logically. It would be wrong if anybody except a virtually exact lookalike played the part.

I think you then went off on the wrong track with the subsequent bit.

Ok, now I get what is going on.

Ok, quick geek update.

The Republic was duped into believing a war was coming (It was, but it was a manipulated war by the Dark Side) with battle drones they couldn't begin to replicate. To combat this, The Republic was further manipulated into taking the clones of one of the best warriors in the galaxy, Jango. Due to Jango teaching his instincts and expertise, the Republic had an ad hoc army over night.

These clones served the Republic until Order 66. Once the Empire rose to power, the clone effort was scrapped. Mainly because Order 66 was a fail safe measure and wasn't indictive of any real loyalty. Some clones stayed on in service of the Empire, but the Empire chose loyal humans to fill the ranks as the New Storm Troopers. Hence the different humans you would see in new media, like those in new Battlefront game.

I misunderstood what you were talking about when you said the 'black guy', honestly I didn't think you were talking about Finn from The Force Awakens. I thought you were talking about the hubbub of Boba Fett being a minority. Some people had their feathers rustled back in the day that Jango (and subsequently Boba) weren't white.

When I said that Jango was maori, and you called him Hispanic, I was confused on why you kept switching his (Jango's) race. My whole point was built on the misunderstanding of who you were referring to, and simply perplexed by what you meant afterward. My apologies for getting the situation wrong.

 

[TelosSupreme]

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.

Marvel's been "propagandising" their audience since their inception.

Sure, and it wasn't exactly subtle then either. But at the very least they were still telling stories that brought people together. Now their just insulting their fan base and devaluing beloved characters.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

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.

Marvel's been "propagandising" their audience since their inception.

Sure, and it wasn't exactly subtle then either. But at the very least they were still telling stories that brought people together. Now their just insulting their fan base and devaluing beloved characters.

That's because
A) It's worked for them before, and B) their fan base is sooo tiny they need a new market.

Seriously, a Japanese journal comic about a neurotic, lonely lesbian beat the sales of basically every comic character when it came out. Print comics are basically only to sell movie tie ins. (Digitally sold comics are doing much better, but that's due to the "not actually the true fans, tiny minority, stop pandering to them" crowd.)

 

[Callate]

There was a paperback I somehow picked up for free, somewhere, at some point-- and I read through about a dozen pages before saying, "Okay, if the author can't go one page without referencing being a black woman in the South, I'm putting this book down and stepping away."

I didn't get past chapter two.

Now, to be clear, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with writing a story from the perspective of a black woman in the south. But there was some reference to it on literally every page- the lowlife boyfriend treats her that way, because that's the way black men treat black women in the south. The white guy looks at her suspiciously, because that's the way white men treat a black woman in the south. This guy talks too fast, southerners like me have learned that in the heat and humidity you have to slow down... To the point that the protagonist was beginning to caricature themselves.

"Of course, that's exactly how I'd expect a reader like you to treat me, a black woman in the-SNAP"

The term "token" gets thrown around a little too easily. It's perfectly valid that there only be one or two characters of a particular ethnicity, or sex, or sexuality in many settings and situations. But a good author could be aware of the dynamics (including possibly friction) that apply to the group in regard to their presence without making them only stand out because, for example, they use a lot of Latino slang or have stereotypically effeminate mannerisms.

Good authors make every character recognizable, inhabited with a sense of life, to the extent that their viewers feel a certain identification with them even if they're far removed from them in a number of obvious ways. Characters are richer and more enjoyable to follow when their audience can feel empathy with them- to the point that differences become something to envision to bring them "into line" with the commonalities. ("How would I have turned out if law enforcement was something that took family members from my home? If the language spoken around me was my halting second rather than my fluent first? If expressing sexual attraction might get me killed?")

 

[happyninja42]

Should diverse characters be showcased, and given special notice and fanfare, or should they be treated as any other character inhabiting the world?

I don't think they should be showcased, if the point of the story/character, is to simply have them be "just another person". However there is the story, and then the media representation of them. A writer might intend for their diverse character to just be "another person" in the context of the story, but the audience might latch onto the character VERY strongly, and turn the character into a showcase, given notice and fanfare, by their attachment to said character.

However this can also be dependent on the entertainment genre too I think. Say for example in comic books. By their very nature, superheroes are symbols, icons, and representatives of various concepts and ideals. They ARE special notice and fanfare, simply by their very existence. So for them to have something of a focus on their nature/background, and how "You are the first *insert diverse concept here* to ever do this, how do you feel about that?" kind of questions and storylines, I think are mostly valid.

These characters become rolemodels, both in and out of universe, so who they are, is significant and relevant to the story.

But in other stories, that stuff isn't the point of the story, and a well crafted tale wouldn't pay much attention to it.

So I don't think there is any one answer to your question, because it depends on the focus of the story, and what the writer is trying to convey. If the point of the story is to have someone "outside the norm" take on this classical role (like a superhero for example), then yeah, it makes sense. If it's not the focus, then no, they shouldn't focus on it, but they also can't really control what the audience focuses on either.

 

[TelosSupreme]

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.

Marvel's been "propagandising" their audience since their inception.

Sure, and it wasn't exactly subtle then either. But at the very least they were still telling stories that brought people together. Now their just insulting their fan base and devaluing beloved characters.

How are they insulting their fan base and devaluing beloved characters.

Making Captain America a Hydra agent, making Red Skull a blatant Trump stand-in (and making MODOK a literal Trump stand-in), creating gender/race-swapped characters for the sake of pandering without giving them compelling personalities and stories, and cringe-inducing writing like this:

Just to name a few.

 

[Cicada 5]

Making Captain America a Hydra agent,

While I have my issues with this story for different reasons, this isn?t the first time Steve has been turned evil. It?s no more an insult than when Kirby himself did it.

making Red Skull a blatant Trump stand-in (and making MODOK a literal Trump stand-in),

Red Skull is a nazi and MODOK is a murderous cyborg. Exactly how is equating them to a real life supervillain insulting?

creating gender/race-swapped characters for the sake of pandering without giving them compelling personalities and stories,

Jane Thor?s run has been the most interesting the book has been since JMS left the Thor title, Kamala Khan as Ms Marvel was the breakout hit of 2014, Moon Girl, Sam Wilson and Robbie Reyes all have their fans.

and cringe-inducing writing like this:

I?m sure people said the same about Superman roughing up slum lords. Or when Kirby and Lee showed Steve slugging Hitler. And before you say they aren?t the same, that cover got the two death threats and protests outside the office. Marvel?s always been political as Stan Lee himself admitted.

 

[Silvanus]

Making Captain America a Hydra agent [...]

This was done before, including by the creators. Throughout the lifespan of comics, most big-name heroes have been turned into villains, Nazis, communists, aliens, their own arch-nemeses, etcetera etcetera, as the (bizarre) storylines of comics have unfolded. This was done throughout Cap's own run, since its inception.

The only real difference is now, people are mis-remembering some sort of unblemished character history. And I doubt it's a coincidence that it gets brought up alongside other (mostly political) complaints against the writers.

 

[TelosSupreme]

(snip)

In regards to the "real life super villain" thing, you don't think that's a tad hyperbolic? Yes, he's a buffoon, but even the worst presidents couldn't be classified as "super villains." Besides which, it kind of rips me right out of the experience when I'm literally staring Trump in the face in my comic book about super heroes. It's all just so ham-fisted it's not even funny.

As for everything else, I feel it's more about the motives behind these decisions. I think Marvel, like a lot of other media these days, is going through an identity crisis. If you like these new characters and stories, then that's fine. I can't really argue with you there, I'm just giving examples of behavior that I particularly dislike. And sales have certainly reflected that sentimentality. I'd love for these new characters to succeed and prove me wrong about Marvel having some kind of an agenda, but that's not going to happen if they're only used as superficial, pandering mouthpieces.

Making Captain America a Hydra agent [...]

This was done before, including by the creators. Throughout the lifespan of comics, most big-name heroes have been turned into villains, Nazis, communists, aliens, their own arch-nemeses, etcetera etcetera, as the (bizarre) storylines of comics have unfolded. This was done throughout Cap's own run, since its inception.

The only real difference is now, people are mis-remembering some sort of unblemished character history. And I doubt it's a coincidence that it gets brought up alongside other (mostly political) complaints against the writers.

Basically same deal as above: The motives behind that decision seem very dubious to me.

 

[kitsunefather]

Yeah I can't help but heartily chuckle at all the screeching over new characters taking the mantles of old ones. They're called Legacy Characters and they're as old as comic books.

How many Robins are there? Flashs? Aqualads? Lanterns? Firestorms? Venoms? Blue Beetles? Don't get started on the web of Hawk people. Watchmen had two Silk Spectres and two Nite Owls.

It's the collective cry of out of touch fans that fail to grasp that comics used to be "better" because you only remember the high points through rose tinted glasses. I'd rather see a brown ms marvel than a costume with 87 pouches.

I don't disagree, and I'm actually a strong supporter of well written Legacy Characters (as I mention earlier, with Miles Moralez).

Personally, my issue with the way Marvel is handling it now is that they aren't writing the characters well, or telling compelling (or heroic) stories, but rather throwing everything they can out there without regards (in the majority of them) to character development or story advancement.

The thing is, Marvel is aware that outrage pushes sales in the short term. A few years ago (2013 or 2014, I think) a Marvel exec made a comment about how much outrage causes people to buy more comics. Which, I think, is why they've moved away from taking submissions from writers and have begun hiring writers who are more inclined to sociology papers and political treatises.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

A slight aside... I'm getting tired of lesbians in fiction.

It's a cheap cop-out to diversity. Women are already written as sexual objects, so we can have a hero now that IS a hot woman GETTING a hot woman! Genius!

If you really want a challenge, write a hero that is a submissive gay guy. Find a way to get this world to back a hero that's not a tough guy all the time. The safe lesbianism angle has gotten old.

 

[TelosSupreme]

I don't disagree, and I'm actually a strong supporter of well written Legacy Characters (as I mention earlier, with Miles Moralez).

Personally, my issue with the way Marvel is handling it now is that they aren't writing the characters well, or telling compelling (or heroic) stories, but rather throwing everything they can out there without regards (in the majority of them) to character development or story advancement.

The thing is, Marvel is aware that outrage pushes sales in the short term. A few years ago (2013 or 2014, I think) a Marvel exec made a comment about how much outrage causes people to buy more comics. Which, I think, is why they've moved away from taking submissions from writers and have begun hiring writers who are more inclined to sociology papers and political treatises.

and thats the thing though, physical comics themselves are going the way of the dodo. They have been since the speculative bubble burst and it's been a slow death since.

if you want to blame someone, blame comic books execs who refuse to adapt to internet culture and online distribution.

That's probably why I find myself enjoying webcomics more these days. More creative freedom and definitely more creative ideas. Reminds me of the documentary "Stripped," where they compared and contrasted the mentality of authors for longstanding newspaper strips and online comics. It's very fascinating to see that growing division demonstrate itself in about an hour.

 

[Cicada 5]

A slight aside... I'm getting tired of lesbians in fiction.

It's a cheap cop-out to diversity. Women are already written as sexual objects, so we can have a hero now that IS a hot woman GETTING a hot woman! Genius!

If you really want a challenge, write a hero that is a submissive gay guy. Find a way to get this world to back a hero that's not a tough guy all the time. The safe lesbianism angle has gotten old.

Lesbianism is safe storytelling?