Because it's a trope. No one bats an eye to more common tropes in the west but once it's something they don't understand they think it's "problematic". And it really isn't.Silvanus said:
No, you don't date rape/gay erase a character in Fire Emblem Fates
- Thread starter xaszatm
- Start date
Really? People criticise common western tropes all the time-- far more often, in fact, than they do tropes from other cultures, because the ones we're most familiar with are more obvious, more ubiquitous.SquallTheBlade said:
Take a look at the recent criticism of the "damsel in distress" trope. Take a look at romantic tropes, which are frequently criticised as predictable or derivative. Take notice of how often a character is criticised as representing a stereotype.
Zhukov said:
I don't remember ever typing that you typed these words, either.
I said that you speak "as though" it is about date rape, meaning, you don't speak about it like it is about date rape but you're nonetheless leading someone to that conclusion all the same without actually speaking about it directly. You're lending support towards that line of reasoning so that if someone predisposed to think this reads your post they way will find you to agree with their notions.
*snrk*Dreiko said:
Uh huh.
Someone predisposed to thinking a certain thing will also be predisposed to see evidence of their beliefs everywhere they look?
Ya don't say.
That's called confirmation bias mate. And it's everywhere.
Speaking of which, ya know what? I think someone predisposed to thinking that their beloved games are under attack from the dread legions of moral crusaders will read my post and see a condemnation that isn't there, despite my post specifically saying that I wasn't annoyed or offended.
*nudge nudge*
Damn, it's like they're not even trying anymore. They're literally trying to find any sort of excuse to click-bait and sensationalize the industry. What's sad is how many great games, games that I grew up with, have to be continuously defamed just to forward their own ludicrous gains.ZiggyE said:
Like, leave Fire Emblem out of your politicizing agenda for crying sakes.
It all depends on if you take the view point that your personal interpretation of a piece of art is more valid than authorial intent or not.Silvanus said:
Certainly you can put forward that view, and you can state your opinion, but that doesn't make you immune from criticism yourself. Particularly when you are criticizing people who belong to a different social or economic class than you do, or from another culture, because it absolutely does come off as either classism or xenophobia.
I'm not telling people that they can't criticize this game. I'm telling them firstly that their interpretation is at odds with the authorial intent and the cultural context, and I'm also stating that I find their views to be borderline racist and highly xenophobic.
Of course criticism would be at odds with authorial intent; most criticisms are. If a creator loves their product, then anything other than equal love will be at odds with authorial intent. We're not bound by that, thank goodness: if we were, reviews and forums like these would be impossible.Jake Martinez said:
How bizarre. On the other hand, I find it a colossal double standard to say I may offer criticisms for art created in my own country, but should keep shtum on others.Jake Martinez said:
This is a strange comment. It seems almost to be stretching the definition of authorial intent. To put it clearly - Authorial intent is the message the author meant to deliver, or the mood they meant to evoke in the reader/viewer. That's all. If I say, "Watch out behind you!" then my intent may appear to an outside observer as either, "To warn you of danger", or to "Trick you into turning around" depending on context.Silvanus said:
If you turn around and get punched in the face, then from my perspective, I was trying to warn you about that. However, it might be a valid perspective from you that I "tricked" you into turning around to get punched. That's the subjective part of interpretation of authorial intent - however, I am actually the "author" in this little drama, so I know the truth. If I was an outside observer, I wouldn't have this luxury and of course I'd be left in the same position as you are in attempting to discern intent.
This situation is a great example of why the ancient greeks invented the dialectic as a means to learn truth. Most posters in this forum have been engaging in this, the problem I think for some is that this type of argumentation is meant to come around to observing a single truth instead of multiple truths. This is what we call "objective truth" (which in itself is a misnomer, it should really be more akin to democratic truth).
As a side digression, this is one of the core things that separates Eastern philosophy from Western philosophy. To put it bluntly, Westerners tend to value truth even when it leads to social discord or disagreements, whereas in most of Asia, the Confucian value of Harmony is held in higher esteem than the truth.
Anyway, my overly complicated and long winded point here is that criticism is not automatically at odds with authorial intent. In fact, generally speaking what ought to happen is that authorial intent should be established first, and then that intent should be criticized.
To put it bluntly, my contention is that people are criticizing something that doesn't exist because they are failing to establish intent first.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm just insisting that in order to even start criticizing this correctly you need to do so from a state of non-ignorance. If you notice, I have steadfastly avoided saying things are "Good" or "Bad" or any sort of moral judgement on the material at all. I'm simply pointing out the correct cultural context in which to interpret the narrative of the story. For example, if you are on Haight St in San Francisco and you see two guys walking down the street holding hands you'd be within the correct cultural context to make an assumption that they are gay. However if you are in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and you see two men holding hands, you would be within the wrong cultural context to make the assumption they are gay.Silvanus said:
If your criticism or opinion or even simple observations are then predicated on the "fact" that these gentlemen are gay, only within one context would it likely be correct.
This is what I am pointing out - that you need to observe the correct cultural context to discern the authorial intent of this characters story narrative. Without this context, your opinions are based on events that simply did not occur as you are stating. If you refuse to even acknowledge that the cultural context matters, then that's quite simply cultural imperialism and borderline racism since you are inferring that you expect the entire world to adapt to your cultural norms. People who tend to do this are usually nationalists or race supremacists - maybe not the kind of company I would like to be in.
To say that Western philosophy is about truth and Eastern philosophy is about harmony is to do an incredible disservice to both, particularly to Eastern philosophy.Jake Martinez said:
Your point about cultural imperialism is well made, but the alternative (treating cultures as atomized, self contained and inviolable) is actually no less imperialists. Actual imperialists loved the idea that the people they colonized were really exotic and different and other and actually tended to play down the degree of synthesis, hybridity and cross-cultural contact because doing so helped to preserve the narrative of their own absolute superiority.
Contrary to what many Japanese people seem to believe, there are actual people in Japan who are actually gay and who want to be openly gay and to live in a society and culture which can accomodate that, just as there are people in Saudi Arabia who are actually gay. Those people are as real and authentic to that culture as their neighbours. I'm not saying Japan is a homophobic society, in some ways it's less homophobic than most "Western" societies and in some ways it isn't, but adopting a kind of cultural relativism which refuses to pass judgement is not respecting other cultures, it's merely sides with certain (usually dominant) cultural expressions over others.
That's not what I said at all, please don't put words into my mouth like that. Both cultures have those two same values, they merely place different emphasis on their relative importance. If you want to disagree with that, then please do so instead of intimating that I am slandering people by denying they care about being truthful.evilthecat said:
I've noticed this a lot in this thread - It seems like people, instead of actually addressing points that others are making, are instead deciding that they want to make a point first, and then stating that point regardless of what they are actually responding to.
This is a good example of what I was just talking about. If you're addressing this to me specifically, then you've wasted your breath because I never stated I believed that people ought to engage in cultural relativism. I merely stated that they need to identify intent in the correct cultural context before they embarked on any sort of criticism. You also made some statements I disagree with, but don't care to rebut because I find it mostly off-topic, but it's like... you addressed it to me, so what am I to do? Respond? Not respond?evilthecat said:
Honestly, all I wanted to do was point out to people that you cannot critique a piece of work completely devoid of it's cultural or historical context. Heck... this is why we have art history as a field at university. I'm not interested in passing any sort of moral judgement, or advocating for any sort of political or social opinion, or anything like that.
If anything, I have a minor concern that the creators of this game are being slandered by people who are ignorant, but that's about it.
EDIT: I re-read this post and I think it comes off more acerbic than I intend so i toned it down some. But I am frustrated with the fact that people address me with a "quote" but hardly ever actually address anything that I am saying, instead it feels like words keep getting put into my mouth.
I think there's a bit of a difference between what is being discussed here. I think what you're referring to is "Death of the Author" which is different from authorial intent.Silvanus said:
there is a line at which critics' speculation on a work does not overmatch the author's stated intent. Specifically, this line is drawn at the point where critics try to speculate on what the author was intending to say. "What they MEANT to symbolize is..." vs. "What I, as the author, meant to symbolize was..." In general more weight is given to an author's statement of their intent over a critics's assertion of what the author's intent must have been.
This is where the kooky literary reviews like "Telling us that the curtains were blue is X's way of telling us about their own struggle with depression..." come from, even if the author says "No, really, I just wanted to say that there were some curtains and they were blue."
It's actually a separate issue from Death of the Author. Since Death of the Author explicitly leaves the author out of criticism of their work.
Through Death of the Author, you are free to state your criticisms about how the situations in the game come across to you. I see no problem here. The problems only start when critics seek extend their criticism to the larger culture. In many ways criticisms that these tropes are "problematic" and "pernicious" imply an intent. Only it's clear that the intent was misinterpreted, because many who levy such criticisms are viewing it through a different cultural lens. That of a progressive westerner. That seems to be what people have been pointing out. With that in mind, your criticisms can be hand waved, or even mocked. So in the end it seems to be another "agree to disagree" situation. Thus ending the conversation.
Well, indeed. I'm not arguing that we should criticise from ignorance, and I'd strongly encourage people to understand differing cultural norms.Jake Martinez said:
The author's intent is still perfectly subject to criticism, though. Cultural context may explain, but does not automatically justify.
This aside, we're consumers ourselves here, rather than idle critics. We're also (in part) discussing products we may personally buy (I intend to get FE:F, actually). With that in mind, it's especially relevant to our own intentions to discuss and communicate what we would like to experience.
D'you believe I in particular am disregarding cultural context?Jake Martinez said:
I'm familiar with Death of the Author, and while the above was a pretty useful summary, that's not what I was going for. I'm not meaning to disregard the intent of the author at all-- I'm meaning to say the art is subject to criticism, authorial intent and all.Ishal said:
Okay. Allow me to clarify.Jake Martinez said:
You've taken the position that truth and harmony are separate things, that both cultures recognize them as separate things and yet despite knowing that they are separate things choose to focus on one over the other.
The thing is, truth and harmony are not always easy to separate, and not always easy to define. Was Confucian ethics really about putting harmony before the truth? Were truth and harmony even separable?
On the Western end, we might look to someone like Thomas Hobbes, who is very adamant that there is a social order which must be preserved but who certainly isn't saying we should compromise truth in order to achieve it. In fact, his point is that the social order is itself founded on a rational truth that if it didn't exist things would be really shitty.
I'm open to the possibility that I got the wrong impression, and if so I apologize. But I don't see how it's possible to use context as a moral defense for cultural practices without in some ways engaging in relativism, and to certain extent there's nothing wrong with a bit of relativism. The point is, how far can we stand to go with it? Is it causing us to ignore something important?Jake Martinez said:
Actually, you can.Jake Martinez said:
The question is whether it is good to do so, and like I said I'm sympathetic to your point and felt it was very well-made. I'm merely pointing out that cultural context is not a singular context. There is no singular "Japanese culture" which can offer a singular cultural context, if nothing else because Japanese culture does not exist in isolation.
There's a difference between not passing crude moral or political judgement and refusing to acknowledge potential political significance on the basis of presumed "neutrality", if nothing else because the latter is actually a form of passing judgement in disguise. If we're not in the business of passing moral judgement, then providing context cannot be a moral defence.
Granted, and I apologize if I'm genuinely barking up the wrong tree.Jake Martinez said:
Hey, that's a pretty good summary. It's also worth noting that their entire opinion is presupposed from the "fact" that a single character is gay and even a looser (but still culturally ignorant) interpretation that this character is bi-sexual completely destroys their criticism.Ishal said:
Personally, I don't feel that you can "agree to disagree" when the point of contention is about one supposedly inflicting "harm" on another group of people. For example, I'd be pretty upset if someone called some of my work, "obviously white supremacist propaganda" especially considering I am opposed to racism and am not particularly white myself.
Anyway, I'm pretty much over arguing it at this point as I believe most people are just being contrarian for the sake of it. It seems to me that both the initial tumblrina that started the witch hunt has back tracked on his/her opinion and several websites have printed editorials defending the game and pointing out the cultural ignorance of the criticism, so there really is no point to continue.
Basically I'm noping the fuck out of this conversation. Enjoy.
Zhukov said:
Seriously I can't tell but you have knack. Might I suggest politics?
That aside, huh. So this is what's been going on. I saw this elsewhere and had no idea what was going on. It's a weird thing, but I'm chalking it up to bad writing and translating than anything else. I mean Awakening was really 'anime' and if this is the kind of support I have to deal with, especially if this 'wacky' trait happens for most the cast, I'm done. Between this and that 'crossover' game with Persona(Yes Persona, not SMT, Persona), the FE series might be 'saved' but it's not something I'll play.
I must beg to differ. I see that while I was away from the forums, you decided that the matter was decisively resolved. That's fine, but you said some things that I feel compelled to respond to anyway.Jake Martinez said:
Firstly, the game text says pretty clearly that she consistently finds women more attractive then men (including when directly comparing the two genders), and people defending the game have pointed out that she continues to do so even after she falls in love with the MC. That fact might hurt the allegation that there was gay conversion shenanigans, but it also indicates that you're overreaching when you try to remove the character from an LGBT context entirely.
But right afterwards, the character says this "unusual excitement" derives from her seeing the MC as an attractive woman, and that he's the only *man* to make her feel that way. This seems to be the only context in which the character falls in love with men--when they look like women. Key word being *look.* I'm not sure how you can construe this as something other than based in physical attraction. So when you say that---
--I don't really think that's relevant. Firstly, Soleil's attraction to women does not seem to derive from close emotional bonds, as you imply, but from appearance. If not strictly sexual or mature, it certainly sounds physical in nature. Secondly, emotional/romantic attraction towards the same sex still qualifies as homosexuality (homoromanticism is a more precise term I've seen). Your assertion that lesbians must strictly be sexually attracted to the same sex to qualify as such isn't quite true. Attraction can take many forms, but it's still attraction.
Alas, just because Japanese culture doesn't think someone is gay doesn't prove they actually aren't. Every culture has blind spots.
You point out that Japanese culture encourages homosexual behavior among straight people, but that ambiguity cuts both ways--how would you know that someone isn't really gay? It sounds like genuine lesbians would historically have been lumped right in with everyone else in being told that they had to stop dating women, "grow up," and start dating men (homosexuals still generally remain closeted in Japan). Indeed, the tv tropes page you link to explaining the cultural context says as much.
You point out that Soleil hasn't shown any intent in pursuing sexual relationships with women, but that doesn't prove much by itself. After all, straight people can be asexual or otherwise not have any interest in an actual relationship (possibly due to maturity reasons), so why can't gay people? Indeed, before the romance subplot Soleil has shown even less interest in relationships with men then with women. If the character is having troubled relationships with women and needs to learn how to conduct an "adult relationship," as you put it, the logical conclusion is that the character learns how to conduct an adult relationship with other women. But the real endgoal of her growth is to conduct an "adult" relationship with...men. Even people I've seen defending the character in its cultural context, like you, admit that that's it's not exactly a sensible direction in which to take her.
Now the character is (reportedly) only romancible by men. So Soleil is indeed straight as you say. But that also makes little sense. You say we need to understand the cultural context, and I agree--I don't think the character's straightness makes sense except in a cultural context that presupposes (wrongly) that young people with chaste lesbian preferences are really straight people stuck in girlhood crush mode, as opposed to gay people stuck in girlhood crush mode. After all, if a man expressed a chaste infatuation with women, would it be fair to assume he's really gay?
Of course, since Soleil is fictional, she conforms to the sexual expectations of her writers. But only by authorial fiat. The whole argument of "but she's not gay, she's really straight, that's why she needs to stop swooning over women" seems to me to be one step below "she's not gay, she's really straight, that's why she needs to stop having sex with women." While such a scenario is technically possible, do you see how forced it is, and the level of assumption required to validate it? Combine this with the physical nature of Soleil's homosexual feelings and her general lack of interest in men--and the transvestite-esque conditions in which such an interest does develop--and Soleil comes across as a gay character whose homosexuality was forced into the backseat even when it didn't make sense to do so--and whose writers didn't fully understand how that looked.
So while the issues with gay conversion therapy seem blunted, I think the gay erasure thing still has substance. In a game that promised homosexual representation, they added a character that actually acted explicitly gay, but even she was straight after all, thanks to forced plot devices and esoteric social mores. The added cultural subtext of lesbianism being a phase doesn't make it any more endearing, as does it's playing with the patronizing old fantasy of a man "persuading" a "lesbian" to come around. Since there are few gay characters as is, Soleil's treatment is somewhat irksome from an LGBT perspective.
I understood that the first time. And I get it. The devs did not intend to offend or come across as anti-gay. I never thought otherwise, and for the record, none of the initial internet outrage I personally saw (which introduced me to the issue) thought otherwise either.Redryhno said:
But the implications stand regardless.
There are plenty of Japanese cultural norms that one can criticize. That said, in order to make actual valid criticism against it (or anything else for that matter) generally requires one to have at least a basic understanding of what they're criticizing. Most people who are doing so in this case comes across to me(as an Asian who's quite familiar with these cultural quirks) like a car mechanic arguing how a rocket engine should be built.LifeCharacter said:
Except it wasn't lesbianism or your western socially conservative context that was portrayed in the game, you may want to take off that Western Culture is Default for Planet Earth sunglass here.Animyr said:
There's a difference between some western young adult cliché, and what is literally a social norm that goes all the way down to pre-teen girls in various SE Asian countries. Or would you care to present some "I experimented in kindergarden/elementary school" cliché? *note, I'm not responsible if the FBI decided to raid your house*
"How dare those Japanese peasants game devs forget that their games need to be written solely for the pleasure of their glorious Western Imperial Master!!"
Like I said to LifeCharacter above, criticism is fine, criticism where you lack basic understanding of what you're criticizing just makes you ignorant. It's like saying kabuki is sexist because there's only have male actors.Silvanus said:
Since when is authorial intent = how much someone likes it? If I drew a circle, can someone who didn't like my drawing claim that what I drew was actually a triangle?Silvanus said:
Once again, you can criticize all you want, you just become racist/xenophobic when you do so without basic understanding of said culture and decide to apply your own to it.
Right, but I don't think I am. I'm not as steeped in Japanese culture as I am in my own, of course, but I have some experience with its output, and recognise a good number of its traditions and tropes. If I dislike some of them, that's fine. This is a matter of personal preference with regards to products we actually buy, after all. Keep in mind; I plan to buy this game-- it's a worthy pursuit for me to find out whether it contains stuff I'll enjoy or not.kyp275 said:
No, of course not. I'm saying that we're under no compulsion to consider the author's intent well-done or worthy of our time. It was M. Night Shyamalan's intent to create a riveting and compelling story about plants getting their revenge on humanity, but we're under no compulsion to agree that that's what he came out with.kyp275 said:
Am I doing so?kyp275 said:
No you aren't, though it looks to me you are defending those that are doing so.Silvanus said:
Of course, but it's one thing to think that his story about plants getting revenge on humanity neither riveting nor compelling, it's another to start claiming said story is actually about Martians battling aliens from Alpha Centauri, which is what the people who started this whole thing and those that continued to argue in favor of it in this thread have been doing:
- person start with incorrect facts
- strip out cultural context from a character
- assign own cultural spin and attributes to said character
- proceed to enrage at the game for what is essentially their own creation
See first quote.