Poll: Should stories be praised for being progressive?

[Stewie Plisken]

Sure, but if people are applying a double standard-- whether it's malice or merely discomfort motivating it-- then it's perfectly reasonable and rational to criticise that. We're talking about just portraying gay characters in much the same way straight characters are, after all, but that's considered "intrusive gender politics". I don't know how to be more even-minded than that.

97%+ of romance in media is already straight; people are bemoaning the last few tiny percent not being straight. If someone is not adjusting to one or two gay romances for every hundred straight ones, then frankly, they're dragging their feet.

But that's my point; the intrusive gender politics isn't LGBTQ characters being added in games by the developers themselves, it's the media making a fuss out of it either as a positive or a negative; and of course, that doesn't exist in a bubble either, so all the reactionary BS from the press creates reactionary responses from a sect of the community (and vice-versa) and the simple portrayal of gay characters in the same way straight characters are (which is the best approach, as far as I'm concerned) is put under the microscope and dissected as something with a hidden agenda or some added purpose.

 

[Zontar]

Snip

So you're saying the small backlash that writers get for including such characters from bigots is something that needs to be countered because of the very nature of the backlash? That seems like it'll lead to an undesired outcome given how the backlash those who obsess with identity politics create when those same characters aren't depicted perfectly in every way. No one gave a shit about the fact The 100 had gay and minority characters. Plenty of people lost their shit and harassed the show's staff after one character was written off due to the actress having to leave the show for other work.

 

[FillerDmon]

What was the phrase Yahtzee used in his Extra Punctuation for Bayonetta 2? Because I think it applies really well here, so Ima put my foot in my mouth and summarize it a bit:

In an ideal world, sexualied characters would walk in the door, hips swaggering and flaunting everything, and the rest of us would just roll our eyes and continue the orgy.

...I'm not 100% how that could be extrapolated to the idea that people of all races, positive creeds*, genders, sexualities, and such should just be seen as normal, but I feel like it could be.

*and by that, I mean so long as no one is being hurt and I can shake your hand without needing to wash mine afterwards, we're generally good.

 

[joshuaayt]

I really like that if a character's plot in any way revolves around the fact that they're gay, or trans, or black, or anything other than the "default", that's bad and pandering, because you should make interesting characters that don't only exist to be progressive!!!

But.

If a character simply has one or more of those aspects as a fact of life that isn't generally brought up or important to the plot, it's tokenism, and bad and pandering, because why are they different if it's not even important???

 

[Silvanus]

But that's my point; the intrusive gender politics isn't LGBTQ characters being added in games by the developers themselves, it's the media making a fuss out of it either as a positive or a negative; and of course, that doesn't exist in a bubble either, so all the reactionary BS from the press creates reactionary responses from a sect of the community (and vice-versa) and the simple portrayal of gay characters in the same way straight characters are (which is the best approach, as far as I'm concerned) is put under the microscope and dissected as something with a hidden agenda or some added purpose.

If people are getting riled up because other people are enjoying the inclusion, then that's ridiculous.

Representation or inclusivity can be a relatively rare thing, but meaningful for those being represented or included. That's why, when it happens, people are happy and point to it. If some people are then getting upset or annoyed that others are getting to enjoy something, then I don't have much sympathy for that.

 

[Stewie Plisken]

If people are getting riled up because other people are enjoying the inclusion, then that's ridiculous.

Representation or inclusivity can be a relatively rare thing, but meaningful for those being represented or included. That's why, when it happens, people are happy and point to it. If some people are then getting upset or annoyed that others are getting to enjoy something, then I don't have much sympathy for that.

What happens when a product gets preferential treatment because of the inclusion? What happens when a product is shunned, because of the lack of inclusion? What happens when there are massive over-generalizations made by people of authority (of some form) regarding not just the product, the material, but also the audience?

That's what causes the blow-back from a lot of these things. As I said, none of it exists in a vacuum and it's honestly irrelevant whether you or I have any sympathy for that. What's relevant is that it's painting a giant target on the back of both the creators and the material itself and ultimately misses the mark; that being making inclusion something that's common, ordinary and not worth any screaming over.

 

[Silvanus]

What happens when a product gets preferential treatment because of the inclusion? What happens when a product is shunned, because of the lack of inclusion?

What kind of preferential treatment? What does "shunning" entail? People talk about what they want to talk about, and this is no less a valid thing to talk about.

What happens when there are massive over-generalizations made by people of authority (of some form) regarding not just the product, the material, but also the audience?

Generalisations are silly whatever the situation. This doesn't reflect on whether or not a story can be praised for inclusivity in principle; this is not a tactic unique to any particular point of view.

That's what causes the blow-back from a lot of these things. As I said, none of it exists in a vacuum and it's honestly irrelevant whether you or I have any sympathy for that. What's relevant is that it's painting a giant target on the back of both the creators and the material itself and ultimately misses the mark; that being making inclusion something that's common, ordinary and not worth any screaming over.

That would be the ideal, yes, a situation in which it's just accepted. At present, however, that's simply not the case: inclusion is pretty rare, and those few times it does happen tend to provoke a back-lash. Why on earth should people stop talking about things they like, just because other people get angry when they like it?

 

[Stewie Plisken]

snip

I'm not talking about people in general, I'm talking about people with a platform, who are trusted figures or figures of authority of some form. For every "White male is the easiest difficulty setting" you get ten more people putting inclusionary themes under a microscope. What should be a simple creative choice and a reflection of life in art becomes heavily political and then people are going to react. Sure, there will always be bigots with irreconcilable prejudices, but a prejudice doesn't necessarily make someone intolerant. Even someone with prejudices can just look at something and go 'meeeh' and adhere to the 'live and let live' principle.

Besides, in practice, what's the benefit of praising a story as being progressive? It's confirmation bias; those that agree will take kindly to it, those that don't won't, those that don't care will just ignore it. All these groups are naturally allowed to react the way they wish (and most will, myself included), but from where I stand, it's a lot more useful to let things evolve to the point that nobody cares about these things. Celebrate it (or hate it), but don't define the material by it and, most importantly, don't define other people by their reactions to it (positive or negative).

If mediocre material is praised for inclusion (the material as a whole, not the inclusion in itself) and detractors of the material are labeled as something bad for not finding the material of good quality, whatever prejudices may exist will only be reinforced. Similarly, if material that is enjoyed by people is blasted for being exclusionary and/or harmful and there is an uproar, this also frames things in a political, binary divide. This in turn will create more backlash or at least put other material that falls within one side of these binary political camps under scrutiny and the cycle goes on and on.

 

[Dango]

That depends on how you define progressive.

I would say if you include a character that's in a racial/sexual/any other minority without properly comprehending their experiences and being able to communicate them, then you're wasting your time. In other words, I believe something can't be progressive if it's not well written, regardless of the race/sex/etc. of the characters it includes. However, if you're able to change the views of the majority by giving them a lens into a minority to promote better understanding, that's progressive, and yes, I think that deserves to be praised.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Also wow, a lot of back and forth going on about Cortez. Personal opinion on that is that yeah, if I recall the literal first conversation you have with him he says he lost his husband, which doesn't make sense to share with a total stranger you're supposed to have a professional relationship with. It was pretty much a "nice to meet you, I'm gay and single." BUT keep in mind he's the only gay romance in that game (I think?) so he kind of has to flag down the player with that info early.

Go back and watch that scene. The husband conversation is the second conversation you have with him, the first being a standard "hey, I'm your new shuttle pilot let's have a chat" conversation. And the reason he brings it up is because your character catches him in the middle of openly crying about his loss. But no, why would a gay character bring up being gay unless it's a precursor to hitting on me, right?

This is what I mean, damned if you do, damned if you don't. Maybe it's just a problem with game audiences, or Bioware's audience in particular, but it's impossible to please people trying to depict gay characters.

I'm not saying the point is that he's hitting on you. I'm saying the point is that they had to explicitly throw that information your way kind of early so that you know he's an option if you choose to romance him. Also to be fair you do have to ask about "family," but he can definitely bring it up the first time you meet him. 2:53

He even says "I don't want to talk about it" after he pretty much tells you about it. And then the next scene is the scene you're talking about it in depth anyways. So depending how you talk to him the last thing he says in the first conversation can be "I had a husband" and the whole next conversation is "I had a husband. Here is the full emotional depth of my inner turmoil and mourning, commanding officer I've met once."

If you take the gay part out of it that character gets laid emotionally bare pretty damn fast. Like he'd probably be poked fun at by the internet as "the guy who keeps telling you his wife is dead" if he were strait.

I thought the way they handled the Lesbian character was pretty good though. You have a playful back and forth with her that's written to be kind of ambiguous on whether it's friendly or flirty. That way when you ask her out if Shepard is a dude she goes "whoa sorry, you misread that, I'm into girls" and if Shepard is a chick she's into it.

 

[09philj]

Yes, with a few qualifiers:

- Are we still living in a world filled with regressive authoritarian bastards terrified of any kind of lifestyle different to theirs?
- Is the story actually progressive or some braindead so-called "liberal's" idea of progressive?
- Has it got glaring plot holes that invalidate the positive message?
- Is it actually any good?

 

[sumanoskae]

"Marceline's mom was revealed to have been black" THAT, that's the problem with this question. Saying that her mom is REVEALED to be black is like saying "Marceline's mom was revealed to have owned a green shirt"; it's relevance to the narrative is roughly equal.

Her mom wasn't "Revealed" to be black, she just was. The fact that we consider this innocuous fact important enough to discuss is exactly the issue.

Let me tell you a little something about Cowboy Bebop. Cowboy Bebop is widely praised for it's presentation; it's one of the most beautifully animated shows to ever come out of anime.

Another thing people point abut Bebop is how textured and exquisitely detailed it's setting is. A common criticism of anime is that if character's didn't have different clothes and hair, it would be impossible to tell them apart because they all have the same face and body type.

Bebop is the perfect counter to this argument; you could render all the characters nude and bald and tell them apart just as easily. The show's staff didn't do this to make some kind of political point, they did it because having your story take place in a believable world with lots of different kinds of people is just GOOD FUCKING STORY TELLING. Having everyone look the same isn't bigoted, it's contrived.

In Bebop, nobody comments on anyone's race, many of the character's just happen to be black, or native, or Japanese, or white. They don't treat it like a big deal because the whole point of the Civil Rights Movement was that it isn't a big deal; at the core, we're all human, we're all the same.

Let me ask you this; if you hadn't grown up in a world where 80% of all protagonists are white men, why would you EXPECT them to be?

Whenever someone makes up a main character who's black or a woman or gay or something, we get all up in arms about it like it's going against some kind of unspoken rule, and we never stop to consider how silly it is that we're surprised by something so mundane. We always assume that the writer has done so deliberately, like special care had to be taken in order to resist some cosmic urge to populate every story with people of the same race, gender and sexual orientation.

But we never assume the opposite; sure, we might give a writer some shit over everyone they write being male, white and straight, but we usually chalk it up to laziness or simply assume that the writer is also all of these things.

It never seems to occur to us that when someone is trying to forge a cohesive, believable narrative, having different people be different is just a natural thing to do. That maybe the overabundance of just ONE of the many races on our planet is proof that our fictional landscape is in an unnatural state, one that left it's own devices would just gradually disappear.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

I take it with the same stance as I do things like Sexuality and Transgenderism in characters. If it's just part of the character/story, and not THE major defining feature of it, then whatever. However, when that's ALL there is to the story or character then there's a problem in that your story or character is very shallow. You can't expect being progressive to be enough to tell an interesting story in and of itself.

Look towards Lovecraft here (Not progressive at all, but that's not the point here). Man was NOT a fan of mixing the races, but rather than just tell a story about how black and white people shouldn't mix he instead got metaphorical up in here, and had people breeding with fish monsters that end up creating more monstrosities. Same basic idea, but presented in a much more interesting way.

Or, to put it an an ACTUALLY progressive light, the early X-Men comics are a pretty good example. The mutants can be used as any stand in for any minority you wish. You had them as just people who wanted to be accepted by the world at large, but had to struggle against not only those who fear and hate them, but other mutants who's more destructive methods were doing them no favors. Back in the 60's Prof X was basically Martin Luther King Jr. and Magneto was Malcolm X in his earlier years.


Basically if you want to write a progressive story go nuts. Just make it INTERESTING.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Stories should be praised if they're good and because they're good.

If you're heaping said praise onto a story simply because it's "progressive?" You're doing it wrong.
If you're heaping said praise onto a story that's good and it just so happens to have "progressive" elements? You're doing it right.

This doesn't preclude one from acknowledging bits of a bad story that are "good" in the "progressive" sense, but it's not an all or nothing kind of thing.

That's about the long and the short of it.

 

[Silvanus]

snip

These are still merely sites talking about something some people are interested in. If you don't care, don't read it, but it's a characteristic of the piece; it's still notable when it happens, because it's relatively rare; and it's of interest to a number of people. With that in mind, it's perfectly reasonable to report on it.

Why on earth should people react with hostility to the presence of articles about something other people enjoy? What kind of cultural hegemony does someone have to have? Let people enjoy what they want, and let people report on what they want (if it's harmless cultural stuff like this). To react with hostility when other people enjoy something and want sites to cover it is... well, frankly quite bizarre and alienating.

 

[StatusNil]

However, if you're able to change the views of the majority by giving them a lens into a minority to promote better understanding, that's progressive, and yes, I think that deserves to be praised.

"Being able to change the views of the majority" is how you measure propaganda, by the numbers. Providing a view that contributes to an understanding, whether of a minority or something else, is a laudable artistic achievement by itself. One that doesn't depend on popularity.

Art can be praised or not praised for just about anything, really. There's no "should" in the equation. What has value depends on who you ask.

Sure there is, criticism needs a point of view. We can argue about what that should be, but dismissing the need altogether just makes it arbitrary and useless as a measure of anything.

 

[Estarc]

Stories should be praised for being good. If they're progressive for the sake of being progressive and do so in a lazy and poorly considered fashion there is no need to praise them, though I don't think it is necessary to get angry at them either for trying and failing. If a story executes progressive ideas is a way that you think was really well done though feel free to let the devs/writers know you approve.

To be honest I find it hard to think of a specific case where I thought a progressive political idea was inserted into a game in a shit manner. Video game writing is usually pretty shit in general, and I'm pretty chill about it (though not other things lol). But on the positive side I loved Dragon Age: Origins' same sex romances. Hell, just the romances in general actually. At the time it was very noteworthy, and definitely paved the way for it to be acceptable in more games and games in general. So I'm grateful for Bioware for that, since I know they must have been concerned over a public backlash.

 

[Stewie Plisken]

These are still merely sites talking about something some people are interested in. If you don't care, don't read it, but it's a characteristic of the piece; it's still notable when it happens, because it's relatively rare; and it's of interest to a number of people. With that in mind, it's perfectly reasonable to report on it.

Why on earth should people react with hostility to the presence of articles about something other people enjoy? What kind of cultural hegemony does someone have to have? Let people enjoy what they want, and let people report on what they want (if it's harmless cultural stuff like this). To react with hostility when other people enjoy something and want sites to cover it is... well, frankly quite bizarre and alienating.

Silvanus, this is exactly what I said. It becomes a problem when the subject is approached in an exclusionary manner, in which others are labeled as bad, should they not exhibit the same interest in the 'progressive' part of the material. I'm not talking about people approaching the material and embracing its progressive bend, because I honestly don't know if such people (with a platform) exist. Whenever the subject is approached it is done under ideological and political grounds, in an antagonistic manner and with liberal criticism of people, rather than the work.

You write enough of these articles, you create a pattern. You'll get reactions. Sooner or later, the reactions will be reactions to the pattern instead of the material itself. If it's not intentional shit-stirring, then it's irresponsible and counter-productive.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

If the 'progressiveness' shown is a character who has no characterization beyond "I'm a [whatever minority]", no.

If the character is an actual character instead of there for the sake of being there, yes.

If everything they say relates to them piling on how 'progressive' they are, that's more of a step in the opposite direction. Sort of like asking if you're cool.

Basically, write the entire thing as though everyone was an actual person with their own quirks and personalities, then decide later if 'Eternally Optimistic Girl #3' is actually trans, and only bring it up once, in a context where it'd matter. Or, if 'Hipster Nerd Guy #2' is black, make sure it gets hammered in mentally, but don't re-write any of his lines.

Basically, the common sense answer of 'stop putting political BS in entertainment, and start putting thought into the characters to begin with.
But, it's not like I expected common sense from humans who judge other humans by appearance or outward gender.

this.

not like a character has to justify being *insert race/gender/etc.. here*, but writers seem to have this weird idea of defining that character based on that characteristic, or mentioning it a ton in a non satirical way, so it just takes away from it rather than deepening/adding to it like newly progressive plots would hope to. Eventually it shouldn't be a big deal at all, but baby steps and all that.

On sense8, I loved the way they used transgender and gay characters, it worked great and unless you are one of those "ew icky, not straight/cis" people, I can imagine you might feel the same.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Of course not. Just becaue something good is in something doesn't make the whole good. I love mushrooms, they're delicious but if you put mushrooms in a pile of shit the shit won't magically taste good. Rather, the mushrooms, too, will taste like shit.

A token diverse char who is diverse just to be diverse and is diverse in shallow, sexual identity or race ways, as opposed to being diverse in ways that matter, such as being diverse in their actual ideas and mentality and not just on who they wish to have sex with, is what is actually good storytelling.


I had this experience when people talked to me about steven universe, I asked what was good about it and I was told its the first animated show to feature lesbians or something, I retorted that sailor moon did it back 20 years ago and was told it is the first american show to do this. As I don't judge quality on a nation by nation basis and as my enjoyment isn't affected by mere knowledge that something that isn't new feels new to other people, I saw no distinction, so the one trait of the show that made it praiseworthy according to its fans was instantly nullified.