Star Wars: Aftermath Author Offers Scathing Response to Criticism of Gay Characters

Falling_v1legacy

No one of consequence
Nov 3, 2009
116
0
0
Yeah, it's a short hand to describe a sort of ethnicity. It's actually difficult to quickly describe that sort of thing in the English language without using terms that are rooted in our world. Even using skin colour, a lot of descriptors that used to be used where based on colonial trade materials, but if coffee doesn't exist in your universe, these descriptors aren't very useful in a sci fi or fantasy setting. You can get subtly get there within the text, but outside the text, it's just easier in a blog to use the shorthand 'Latino.'
 

ExileNZ

New member
Dec 15, 2007
915
0
0
I love this: "Is there all of a sudden way more LGBT people in our population than we once thought?"

Um... yes. Yes there are. Because they're no longer being forced to hide in the closet by society and, more importantly, by the law.
They're slowly learning that they can come out in public and not get stoned, or lynched, or raped ('cos damn Queers are always asking for it, right?). They're learning that sexuality and even gender aren't nearly as black-and-white as they'd previously been told to believe, and that it's finally okay to show their colours.

So yes, you dumb, ignorant schmuck, there are more LGBT people than you once thought. A lot more.
 

Pinky's Brain

New member
Mar 2, 2011
290
0
0
The Almighty Aardvark said:
What exactly is the liberal propaganda here? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it isn't having a gay protagonist.
Three gay characters in an universe where romance is usually rather rare.

Ignoring that, propaganda is a matter of intent as much as content. To borrow a concept from the other isle, he might not even do it consciously, maybe he can't help himself trying to push social boundaries ... casual propaganda ;)
 

Gone Rampant

New member
Feb 12, 2012
422
0
0
This is the author who tweeted that people don't like Aftermath because he's not Timothy Zhan.

This isn't exactly making me want to take him claiming he got homophobic comments at face value, and by Christ could he not an abrasive prick? This is my first time hearing about Aftermath, and the nature of the author's comments aren't making me wanna rush out and buy it.

Besides, KOToR had Juhanni back in '03- only Lucasarts was complaining then.
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
I don't see the problem with a 'diversity checklist' so to speak. Topics of race, gender and sexuality do crop up in everyday conversation... why should Star Wars be any different? People like characters they can identify with. I can also see the flipside of this, if there was no race/gender/sexuality checklist at all, then half of all tv/film personas should be asian, and 10% should be gay. Stop shoving caucasians down my throat!

I get Wendig's argument. The idea that people who decry the 'diversity propagandists' should then decry any interstellar futuristic depiction of humanity as to not having populations relative to current race/gender/sexuality statistics.
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Aetrion said:
Oops.


Overall the problem with writing gay characters into fictional stories is that if you're really writing about lasers and spaceships then the sexual orientation of the characters simply doesn't matter. Trying to make it matter distracts from the story you should be telling.

It's why we consider romantic movies to be their own genre despite the fact that almost every movie has a romance in it and romances can play out in any setting. You could set a romance in deep space and have it feature laser battles, but it would still be recognizable as a romance, because the defining feature of it would be that the tension arc of the story would revolve around the outcome of the relationship, not about the outcome of the laser battles.
You'll forgive me if I find this argument disingenuous given about 60 mins of the trilogy was solely about Han Solo and Leia and their deepening relationship. Pretty sure their romantic attachment constitutes major defining points of multiple key scenes. I also don't think you can write them off as inconsequential, nor Star Wars being a love story.
 

Paradoxrifts

New member
Jan 17, 2010
917
0
0
I can barely stomach reading about heterosexual romances, let alone more complicated arrangements. As a general rule romantic subplots are at their most bearable if not enjoyable for me when they appear in a longer running series of books that have been following around a well-established central protagonist. I gotta actually care about a fictional character first before I give a shit whether or not they get their end wet or not. One book is just generally insufficient for me to be engaged in a character's personal entanglements, although naturally some authors are better then others at writing these sorts of things.
 

sumanoskae

New member
Dec 7, 2007
1,526
0
0
The Star Wars universe has always felt kind of sexless to me, and I've always found that aspect of it rather jarring and artificial. Oh, sure, the girls will dress sexy here and there, people will kiss, get married, children and pregnancy just sort of... appear, but I can't remember sex itself ever being mentioned even in a round about way, and the few occasions in which the act itself could be argued to be implied are always stealthy enough to maintain plausible deniability.

To be fair, I did hear about a pretty obvious sexual encounter taking place in one of the recent comic books, but the fact that it stood out kind of proves my point.

Where am I going with this? Well, let's think about why the franchise takes the stance it does. In all likelihood, it comes down to that old ideal of being "Family Friendly"; Star Wars probably depends on little ones to make a lot of doe, and we can't have their parents forbidding them from buying it's products.

After all, these parents are well within reason; I mean, if a small child were to see, read, or play through a story in which someone has sex they might... suddenly know that sex exists? Which would hurt or otherwise inconvenience them... somehow.

This argument doesn't really hold up to scrutiny does it? But it does do a fine job of elegantly dismantling the point I'm opposing.

When it comes to issues surrounding homosexuality, "Values" are always brought up. "Think about what kind of values this instills in our kids; it's an attack on our traditions".

Let's define that last word; all a "Tradition" really means is a practice or belief that is transmitted from one generation to another. The merit or use of the tradition itself has nothing to do with the word; the content is irrelevant, if you learned it from mom and pop, it's a tradition.

With that in mind, consider the term "Attacking traditional values", often used as a form of accusation. What jumps out at me, is the lack of adjectives; adjectives like "Reasonable" or "Healthy". There is nothing in this defense that even speaks of the nature of the values in question, as though the fact that they are "Traditions" is itself evidence of why they must be protected.

But tradition on it's own isn't worth jack shit, because literally almost ANYTHING can be a tradition. The knowledge and practice of how to run a lucrative slave plantation was traditional in this country not so long ago.

So in the absence of description, what can we infer is meant by this term of phrase when it refers to the LGBT community and the depiction of sexuality in family friendly media in general? Well, we can infer by way of inverse; what values would a story be communicating if it was meant for children and included elements of unmistakable sexuality?

Let's try to set up an example as close to home as we can: What if in Empire Strikes Back, Han Solo and Leia Organa were at some point shown lying together in a bunk aboard the Millennium Falcon embracing and quite obviously nude? There doesn't even need to be direct nudity, we can throw in a conveniently placed blanket and some careful camera angles and it would still be pretty obvious that these two just knocked boots.

Ignoring for the moment whether this scene would have fit naturally into the film's pacing, what real effect would it have? Are we implying that sexually mature people sometimes elect to engage in sex? I don't think so; that requires no implication. Are we implying that it's okay for them to do so? I would certainly hope so; the human race depends on it. Are we implying that it's okay to have sex outside of marriage? Well, I can't imagine we are, because no child without knowledge of sex or our hangups around it would ever come to a conclusion as ridiculous as an act being unhealthy or evil until the church, the united states government, or any given ship captain approves of it.

We tried that whole "Religious authority + depraved violations of human rights" equation before, with the crusades, and found that, crazy as it sounds, the answer was not "= Righteous and totally okay violations of human rights". Somehow, the act of butchering innocent people doesn't become more palatable in the context of approval via men in stupid hats.

Getting back on topic, let's just say that there are some kids who see this scene, and never having heard about sex before, ask mom and dad what Han and Leia just did.

Now, I'm sure plenty of parents might feel uncomfortable or blind sided by this situation, but isn't that in itself worthy of note? We're talking about the act that literally keeps the human race going, which does not by default involve any violence, unpleasantness, or moral ambiguity, and the physical process of which is literally simple enough for a dog to understand. How on earth could anyone be unprepared to explain it? It is at LEAST tied for the position for the most natural thing in the world.

We know why, of course; sex is accompanied by all kinds of other shit. There's consent, STD's, protection, the issues of religion, shame, and self image; the list goes on and on. Now it's obvious why so many people are unable to explain sex simply; they've gotten into their heads that they don't really understand it. Odds are, you will struggle with one of these myriad issues at some point in your life, and it's similarly possible that you may never actually come to terms with it.

Some people never get over the shame in their sexuality instilled into them at a young age; some people never feel like they're attractive; some people go through traumatic sexual encounters that they never truly escape from.

It's interesting that the adults being asked by their child to explain how sex does and/or should work are so often themselves still trying to answer that question.

Maybe we could all use a talk from mom and dad about the birds and the bees.

That would certainly explain why so many of us are holding on so desperately to our collective "Don't ask, don't tell" rule.

"Don't make me explain to my kid how sex works, I have no idea!"

If we were comfortable with how we and our society viewed the subject we wouldn't be so worried about kids getting the wrong idea from media; it's pretty fucking easy to explain to your kids why you shouldn't dismember your children or Force choke the shit out of your pregnant wife; it's easy to explain why telekinesis, Lightsabers, and Yoda don't exist; it's easy to explain why Jar-Jar Binks is the physical manifestation of sin.

Now, it's a tad more difficult to explain why the Dark and Light sides of the force could be described as both opposing each other and enabling each other's existence, and how both the Jedi and Sith are actually dangerous extremes on the scale of pragmatism and idealism, or how Darth Nihilus is an elaborate metaphor for post traumatic stress disorder and satirizes the underlying Sith ideal of power above all else by painting a figure who has lost everything else- and this is quickly getting out of hand.

But if we're to believe that all that is okay, that all of it can be rationalized and explained away if necessary, then we must infer that the idea of two adults engaging in consensual sex outstrips ALL of that in implication and complexity... But I don't buy that an act that is required knowledge for even the most moronic dipshits on the planet could possibly be that goddamn complicated, if we're doing it right (Otherwise there wouldn't be so fucking many of them).

My theory is that we're living in a world that works so hard to cut us off from our instincts that we have to navigate an elaborate web of lies, half truths, understatements and exaggerations just to find them again.

But is ignoring and maintaining that web of lies the value that we're defending? I suspect it might be. Usually, complex social pathology acts a lot like any other disease; ignoring it just makes it worse. But ignoring it is exactly what we're doing if we interpret any attempt to to draw attention to it as a personal attack.

If the "Value" we're transmitting through generations is that we should all just ignore our sex hangups, make up some bullshit about a stork, and hope everything just gets better, it's no wonder we've managed to make such a mess of things.
 

Aetrion

New member
May 19, 2012
208
0
0
PaulH said:
You'll forgive me if I find this argument disingenuous given about 60 mins of the trilogy was solely about Han Solo and Leia and their deepening relationship. Pretty sure their romantic attachment constitutes major defining points of multiple key scenes. I also don't think you can write them off as inconsequential, nor Star Wars being a love story.
So, take the entire romance sub-plot out of the movie. Does it change anything about what's going on? No, it doesn't. I mean sure, some scenes are defined by the fact that characters have an attachment to each other, particularly the sequence in Jabba's palace wouldn't be there if they just all went "Meh, fuck Han Solo, never liked that guy anyways", but does it require them to be lovers? Nope.

Throwing a romance sub-plot in a movie is done to titillate the audience and fill more seats, so obviously they are going to pander to the largest possible audience.
 

Mad World

Member
Legacy
Sep 18, 2009
795
0
1
Country
Canada
Unprofessional, biased article. Those criticizing the books made some good points. If it's forced, it's not going to enhance the story. But because they are displaying distaste for gay characters being included in the book, of course they have to be wrong, right?
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Aetrion said:
So, take the entire romance sub-plot out of the movie. Does it change anything about what's going on? No, it doesn't. I mean sure, some scenes are defined by the fact that characters have an attachment to each other, particularly the sequence in Jabba's palace wouldn't be there if they just all went "Meh, fuck Han Solo, never liked that guy anyways", but does it require them to be lovers? Nope.

Throwing a romance sub-plot in a movie is done to titillate the audience and fill more seats, so obviously they are going to pander to the largest possible audience.
So... why should you care? Pretty sure the tonal shift actually makes a difference. So your argument is effectively that romance is a capital investment in audiences, but you decry it as tokening homosexuality if they were to make an irrelevant romantic entanglement? You'll forgive me if this seems like mental gymnastics. So you're effectively making the argument that unless a homosexual relationship is deeply impactful on everything in the entire movie, it's merely 'diversity quota' ... ?

If it makes no difference, why do you care? If it does make a difference, then why do you care?
 

spartandude

New member
Nov 24, 2009
2,721
0
0
Ok I've got to put something out there. To the people who say that they arn't homophobic but it's just a forced thing to have gay relationships in here, if these were heterosexual couples no one would complain or may be some people might say "the love story was just there" but the fact it's homosexual brings out calls that it's bad to be in there.
 

Aetrion

New member
May 19, 2012
208
0
0
PaulH said:
So... why should you care? Pretty sure the tonal shift actually makes a difference. So your argument is effectively that romance is a capital investment in audiences, but you decry it as tokening homosexuality if they were to make an irrelevant romantic entanglement?
I think you're deliberately misunderstanding what i'm saying so you can ride your high horse around a bit. If putting homosexual romances in movies as sub plots actually brought more people out to see the movie it would be done all the time.
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Aetrion said:
I think you're deliberately misunderstanding what i'm saying so you can ride your high horse around a bit. If putting homosexual romances in movies as sub plots actually brought more people out to see the movie it would be done all the time.
Perhaps, but then why does it make it a point of conjecture if the author merely chooses to make a homosexual relationship in their works? I fail to see how this is an argument. What if an author directly wants to challege the established commercialism of media? Maybe they're tired of pandering to demographics, or morality warriors?
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
Aetrion said:
Diversity isn't the issue, the issue is when characters become nothing but vessels for identity politics or a shield to deflect criticism.
That's pretty much all there is to it.
Today, it's the "Gay revolution" or "Diversity". 50 years ago, it was Civil Rights. Before that it was communism.
(hey, I didn't say they all ended well)

Each generation, there's always some batch of authors/creators trying to "reshape" their audience via exposure to whatever because they want to be at the forefront of "progress" when they think it happens. Alas, that is the path of "propaganda" and "preaching", rather than genuine or good storytelling.

Shoehorning in characters just to satisfy some real world progressive narrative, hurts the story's narrative.
We saw it flop with tokenism, and it will flop again, because expression is a two-way street.
The author is free to express whatever they want, but the audience is free to accept or reject it.

When the first and seemingly best defense for a work is to call the audience names and attack their character, methinks the process of expression is breaking.
 

Aetrion

New member
May 19, 2012
208
0
0
PaulH said:
Perhaps, but then why does it make it a point of conjecture if the author merely chooses to make a homosexual relationship in their works? I fail to see how this is an argument. What if an author directly wants to challege the established commercialism of media? Maybe they're tired of pandering to demographics, or morality warriors?
If the author has something interesting or important to say about homosexuality then they should write a book about homosexuality, not a StarWars book.
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Aetrion said:
PaulH said:
Perhaps, but then why does it make it a point of conjecture if the author merely chooses to make a homosexual relationship in their works? I fail to see how this is an argument. What if an author directly wants to challege the established commercialism of media? Maybe they're tired of pandering to demographics, or morality warriors?
If the author has something interesting or important to say about homosexuality then they should write a book about homosexuality, not a StarWars book.
Yes, heaven forbid ... have a good life, mate.
 

Buckets

New member
May 1, 2014
185
0
0
He is perfectly entitled to include the characters he wishes in the book. That is his creative licence. The Star Wars universe as a whole has an abundance of alien races which have little or no back story (thanks to the EU being disregarded), I'm sure their cultures and sexual diversity could easily have been adapted to suit the narrative. Why it needs to specifically be a human character that is homosexual only he can know, its his story after all.

The people that are going to read the story are going to read it, a lot won't. That is their choice but I think he has done himself no favours with the rant, it comes across as self righteous by flicking two fingers up at the potential readers for having a different opinion.

For the record I wont but just because I loved the Dark Empire, Rogue Squadron and Thrawn Trilogy versions of history which don't exist so I'll stay in my own timeline.