White Actors Giving up Long-Standing, Non-White Roles

[Specter Von Baren]

I'm wary of the term (the term as it's used now doesn't reflect how it's used originally), but if I'm writing about Group X, and ask someone for help on Group X, then I'm assuming that Person X knows how to represent their group. And if Person X gives me the all-clear, but Group X are offended, then how is Person X going to be feel?

YES! Yes, exactly!

 

[Jarrito3002]

I am in the middle. Like I guess this is nice but I think it comes to a matter of casting and protraying the character.

Also I want to tackle the whole "best person for the job". That works in theory in practice I don't think it pans out like that. Between the old adage its not about what you know its about who you know and many place just dipping into a select pool of actors we have no idea who is falling by the wayside.

Using a sport analogy there is examples of number 1 draft picks being complete bust while some guy that got third round or undrafted manages to scrape and get some a shot on the team. But sports work way different than casting so it will be harder for those undrafted if you will to get their shot. Luckily with the advent of Youtube and other social medias I hope it has become much easier to sell yourself and your skills and not just move out and pray.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Should writers only write for the ethnicity/gender/sexuality they are?

No, obviously. However, there's something to be said for knowing in advance that the book you are buying is written by someone personally familiar with the subject matter. JK Rowling pretending to be a man who'd served in the Iraq War, for example, except for the lying bit.

Doesn't mean the author will get it right, but it's not a bad sign. I'd also say it's a bad sign when all the books people are reading about group X aren't the ones written by members of group X, though that's not an individual's fault.

 

[Buyetyen]

Depends what kind of feedback you're talking about. If we're talking about stuff like spelling, grammar, story structure, etc., then yeah, when I was with a writing group, that stuff came up all the time. Representation though? No. It didn't. And this wasn't for the lack of BAME individuals, it simply never came up. In part because what we wrote was predominantly sci-fi and fantasy, which does give you some wriggle room in this area, but not all.

I figured that the need for a certain perspective of critique is in proportion to its relevance to the source material was implicit, but yes, I agree. Ideally a lot of this should be done is research as well. If you're writing a detective story, you probably want to interview some PIs. You're writing a story that has several extended scenes in a hospital, go talk to some nurses and doctors.

On the personal level, it's a moot point for me for a variety of reasons, but if one's worried about representation, then asking someone about it can come under the category of "emotional labour." I'm wary of the term (the term as it's used now doesn't reflect how it's used originally), but if I'm writing about Group X, and ask someone for help on Group X, then I'm assuming that Person X knows how to represent their group. And if Person X gives me the all-clear, but Group X are offended, then how is Person X going to be feel?

The reason I'm neutral on sensitivity readers, at least at this point in time, is that their services are, as far as I'm aware, optional. And this also extends to other areas. For instance, Rick Riordan has shown himself to be comfortable in writing works based on Greek, Roman, Norse, and Egyptian mythology, but has the "Rick Riordan Presents" sub-series, where he works with authors to write from other mythologies; Hindu, Mayan, Amerindian, Korean, etc. If someone declared that Riordan couldn't write those works, I'd be iffy. Him helping other authors get their works published? That's fair game. It's his own choice, and even if you put the representation question aside, that's helping authors get their foot in the door.

As much as I babble, my advice ultimately comes down to three words: use your judgment. You'll get it wrong now and then, but that means you're trying at least. And that counts for something.

 

[Gordon_4]

I’m trying to recall if it was Orwell or another writer who said that for a writer there is no such thing as too much research. The only mistake you can make is trying to use all of it at once.

If you’re going to be writing about things that are hot button, controversial or anything like that or behooves a writer to ask the people that lived the experiences they’re trying to dramatise. You want to write a war novel; then talk to some returned or serving personnel. Want to do a hard bitten drama about say, being gay in 1970’s San Francisco, get your backside on a plane and talk to some older gay folks who were alive during the period. Want to do a historical fiction fantasy epic ala the Witcher or Game of Thrones, prepare to crack the spines on some seriously heavy duty books.

Tying this back in to animation; again unless it’s an animated biopic or ethnic legend, go fucking nuts. Blind hire based on audition strength. Just again, research.

 

[Hawki]

As much as I babble, my advice ultimately comes down to three words: use your judgment. You'll get it wrong now and then, but that means you're trying at least. And that counts for something.

Not sure why you're using "you" here - not a published author, never will be (not in a conventional sense at least). I mean, sure, every so often I might post something online that gives people or me pause, but it's not really an issue in any wider context. If I'm doing research for something, nine times out of ten it's going to be in-universe lore rather than real-world stuff.

That said, the idea of trying counting for something...a lot of the time, it doesn't. This isn't hyperbole, a lot of the outrage over this kind of stuff follows the idea that impact matters more than intent (this isn't me, that's a quote). The debacle over Blood Heir comes to mind more readily than anything else, but I can cite lots of other examples. And that's just in YA.

I mean, seriously, you think the gaming community can be toxic? The YA audience can be absolutely viscious on this stuff.

 

[SilentPony]

JK Rowling pretending to be a man who'd served in the Iraq War, for example, except for the lying bit.

Im sorry, what?

 

[Buyetyen]

Not sure why you're using "you" here - not a published author, never will be (not in a conventional sense at least). I mean, sure, every so often I might post something online that gives people or me pause, but it's not really an issue in any wider context. If I'm doing research for something, nine times out of ten it's going to be in-universe lore rather than real-world stuff.

I meant that as an impersonal you. Should have been clearer.

That said, the idea of trying counting for something...a lot of the time, it doesn't. This isn't hyperbole, a lot of the outrage over this kind of stuff follows the idea that impact matters more than intent (this isn't me, that's a quote). The debacle over Blood Heir comes to mind more readily than anything else, but I can cite lots of other examples. And that's just in YA.

I mean, seriously, you think the gaming community can be toxic? The YA audience can be absolutely viscious on this stuff.

Well, it counts to me for whatever that's worth.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Im sorry, what?

After writing Harry Potter, Rowling went on to do other things, including a crime series about a private detective who was ex-Royal Military Police, called the Cormoran Strike series. She wrote it under a male pseudonym, Robert Galbraith.

The Author's Biography states:

After several years with the Royal Military Police, Robert Galbraith was attached to the SIB (Special Investigative Branch), the plain-clothes branch of the RMP. He left the military in 2003 and has been working since then in the civilian security industry. The idea for Cormoran Strike grew directly out of his own experiences and those of his military friends who returned to the civilian world. ‘Robert Galbraith’ is a pseudonym.

It seems that I was wrong about the Iraq War bit, but she still claimed to be a British Army veteran.

 

[Hawki]

After writing Harry Potter, Rowling went on to do other things, including a crime series about a private detective who was ex-Royal Military Police, called the Cormoran Strike series. She wrote it under a male pseudonym, Robert Galbraith.

The Author's Biography states:

After several years with the Royal Military Police, Robert Galbraith was attached to the SIB (Special Investigative Branch), the plain-clothes branch of the RMP. He left the military in 2003 and has been working since then in the civilian security industry. The idea for Cormoran Strike grew directly out of his own experiences and those of his military friends who returned to the civilian world. ‘Robert Galbraith’ is a pseudonym.

It seems that I was wrong about the Iraq War bit, but she still claimed to be a British Army veteran.

Is that even legal?

I know author pseudonyms have been around for ages, but making up background for the author? I know the Nikki Heat books were presented as actually being written by Castle, but everyone knew that Castle was a fictional character (well, most people at least). But aside from that, and claiming to be a vet? Yeesh.

 

[Agema]

After writing Harry Potter, Rowling went on to do other things, including a crime series about a private detective who was ex-Royal Military Police, called the Cormoran Strike series. She wrote it under a male pseudonym, Robert Galbraith.

Is that even legal?

Totally. You can write under a pseudonym, and with a totally made-up history. I don't think it's even that rare, although it can be frowned upon if the book is posing as fact, autobiography, etc.

In fact, in the make-believe world where I even wrote stories (never mind having them published), I planned to have completely different author info on every single book to satirically mimic the guff you tended to see.

 

[Silvanus]

It seems that I was wrong about the Iraq War bit, but she still claimed to be a British Army veteran.

I had a quick google, and it turns out there is a book about Iraq war photography by an unrelated author coincidentally also named Robert Galbraith.

 

[ObsidianJones]

I already explained this. There's a minority of black people in the USA and only so many of those people will have the desire to become voice actors and only so many of them will have the competency to be able to be good voice actors, and only so many of them will have the opportunity or means to get into the industry, this means that the amount of black voice actors should be expected to be low. This isn't about it being fair, this is just looking at the statistics and what should be expected from them.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Could you rephrase it?

You are using examples of people that have done voices for incredibly successful shows as some of the most popular characters there are. This is also their net worth, not what they got paid for doing their voice work when they started out.

And don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that black people are incapable of entering the industry, but how long has just animation been at all a profitable business compared to live acting? Not very long, not until the 80's I'd wager, and the ability for people to display their talent on things like Youtube and get noticed has never been better, so I believe we should expect the number of black voice actors to increase.

How many talented singers do you think are in America?

Can you define what makes a girl who continually blows the roof of her hometown church not as good as Katy Perry?

Some of the worse voice acting I ever heard in my life comes from one of my favorite games ever. Silent Hill 2. Guy Cihi was stilted, not forceful or typically brash, and his performance made the game for many people because you realized this wasn't a superman dealing with a small type situation for him. This was a man who is woefully unprepared for it. But who is driven to find out the truth.

This is all to say that you're taking a subjective quality and you're trying to put it to raw numbers. Which is impossible. It absolutely doesn't matter is only one percent of the population of a certain race. There are like 40-50 people who work in Funamiation's stable. There's around 331,002,651 people in the US right now. 1 percent of that is 3,310,026.

You can find 40-50 talented people in just one percent of the current population easily. And again, like you pointed out, it's 13 percent. There's a ton of possibility there. Especially for a subjective thing.

Disney movies have been a thing since Steamboat Willie. Warner Bros killed it. Animation has always been profitable. Respected is an entirely different thing.

This is exactly the kind of thing where blind recruitment would make a hell of a lot of sense. It's hard to be racist or sexist when you don't know the race or sex of the applicant, and what someone looks like is more or less wholly unrelated to the job of voice actor.

Hey, I'm not going to disagree with you. You're right. Religion, Race, Weight, Sexuality, Gender, Political Background shouldn't enter into factoring what is the best candidate.

But what this country should be and what it chooses to be are always two different things.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

How many talented singers do you think are in America?

Can you define what makes a girl who continually blows the roof of her hometown church not as good as Katy Perry?

Just being a good singer isn't all that's needed to be a major singer. I myself am a very good singer (Or at least I'm told so by my co-workers and family) but my personality is not conducive for the kind of life that singers like Katy Perry experience, that's just one example. Think about acting as well, the kinds of things that a movie actor does are not the same as what a theater actor does. They both involve acting but there's a lot of differences between the two that creates different lives for those in those two professions.

Some of the worse voice acting I ever heard in my life comes from one of my favorite games ever. Silent Hill 2. Guy Cihi was stilted, not forceful or typically brash, and his performance made the game for many people because you realized this wasn't a superman dealing with a small type situation for him. This was a man who is woefully unprepared for it. But who is driven to find out the truth.

Yes? Voice acting in video-games was still considered an undesirable job for voice acting back then. Why wouldn't most of the voice actors be bad?

This is all to say that you're taking a subjective quality and you're trying to put it to raw numbers. Which is impossible. It absolutely doesn't matter is only one percent of the population of a certain race. There are like 40-50 people who work in Funamiation's stable. There's around 331,002,651 people in the US right now. 1 percent of that is 3,310,026.

White Americans make up 72% of the population, so that's 236,160,000. That's, what, 80 times bigger? If we look at the actual black population compared to non black population then it comes out to 42,640,000 for blacks (13%) and 285,360,000 (87%) that's about 7 times more which is a significant number. If we're talking about the representation of a race in a specific field then why would the percentage of that race in the population not matter?

And to the part you didn't understand, the way scarcity in this economy has always worked is the more rare of a thing, the more valuable it is. Since White people are the majority and therefore more ubitiqious, the logic dictates

This is very flawed logic when applied to jobs. Black people are no less or more human than anyone else. Are you suggesting that it would make sense for people to hire black people for novelty? What makes black labor better or worse than white labor? The point of hiring someone isn't to find the most unique human beings to hire, it's to find the person best able to perform the job, race shouldn't have any bearing on that.

You can find 40-50 talented people in just one percent of the current population easily. And again, like you pointed out, it's 13 percent. There's a ton of possibility there. Especially for a subjective thing.

That certainly sounds reasonable. I never said that black people can't be or aren't talented.

Disney movies have been a thing since Steamboat Willie. Warner Bros killed it. Animation has always been profitable. Respected is an entirely different thing.

No. No it hasn't. Animation has been very unprofitable for the majority of its existence. Disney only started to make big money once the park was made, before that they were very often on the brink of bankruptcy. They certainly had a lot of prestige for the quality of their animation, but that didn't translate to actual monetary success in animation until the Disney Renaissance.

 

[ObsidianJones]

*snip*

How much of Katy Perry is Katy Perry's experience? Do you know how Lady Gaga started out? Like this


But the point is still made. There are very, very good singers who are very good in what they do. And that subjective 'it' factor is missing in someone's eyes and is already there in others. Katy Perry does nothing for me. Lady Gaga does nothing for me. I, to this day, do not understand why Drum and Bass didn't take off in the United States. That genre, again to me, has everything that sounds good in the world. But it's subjective.

The difference between a good singer and a major singer is backing. Rolling in the Deep has had so many covers, I don't know if I can count them all. This one, in my opinion, puts Adele to shame. Yet Adele has a Billion views on that damn single. And I really don't know why.

Again, this is a subjective matter. You considering it undesirable doesn't make it de facto undesirable to all. There are people who did it because they just wanted a job, and there are people who did it because it excited him. Look up Guy Cihi and any of his interviews. Or hell, here you go. He is having the time of his life. He still talks about how it impacted to him to this day. And this was his one role. You're going to tell me it was undesirable to him?

If you noticed, I didn't finish the thought. In the middle of explaining the flaw in the logic, I thought it was worthless and I abandoned it. But the save feature of the forums saved it when I accidently clicked off of the thought.

But since you saw and answered, I want you to understand that very flaw in the logic that you have such an issue with is the exact same flaw in logic I see you make here.

Who cares what the percentage of the population is broken up to whatever fractions if we're supposedly just looking for the best actors? That doesn't enter into the conversation. This is a spurious argument to justify something. In every High school, there was one child who was a better actor than all the others. Do we chalk it up to where he or she was raised? What english teachers taught them? Do we question their diction, their poise, their breeding, their body size? No. We say that person is a talent. And if we want to be colorblind as you continually purport to want to be, then we're looking at the caliber of the performances and then measuring it against one or two or even ten people in casting.

How the hell can anyone reasonably suggest that 10 people know what everyone would consider the best voice acting for a certain character? Again, no one thought anyone could be a better Kratos than TC Carson, until Christopher Judge came along. And that doesn't mean he would have been the best voice for Kratos either. But if the casting directors have a limited view point, the best selection of that limited viewpoint does not denote the end-all, be-all in casting. The Best Kratos that would ever do it could be right now a Samoan that no one is looking at.

So to me, stating the percentage of white people in this nation is just as short sighted as stating because blacks are rare in this country, their voices are more unique therefore valuable. If I finished the thought instead of abandoning it, you would have saw me say that was just as asinine in my head than "because there are so many more whites, there has to be so many more better actors".

Talk to an actor. It's a perfect balance of natural skill, talent, and insane preparation.

And I said Warner Bros. Merrie Melodies. Looney Tunes. During the age of Block Booking, they were making substantial money selling their cartoons as a unit.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

How much of Katy Perry is Katy Perry's experience? Do you know how Lady Gaga started out? Like this

Ok? What is the point you're trying to make with this?

But the point is still made. There are very, very good singers who are very good in what they do. And that subjective 'it' factor is missing in someone's eyes and is already there in others. Katy Perry does nothing for me. Lady Gaga does nothing for me. I, to this day, do not understand why Drum and Bass didn't take off in the United States. That genre, again to me, has everything that sounds good in the world. But it's subjective.

Ok.

The difference between a good singer and a major singer is backing.

Rolling in the Deep has had so many covers, I don't know if I can count them all. This one, in my opinion, puts Adele to shame. Yet Adele has a Billion views on that damn single. And I really don't know why.

What are you trying to say with this?

Again, this is a subjective matter. You considering it undesirable doesn't make it de facto undesirable to all. There are people who did it because they just wanted a job, and there are people who did it because it excited him. Look up Guy Cihi and any of his interviews. Or hell, here you go. He is having the time of his life. He still talks about how it impacted to him to this day. And this was his one role. You're going to tell me it was undesirable to him?

Who said no one would do the job? Obviously someone's going to do it. Obviously there are people that are going to enjoy doing it. When did I ever say no one would? That's how industries grow, because some people take a chance on something or find the joys in something even if it's considered less desirable by the mainstream.

Let me try and describe it this way. Ask yourself why do germs mutate so much faster than animals like humans and cats and crows do? Because there's thousands upon thousands of them replicating all the time which increases the chance that one will have a mutation. In America the white population is larger than the black population which means there's way more chances that one will become an actor for whatever reason and that then sifting further down that one will go into voice acting and further down that one will become a video-game voice actor.

If you noticed, I didn't finish the thought. In the middle of explaining the flaw in the logic, I thought it was worthless and I abandoned it. But the save feature of the forums saved it when I accidently clicked off of the thought.

But since you saw and answered, I want you to understand that very flaw in the logic that you have such an issue with is the exact same flaw in logic I see you make here.

Well I wish I knew what flaw you were talking about because I haven't seen it made evident.

Who cares what the percentage of the population is broken up to whatever fractions if we're supposedly just looking for the best actors?

That doesn't enter into the conversation. This is a spurious argument to justify something.

Why shouldn't you care about it? It means there will be fewer black actors that are the best for the job. It really is that simple.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

In every High school, there was one child who was a better actor than all the others. Do we chalk it up to where he or she was raised? What english teachers taught them? Do we question their diction, their poise, their breeding, their body size? No.

Of course where they were raised and who taught them has an influence on them. Diction, poise, their genetics also have a role, even their body size will when it comes to what roles they play. You don't just have talent for no reason. The children of parents that are good at some specific thing tend to also be good at it, and the circumstances of their life are what lead to them finding that talent or not.

We say that person is a talent. And if we want to be colorblind as you continually purport to want to be, then we're looking at the caliber of the performances and then measuring it against one or two or even ten people in casting.

Why wouldn't I want everyone to be hired based on their talent?

How the hell can anyone reasonably suggest that 10 people know what everyone would consider the best voice acting for a certain character? Again, no one thought anyone could be a better Kratos than TC Carson, until Christopher Judge came along. And that doesn't mean he would have been the best voice for Kratos either. But if the casting directors have a limited view point, the best selection of that limited viewpoint does not denote the end-all, be-all in casting. The Best Kratos that would ever do it could be right now a Samoan that no one is looking at.

Not sure what you're trying to say with this. Talented black voice actors exist? YES! Of course they do! Why wouldn't they? A black person is no less capable of being talented than a white person.

So to me, stating the percentage of white people in this nation is just as short sighted as stating because blacks are rare in this country, their voices are more unique therefore valuable. If I finished the thought instead of abandoning it, you would have saw me say that was just as asinine in my head than "because there are so many more whites, there has to be so many more better actors".

How is it short sighted? How is it asinine?! It's basic science. The more of something there is the more variance you will find. Insects make up a gigantic number of the life on this planet compared to mammals and they have far more variance than mammals because there's so many more chances for differences to develop.

Talk to an actor. It's a perfect balance of natural skill, talent, and insane preparation.

Yes.

And I said Warner Bros. Merrie Melodies. Looney Tunes. During the age of Block Booking, they were making substantial money selling their cartoons as a unit.

No they weren't. Making money? Yes. Making a lot of money? No. Disney stopped being a purely animation studio because live acting was so much cheaper to produce. Hannah Barbara had terrible animation with incredibly simple designs and reused animation all over the place because that was the only way to do it. Why do you think so many animated shows were vehicles for toy sales? Because selling toys was the only way to make decent money off of it. Warner Brothers wasn't just an animation studio, of course they could compete when their standards for animation were lower and they had several other places to get money from.

And just look at the movies made while Walt Disney was alive. Snow White, success! Pinocchio, flop. Fantasia, flop. Alice in Wonderland, flop. Peter Pan, flop. The Sword in the Stone, flop. Dumbo, flop. Bambi, flop. Sleeping Beauty, flop. Yes you could make some money having shorts at the start of movies, but that's not a hugely successful business.

 

[Houseman]

In every High school, there was one child who was a better actor than all the others. Do we chalk it up to where he or she was raised? What english teachers taught them?

Don't we use "where they were raised" and the efficacy of the school system to explain systemic racism? If it applies there, shouldn't it also apply here?

 

[Buyetyen]

Why shouldn't you care about it? It means there will be fewer black actors that are the best for the job. It really is that simple.

In a vacuum it would be. But, and this is the critical part, humanity doesn't live in a vacuum. It's not that there is a paucity of actors of color, it's that they don't get many auditions. Chloe Bennet of Agents of SHIELD once mentioned that when she first started acting under her birth name of Chloe Wong, she didn't get many offers or auditions. When she took Bennet, her mother's maiden name, as a stage name, suddenly the offers and auditions started coming in. Funny, that.

How is it short sighted? How is it asinine?! It's basic science.

Correction: that's a logical syllogism based on the assumption of variation within a vacuum. Basic science would be actually forming a hypothesis and testing it.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

In a vacuum it would be. But, and this is the critical part, humanity doesn't live in a vacuum. It's not that there is a paucity of actors of color, it's that they don't get many auditions. Chloe Bennet of Agents of SHIELD once mentioned that when she first started acting under her birth name of Chloe Wong, she didn't get many offers or auditions. When she took Bennet, her mother's maiden name, as a stage name, suddenly the offers and auditions started coming in. Funny, that.

Citation please.

Correction: that's a logical syllogism based on the assumption of variation within a vacuum. Basic science would be actually forming a hypothesis and testing it.

You don't think scientists use percentages and population numbers in their work to make a hypothesis?