DB/Fiction's Handling of Diversity

[RedRibbonSoldier#42]

As far as relating to characters being a requirement for enoying a story, who on Earth actually feels represented by Gokuu? He's a dumb but genius jobless battle crazed asexual alien who doesn't age.

[Jinzoningen MULE]

My opinion about diversity, the end of the day, as it is with many things; Put up or shut up. Let people write their stories however they want, and if you don't like it, get out and write something better. Even if it's a project like The Devil's Corpse's, where you're just re-writing the story to iron out some of the narrative flaws, people will find it if it has any worthwhile appeal. If SJW's are influencing media in a way where stories are undergoing forced diversity or self-censorship among corporate writers, tough shit. Go out and write something better! If you're an SJW, and you're disturbed that too many straight, white males aren't being inclusive enough, tough shit. Go out and write something better!

That's called a free market, it's this crazy little right-wing idea of mine. Is that too disagreeable?

[UltimateHammerBro]

That's called a free market, it's this crazy little right-wing idea of mine. Is that too disagreeable?

I don't think it is In fact, it's an ideal situation IMO.

For a time, I delved into the world of webcomic creators, and I saw pretty much everything which has been talked about here. I saw someone tell that he had created a non-white protagonist (what's worse, his race wasn't even defined, but he applied a screentone over his skin and thought of him as ambiguously brown) and some racist people in Reddit had started giving him shit for that and calling it pandering

However, I also saw a guy who had done a story with a mostly white cast, set in a mostly white environment (I think he was Eastern European, but it's been a long time and I couldn't be sure), and after showing it to the English language part of internet some people started calling him a racist of the worst sort for not including the idea of diversity expected in American media. The discussion quickly evolved into accusations of fascism and whatnot.

[ABED]

That insidious pandering.

I just don't understand why Claremont needs to check so many boxes!

Couldn't he just tell a normal superhero story about white characters from similar backgrounds?

Stan Lee did. X-Men volume 1 bombed hard. Turns out reading about a bunch of affluent white people can be kinda dull.

It didn't bomb because it was about characters who happened to be white.

[rereboy]

Changing Thor, a well-established superhero icon, into a woman for seemingly no reason at all is forced diversity.

That's I don't get why is there is so much diversity lately in the last few years. Like 10-15 years ago, no one was like "Hey let's make Thor into a Women" or bullcrap like that. Where the hell did all of it come from?

Something different -> controversy -> people talking -> potential money

It's always about money.

[ABED]

Changing Thor, a well-established superhero icon, into a woman for seemingly no reason at all is forced diversity.

That's I don't get why is there is so much diversity lately in the last few years. Like 10-15 years ago, no one was like "Hey let's make Thor into a Women" or bullcrap like that. Where the hell did all of it come from?

Something different -> controversy -> people talking -> potential money

It's always about money.

That's a fairly cynical view. I don't think that's the case. I do think the writers believe they are doing good. I honestly believe that morality is a bigger driver in most people's decisions than making a few bucks. The issue is what their ethics are.

[rereboy]

That's I don't get why is there is so much diversity lately in the last few years. Like 10-15 years ago, no one was like "Hey let's make Thor into a Women" or bullcrap like that. Where the hell did all of it come from?

Something different -> controversy -> people talking -> potential money

It's always about money.

That's a fairly cynical view. I don't think that's the case. I do think the writers believe they are doing good. I honestly believe that morality is a bigger driver in most people's decisions than making a few bucks. The issue is what their ethics are.

Nothing is ever 100%, I was being hyperbolical, but in cases like the one being discussed, aka female Thor? 99,999% sure it's the case.

[ABED]

Something different -> controversy -> people talking -> potential money

It's always about money.

That's a fairly cynical view. I don't think that's the case. I do think the writers believe they are doing good. I honestly believe that morality is a bigger driver in most people's decisions than making a few bucks. The issue is what their ethics are.

Nothing is ever 100%, I was being hyperbolical, but in cases like the one being discussed, aka female Thor? 99,999% sure it's the case.

I get the hyperbole, but I read many of the comments written by the creators/writers and they comes across as very earnest in their intentions. It's about the "social justice" issue for them. It could be that they wouldn't admit it in public, but I believe them. Not to go on a political rant as this isn't particular to any one party, but I truly believe that politicians are also driven more by their ethics than the money.

[Basaku]

I'm all for female characters, but it's all about execution (isn't it always?). Story and character comes first, not a political statement.

Lack of diversity is a political statement in itself. This isn't about making sure every fictional story contains perfect 50/50 male-female ratio among its cast of characters just for the sake of it or that every fictional story has 5% gay characters. This is about not actively excluding diverse/different characters just for the sake of fitting with the current political climate. All art is created in a political environment because it's made by humans, not aliens. Arguing that diversity = political statement while lack of diversity ain't is nonsense.

[ABED]

I'm all for female characters, but it's all about execution (isn't it always?). Story and character comes first, not a political statement.

Lack of diversity is a political statement in itself. This isn't about making sure every fictional story contains perfect 50/50 male-female ratio among its cast of characters just for the sake of it or that every fictional story has 5% gay characters. This is about not actively excluding diverse/different characters just for the sake of fitting with the current political climate. All art is created in a political environment because it's made by humans, not aliens. Arguing that diversity = political statement while lack of diversity ain't is nonsense.

I never said it was inherently. But there's a big difference from writing a show where it's about two female characters, such as Gilmore Girls, vs. writing Buffy where it was explicitly about female empowerment. I wouldn't say lack of diversity is at all a political statement. The EPs of Friends weren't making any sort of message when their cast was primarily white people. The females were just as integral and just as funny as the males. The writers just wrote a story and let the characters be the characters. They cast the people who were right for those parts. That's not the same as actively excluding them. And just because all stories are written in a political environment doesn't mean all stories have a political agenda.

[rereboy]

Lack of diversity is a political statement in itself.

For there to be a political statement, there has to be a conscious and willing action (to restrict diversity, in this case). Someone who just happens to focus on what he finds more familiar is not automatically doing that.

[Basaku]

And just because all stories are written in a political environment doesn't mean all stories have a political agenda.

For there to be a political statement, there has to be a conscious and willing action (to restrict diversity, in this case). Someone who just happens to focus on what he finds more familiar is not automatically doing that.

They reflect one that is currently the status quo in a given society/environment the particular work of fiction is created. Concious or not, it doesn't just so happens by accident. Obviously a concious effort to improve/correct the situation it is required, unless of course you think it should all happen by accident or "naturally" evolve without any thought or concious assessment. But in such random scenario then we could end up, say in 100 years, in a reverse situation where for example only women overwhelmingly dominate popular entertainment and pop culture and men would be 'unconciously' excluded. That would be just as stupid as the current situation.

[ABED]

And with Friends, there was a balance of the sexes. Should they also now have to consider balancing race instead of telling their story about a time in your life when your friends are your family? No, it's beside the point. Not every work of art is intended or should be about making the world more equitable on every issue. Often it's just what the author thinks is interesting and entertaining.

[rereboy]

And just because all stories are written in a political environment doesn't mean all stories have a political agenda.

For there to be a political statement, there has to be a conscious and willing action (to restrict diversity, in this case). Someone who just happens to focus on what he finds more familiar is not automatically doing that.

They reflect one that is currently the status quo in a given society/environment the particular work of fiction is created. Concious or not, it doesn't just so happens by accident. Obviously a concious effort to improve/correct the situation it is required, unless of course you think it should all happen by accident or "naturally" evolve without any thought or concious assessment. But in such random scenario then we could end up, say in 100 years, in a reverse situation where for example only women overwhelmingly dominate popular entertainment and pop culture and men would be 'unconciously' excluded. That would be just as stupid as the current situation.

Simple and unconscious reflections of the status quo and the environment we live in can't be considered political statements because, otherwise, every single thing we do would be political statements.

[ABED]

Basaku, earnest question. What do you think my fundamental position is on the issue of diversity in art? I ask because I don't want to be talking at each other instead of to each other.

[Basaku]

Often it's just what the author thinks is interesting.

Sure, but often it's totally about excluding diversity, playing it safe. As for Friends, well we could have a whole giant discussion about American TV & movie industry casting culture and history so I'm not exactly sure it's the best example to support your argument. Or the fact that Friends wasn't about any random group of friends and their "time in life when your friends are your family" in Wyoming, but in New York City, one of the most diverse metropolies in the US. But it is what it is and the show was created 2 decades ago. We're here now and there's no reason whatsoever why anyone should restraint themselves from asking for more diversity and inclusivitety in fiction & popular entertainment. The positives outweigh the negatives or potential screwups that may come along way.

Basaku, earnest question. What do you think my fundamental position is on the issue of diversity in art? I ask because I don't want to be talking at each other instead of to each other.

Since you asked I'm gonna be honest I think that you're not against it and you also hate the idea of anything forced on the creators & authors of fiction. All great, but the problem is in the fact that you're completly unfomfortable with any authors, creators or society ever held responsible for shaping up the state of fiction, art & entertainment where white staright males overwhelmingly dominate. You prefer to think it's just something that happened in a vacuum of artistic souls randomly in complete separation & detatechement from negative political trends of societies the authors lived & worked in or even their own views and intentions. Why is that is a good question, in best-case interpretation could simply be a very optimistic & good-spirited (if naive) outlook at intentions & actions of humans that gives everyone benefit of the doubt. But you don't stop at this. With no one responsible and no one at blame for the current state it opens it up for you to justify to yourself that "SJWs" or really anyone asking for diverse casting/characters as the only party attempting to influence the art, fiction & entertainment and you focus on that and make it your core argument.

Simple and unconscious reflections of the status quo and the environment we live in can't be considered political statements because, otherwise, every single thing we do would be political statements.

If a religious person shouts & screams "make my God the official President of the country!" at the stairs of parliment it is still a political statement regardless if said person never in their life questioned or thought about their own religious belifes and how they came to be (by beight taught by the parents for example).

[rereboy]

If a religious person shouts & screams "make my God the official President of the country!" at the stairs of parliment it is still a political statement regardless if said person never in their life questioned or thought about their own religious belifes and how they came to be (by beight taught by the parents for example).

That's obviously not what I'm talking about. Not only is that person doing something that is obviously not the status quo, but that person also, willingly, went to the trouble of getting to the stairs of the parliament and making a loud statement with the objective of applying political pressure to inflict a political change in the country and in the presidency. That person clearly, without a doubt, wanted to make a political statement and did it.

Obviously that doesn't compare at all with, for example, an author that writes a comic (or a book or a series, etc) without any actual political intention and the characters he naturally comes up with in it end up simply reflecting his environment which might not be very diverse.

[Doctor.]

Sure, but often it's totally about excluding diversity, playing it safe.

Why is playing it safe bad? Why should a writer be forced to write something they don't feel comfortable writing?

[Basaku]

That's obviously not what I'm talking about.

Yes it is. There are many religious people who would not consider even for a moment that such move would be making a political statement, they would just do what feels natural and "perfectly logical" for them. Just as in case they decided to write comics for living and all their character would 'naturally' proclaim the appointement of God as the official government of the country in the fiction. Uncouncious, yet still a political statement.

Why is playing it safe bad?

There's about 70 million reasons why playing it safe may be bad in various industries, fields, branches of science and life in general. In case of casting? If a Hollywood producer only auditions white actors for a role that was written in a way that it could be played by any race (or even gender) in a blockbuster movie, then playing it safe limits the potential pool of good candidates (maybe a black actor who would otherwise came for the audition turn out to be the best fit for the role but never gonna know if the casting call is only open for white actors), makes the issue of white actors dominating popular entertainment even worse etc.

[ABED]

Or the fact that Friends wasn't about any random group of friends and their "time in life when your friends are your family" in Wyoming, but in New York City, one of the most diverse metropolies in the US. But it is what it is and the show was created 2 decades ago.

And it's not the show's job to put diversity above casting the right people for their roles. Sure, the city is diverse, but it's not equally diverse. You're going to get a different mix in Harlem than you are in the West Village (which is where Friends primarily takes place). And it should be noted that the creators of the show were a Jewish woman and a gay male who lived in NYC.

If a religious person shouts & screams "make my God the official President of the country!" at the stairs of parliment it is still a political statement regardless if said person never in their life questioned or thought about their own religious belifes and how they came to be (by beight taught by the parents for example).

How is that unconscious? That person is making a very diliberate decision to speak on a political issue.

in a blockbuster movie, then playing it safe limits the potential pool of good candidates (maybe a black actor who would otherwise came for the audition turn out to be the best fit for the role but never gonna know if the casting call is only open for white actors), makes the issue of white actors dominating popular entertainment even worse etc.

Then the issue is they are shooting themselves in the foot by not getting the best actor for the role. Besides, it's all subjective. What you consider better won't be the same as everyone else.