fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2979 ]

[ SECRET POST #2979 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2979 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16. [repeat]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 091 secrets from Secret Submission Post #426.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The thing is that if you know anything about history, you quickly discover that many of those 'there were no [Insert Minority of Choice] in that time period!' arguments fall flat. Off the top of my head, both in medieval Europe and in Ancient Rome people interacted often with black and middle eastern people, yet those facts are very rarely portrayed in fiction. And women and queer people have existed in all times.

And even if you pick a situation where it makes sense for all the character to be white men, an argument could be made that people can still criticize you for choosing to write a story set in that place/time. For example, there have been a million stories set during war before integration with soldiers as the protagonists, so at this point it has become something of a cliche to write from that perspective as opposed to, say, the perspective of the civillians of the country invaded or of the women, children and disabled men left behind in the soldier's country of choice.

But what if the author WANTS to write a story about soldiers? You're essentially telling them that they shouldn't write what they want to write because other people have written about the subject before, which is quite frankly bullshit.

No, I'm not saying that they shouldn't write what they want to write. I'm saying that if they write something clicheish they might criticized for writing something clicheish.

Again, you can do whatever you want as long as it's legal, but you have to be prepared to face the consequences. And if you're not ready to face criticism (which all stories face no matter what) like an adult, maybe you're not ready to put your story out there.

No offense, but I feel this argument is a bit unfair because it's so selectively applied.

Yes, there were black and Middle-Eastern people in Europe during the Middle Ages. But there are also black and white people in Asian nations today -- such as China, Korea, Japan -- and I NEVER, EVER hear any criticism of them regarding this issue. At all. Even in their modern shows it's still basically all Korea and/or Japanese people. You'll find much more criticism of medieval settings being all white people.

There's also the issue of cliché -- well, people write what they know. And if they have family that served in the armed forces, that might very well be an incentive to write about that. And I don't think it's fair to denigrate that into cliché. Or would you call a black person writing about the racism their grandparents face in the South cliché?

People can criticize, but that doesn't mean it's justified -- which is the issue I took with your description.

Yes, there were black and Middle-Eastern people in Europe during the Middle Ages. But there are also black and white people in Asian nations today -- such as China, Korea, Japan -- and I NEVER, EVER hear any criticism of them regarding this issue

Really? I have. I've seen quite a lot of criticism about the anti-black racism in Japanese media and also some criticism about how white people are portrayed in manga, but then again whether you heard criticism about one specific issues depends on how socially conscious your social group is.

A cliché is, by definition, an overused idea. Whether the person is talking about their own story has no bearing in that. If a million self-biographies are released, all telling the story of one white soldier going to war, it doesn't matter that all those stories were about a person's own experiences, the market is still going to be oversaturated with that.

Or would you call a black person writing about the racism their grandparents face in the South cliché?

Whether that black person's story is cliché or no would depend on how many stories about racism in the South told from that perspective there are. I'm not very familiar with that genre of literature, so I don't feel I can judge whether it's cliché or not.

Ultimately, the one "obligation" a story might have is to be entertaining and innovative. Clichés tend to be neither, which is why it's justified to criticize a story for being cliché. Since most stories are about white straight men, a story that is about that kind of character has a higher chance of being cliché.

But this is highly subjetive, of course. What kind of criticism, if any, do you think is justified?

I think, in the case of representation, criticism is justified when it ignores reality -- as another poster below mentioned. If you're trying to paint modern New York City as completely white, straight, and cis then that is utterly laughable.

Or if you were to make a documentary about the modern NBA that only focused on white players.

See the thing about representation is that i's very name -- representation -- means it is meant to reflect reality, to literally represent the world as it is.

So when you're perusing a work and you find yourself saying that a situation isn't likely then it's clearly not representing reality.

That sort of criticism is justified.

I see, that's a very interesting perspective. I think it makes a lot sense.

However, it could be argued that if all the stories being told within one culture represent only one very narrow portion of the world, even if each individual story is realistic by itself, the conjunction of stories is not representing the world as it is, but only a small subset of it.

For example: let's take it to the extreme and imagine that all the stories being told in America where about white male soldiers in a submarine in WWII. All TV, all movies, all books: they all talk about white male soldiers in submarines. There are no other stories being told. Each story is realistic by itself, since there were indeed submarines where there only lived white male soldiers. However, since the only stories being told in this imaginary world are those that dealt with white male soldiers living in submarines, and there's a significant amount of the world who are not white, male, soldiers or living in a submarine, the collective stories being told are not realistic nor reflecting reality. In that situation, I think it'd be justified to criticize those stories, even if the only sort of justified criticism was the one you describe.

Apologies for awkward/convoluted phrasing, english is my second language.

I think the situation here is such that criticism should not be directed at the work itself but of the producers and networks for not offering more diverse stories.

There's nothing wrong with a story about a bunch of white submariners. In and of itself, that is very reflective of history.

But then you have to ask -- why aren't stories about black soldiers being afforded the same opportunity? And that isn't an issue with the story about the white submariners so much as it is an issue with the network and the business executives who aren't willing to give the stories of POC soldiers a chance.

It's an issue of attacking the wrong person. Someone who wants to honor their grandfather and his history will be understandably upset if you criticize him for his book about it that features no POC characters (when that is, in fact, the situation his grandfather faced).

It would be far more productive to go directly to the publisher and criticize them for not giving book deals to black authors or other POC authors or white authors writing about POC the same sorts of opportunities.

You're speaking of a very specific hypothetical situation - someone wanting to honor their grandfather. But most writers are not looking to honor a loved one with their story. Most just pick a story that appeals to them, or that they think will be commercially succesful. Also, at the risk of sounding harsh, I think the feelings of the writer and whether they'll be upset or not are sort of irrelevant in this conversation. As I said, if you can't deal with criticism like an adult maybe you shouldn't put yourself out there.

I think criticizing the publishers for not giving an opportunity to more diverse stories is important, but I don't think that means that content creators are free of guilt or that they should be free of criticism. If nothing else, from a purely literary point of view, if you are producing the same kind of stories as everyone else from the same perspective, then you're probably not a very creative creator. Your stories will probably be unoriginal and boring unless you can bring something new to the table. That, in itself, is reason enough to criticize a creator.

Of course that is not to say that all stories about white men are boring, since writers keep thinking of new types of white men to write about.

Holy shit it's 4 am why am I awake.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2979 ]

Re: Do you think fiction has an obligation for representation?

Re: Do you think fiction has an obligation for representation?

Re: Do you think fiction has an obligation for representation?

Re: Do you think fiction has an obligation for representation?

Re: Do you think fiction has an obligation for representation?

Re: Do you think fiction has an obligation for representation?

Re: Do you think fiction has an obligation for representation?

Re: Do you think fiction has an obligation for representation?

Re: Do you think fiction has an obligation for representation?