fandomsecrets | [ 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

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.

[ 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?