I think I’ve said it before on this website, but nothing bothers me more than people who see things purely in extremes. Human society is so complex that any commentary on it needs to be approached with thought, perspective and sympathy.
It’s the lack of thought that really gets me. Most of what I write about–dustups over social issues–can be not only cleared up but avoided with a little thought. With a little sympathy. And certainly with a little perspective, because what it usually come down to is someone who is unable to think from the perspective of another person.
Then when called on it, either gently or robustly, they get defensive and miss the opportunity to think from the perspective of another person. And the argument progresses from there.
Now, I can fully expect a comment telling me how words like “misogynist” and “homophobe” and “racist” hurt people’s feelings and activist fans are not looking at things through the point of view of the struggling creator. And no doubt some reviewers are unfairly cruel in their zeal to be an entertaining read.
But that’s not what I’m talking about here.
I’m thinking, specifically, of a way writers can refine their craft and avoid dustups over social issues at the same time–by placing themselves in the shoes of a person with the same background as a character they are trying to write. By not using a minority character as a mouthpiece for the agenda of the majority, but instead doing the research and presenting a reasonable minority perspective–even if it means you have to deal with unfortunate questions. By making fully rounded and self-deterministic female characters rather than easy sex appeal for a coveted and vastly underestimated demographic. By concentrating on making fully realized people who carry their own plotlines which sometimes involve dealing with prejudice or romance, but doesn’t lead to burying a character in a toychest until it’s time for a very special issue on tolerance.
It probably takes some research, and some mistakes, and some arguing — but this should be the ultimate goal. Characters who are more like people than like ink on paper. Someone relatable to the reader. And if people who have similar backgrounds to the character you’re writing are offended by what you have that character saying or doing, then you’re not writing a realistic character.
June 21st, 2008 at 1:00 am
It’s soooo past time for me to moderate another Writing The Other panel. I wish I were going to some more comic conventions this year!
June 21st, 2008 at 1:50 am
While I agree that such ideals should be upheld I can understand how difficult it is to write deep characters representing minority demographics. The challenge is usually the audience’s perception, and the extremes percieved. The complaint is usually that a character is “black” or “gay” only in description and that it doesn’t affect their overall personality and the other complaint is that the character’s personality is based solely on their demographic (something that isn’t that much of an issue anymore due to our modern PC society). Sure, writers have to learn to balance how essential and relevant a character’s background is but readers also have to learn that said background doesn’t define the character nor does it NOT affect who teh character is.
June 21st, 2008 at 2:44 am
Check out what Matt Fraction does with Filipinos and the Philippines in Invincible Iron Man #2. I think you’d find his approach interesting.
Especially considering he defends it by saying he’s writing mainly for an American audience anyway, so therefore cultural accuracy doesn’t matter all that much.
June 21st, 2008 at 4:01 am
I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
Now, I will admit that part of that is because I’m drunk. BUT, the other part is that you haven’t provided any examples of the issue at hand. I kept waiting for you to reference something specific in this blog, but never saw it.
And while your general comments are more than welcome, a few specific cases would really help to illuminate your ideas.
In other words, I think I agree with you, but I would like a more substantive piece to further the discussion.
June 21st, 2008 at 1:03 pm
@Jojo: I read Invincible Ironman, and I didn’t think Fraction meant for the Honor Guard (I think that was their name) to be little more than sacrificial lambs. The only Asian-like aspect was really their names, which reminded me of the Great Ten’s team member names. Anyways, like I said, I don’t think Fraction meant to develop any deep characters in that instance so he was really held to much cultural accuracy anyways despite presenting a pretty accurate situation (I mean it’s not like we have monks in the droves over in the states).
June 21st, 2008 at 1:05 pm
dang, I meant “wasn’t really held to much cultural accuracy”
June 21st, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Was the use of ‘any’ and ‘nothing’ in the first para of a story about the evils of extremism meant to be funny?
June 25th, 2008 at 4:34 am
Rohan — I like to play too y’know.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
And if people who have similar backgrounds to the character you’re writing are offended by what you have that character saying or doing, then you’re not writing a realistic character.
It’s overly simplistic to presume that people from the same background will all behave in a uniform fashion and have the same reaction to varying stimuli.
Rather, people with similar backgrounds often have varying views and instinctive behaviour that can intersect, but also contradict. We are all complex webs of synapses, tendencies and emotions.
I’m more amazed at how few people realize THAT. The real irony is that you hinted at this unknowingly in your first statement, but lost its meaning:
I think I’ve said it before on this website, but nothing bothers me more than people who see things purely in extremes.
August 6th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Re: “And if people who have similar backgrounds to the character you’re writing are offended by what you have that character saying or doing, then you’re not writing a realistic character.”
To be fair to creators (as you’re trying to be anyway) I’d actually almost think people from a similar background to the character are more likely to get offended by what a character says or does than someone of a different background, if what the character says/does is similar but not exactly the same as that individual person (phew, tricky sentence). When something is distant from you its easier to let it slide, but when somethings close to home, its more agrivating.
If I could be as bold to suggest that since the majority of characters are from a majority background, and the majority of readers are from that background too, there are enough characters with these slightly differing viewpoints for majority readers to find characters they specifically identify with, so they don’t get offended by the variences.
With people of minority backgrounds, because there’s a smaller sample of characters to idenitfy with, the chance that a character will be close, but not close enough, to reflecting the persons `truth’ is increased.
So even when a creator tries really hard to be fair and acurate their job is automatically more difficult in that area.
Thats a theory (and one I just amde up) anyway. Is it offensive?
August 6th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
I spelt my own url wrong, this one’s right now, (if anyone wanted to reply to me dirrectly).
Also, hello Lisa. I don’t think I’ve ever commented to you before, though I’ve read your stuff. Thanks for being thoughtful. (You may have had a break down at a party I was at the other day where someone clung to their illformed and oft contradictory opinion (about opinions!) with such venom as to be maddening. They contested that all view points/beliefs weren’t just equally valid but rather equally true, and refused to try and explain where that left viewpoints that were fundamentally exlusionary to the point of accusing my questioning said apparent logical flaw as being merely an illustration of my own close-mindedness. Urgh).