A hopefully non-controversial thought on character diversity in media.

[Zhukov]

Yeah, The D-Word.

When people advocate for diversity in fictional characters they tend to approach their argument from a doing-good-deeds angle, often sprinkled with a little think-of-the-children. Representation, sending a message and such.

I vaguely agree with those points, but I don't know enough about the subject to offer any insight and it's not what I want to address here. I want to take a much simpler approach.

Basically, can we all agree that people generally enjoy seeing fictional heroes that reflect aspects of themselves?

For reasons not entirely clear to me this is often approached through the lens of race/gender/sexuality. Hence the cry of "straight white male hero" and the painfully predictable retorts of "needs a black disabled gay trans otherkin".

However, this enjoyment can come from almost any character trait. For example, I am a rather taciturn and soft-spoken person. As such, I got a bit of a kick out of Mad Max: Fury Road which starred a hero who barely speaks and tends to mutter, grunt and mumble his way through what dialogue he does have.

Was Max's manner of speech the most important part of the movie for me? No, not by a long shot. Would I have still enjoyed the movie if the hero was otherwise? Yes, almost certainly. But Max being as he was did increase my enjoyment of the movie.

I see no reason to deny that small enjoyment to others who may not get to experience it as often as me or begrudge them when they do get it.

 

[Kenbo Slice]

I like diversity. But not when it's done just to have diversity because at that point it becomes pandering (see every Marvel comic for the last 7 years or so).

 

[Zhukov]

I like diversity. But not when it's done just to have diversity because at that point it becomes pandering (see every Marvel comic for the last 7 years or so).

"Pandering".

Ever ask yourself why it's only called pandering when it's aimed at someone else?

"Here's a Stock Default hero"
"Very good, carry on.
"Now here's a hero who differs slightly from the default."
"PANDERING!"

Like I said in the OP, if someone out there gets a little buzz out of Ms Marvel being a Muslim kid or whatever, I see no reason to begrudge them that buzz.

[Edited in a futile attempt to try to avoid the usual buzzwords.]

 

[Kenbo Slice]

I like diversity. But not when it's done just to have diversity because at that point it becomes pandering (see every Marvel comic for the last 7 years or so).

"Pandering".

Ever ask yourself why it's only called pandering when it's aimed at someone else?

"Here's a Stock Default hero"
"Very good, carry on.
"Now here's a hero who differs slightly from the default."
"PANDERING!"

Like I said in the OP, if someone out there gets a little buzz out of Ms Marvel being a Muslim kid or whatever, I see no reason to begrudge them that buzz.

[Edited in a futile attempt to try to avoid the usual buzzwords.]

No. The problem is with Marvel these new characters character trait is "THEY'RE BLACK!/MUSLIM/ASIAN/GAY!" And that's really all these new characters amount to. Nothing. I like different heroes, but when they don't seem forced or unnecessary.

Kamala Khan is a great example. Plain character, easy for people to project themselves onto. She's honestly quite boring and just there to be the token Muslim. Now, DC did it right by creating Simon Baz and giving him a good backstory and character arc, and not allowing his religion/race to be his only defining trait.

 

[Saelune]

I like diversity. But not when it's done just to have diversity because at that point it becomes pandering (see every Marvel comic for the last 7 years or so).

"Pandering".

Ever ask yourself why it's only called pandering when it's aimed at someone else?

"Here's a Stock Default hero"
"Very good, carry on.
"Now here's a hero who differs slightly from the default."
"PANDERING!"

Like I said in the OP, if someone out there gets a little buzz out of Ms Marvel being a Muslim kid or whatever, I see no reason to begrudge them that buzz.

[Edited in a futile attempt to try to avoid the usual buzzwords.]

The issue is poor writing. Marvel has always pandered to progressives, but it was ok cause it was better done.

Now its just lets give this mantle to a minority person and claim to be progressive.

I dont mind, and infact want more diverse characters in comics, I just wish they were done better, and not just giving established mantle to whatever.

Falcon becoming Captain America is an example of doing it -right-. Falcon was his own person for decades, and in-universe became Roger's close friend and ally. He earned the title of Captain America, one that is also established to be passed around. It made sense for Sam Wilson to become Cap.

Lady Thor's real issue, aside from poor writing is that "Thor" is a given name, not a title, so Jane Foster should not be called Thor, but well, I guess "Jane". When I learned she became "Thor" I was less bothered by who, just that it doesnt make sense for the name...and her refusing to be cured of Cancer, thats just dumb.

All the others are just poorly done.

Really, I think Marvel should stop satus quo'ing themselves, and try to make NEW characters and NEW identities. Even historical comic characters were new characters once.

 

[Kenbo Slice]

I like diversity. But not when it's done just to have diversity because at that point it becomes pandering (see every Marvel comic for the last 7 years or so).

"Pandering".

Ever ask yourself why it's only called pandering when it's aimed at someone else?

"Here's a Stock Default hero"
"Very good, carry on.
"Now here's a hero who differs slightly from the default."
"PANDERING!"

Like I said in the OP, if someone out there gets a little buzz out of Ms Marvel being a Muslim kid or whatever, I see no reason to begrudge them that buzz.

[Edited in a futile attempt to try to avoid the usual buzzwords.]

The issue is poor writing. Marvel has always pandered to progressives, but it was ok cause it was better done.

Now its just lets give this mantle to a minority person and claim to be progressive.

I dont mind, and infact want more diverse characters in comics, I just wish they were done better, and not just giving established mantle to whatever.

Falcon becoming Captain America is an example of doing it -right-. Falcon was his own person for decades, and in-universe became Roger's close friend and ally. He earned the title of Captain America, one that is also established to be passed around. It made sense for Sam Wilson to become Cap.

Lady Thor's real issue, aside from poor writing is that "Thor" is a given name, not a title, so Jane Foster should not be called Thor, but well, I guess "Jane". When I learned she became "Thor" I was less bothered by who, just that it doesnt make sense for the name...and her refusing to be cured of Cancer, thats just dumb.

All the others are just poorly done.

Really, I think Marvel should stop satus quo'ing themselves, and try to make NEW characters and NEW identities. Even historical comic characters were new characters once.

The first step should be firing Bendis.

 

[Zhukov]

[snip]

[snip]

You'll have to forgive me but I'm really not equipped to get into an argument about the specifics of Marvel characters since I (a) don't read Marvel comics and (b) consider every superhero comic garbage until proven otherwise.

 

[Kenbo Slice]

[snip]

[snip]

You'll have to forgive me but I'm really not equipped to get into an argument about the specifics of Marvel characters since I (a) don't read Marvel comics and (b) consider every superhero comic garbage until proven otherwise.

Kind of a shitty thing to assume they're all garbage when there's tons of great stories.

 

[Saelune]

[snip]

[snip]

You'll have to forgive me but I'm really not equipped to get into an argument about the specifics of Marvel characters since I (a) don't read Marvel comics and (b) consider every superhero comic garbage until proven otherwise.

Yeah, wasnt trying to turn this just about Marvel. Sorry.

 

[Zhukov]

[snip]

[snip]

You'll have to forgive me but I'm really not equipped to get into an argument about the specifics of Marvel characters since I (a) don't read Marvel comics and (b) consider every superhero comic garbage until proven otherwise.

Kind of a shitty thing to assume they're all garbage when there's tons of great stories.

*shrug*

Maybe it's because I grew up in the 90s, but every single one I ever read was shit. At some point I decided to stop throwing good hours after bad and moved on to other mediums.

It's rather like how I assume every kind of animal urine tastes bad. I suppose I could try drinking dolphin piss on the off chance it bucks the trend, but is it really worth it?

I'll concede that some of them have lovely artwork. Makes me feel bad for the artists actually. They do all that great illustration only for some hack to scribble their woeful dialogue all over it. They probably don't even get payed all that well.

 

[Kenbo Slice]

[snip]

[snip]

You'll have to forgive me but I'm really not equipped to get into an argument about the specifics of Marvel characters since I (a) don't read Marvel comics and (b) consider every superhero comic garbage until proven otherwise.

Kind of a shitty thing to assume they're all garbage when there's tons of great stories.

*shrug*

Maybe it's because I grew up in the 90s, but every single one I ever read was shit. At some point I decided to stop throwing good hours after bad and moved on to other mediums.

It's rather like how I assume every kind of animal urine tastes bad. I suppose I could try drinking dolphin piss on the off chance it bucks the trend, but is it really worth it?

I'll concede that some of them have lovely artwork. Makes me feel bad for the artists actually. They do all that great illustration only for some hack to scribble their woeful dialogue all over it. They probably don't even get payed all that well.

The 90's was a fairly dark time for comics tbh. Only a handful of good stories. But there's a bunch of good modern stuff.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Ahh, pandering. A complaint I've heard about every character that wasn't a generic white, straight male, or about casts of characters where the generic white, straight males aren't in the majority.

Back on topic: Sure, some people like good characters that share characteristics, some people like characters that are different than they are, and/or some people enjoy characters that are different than what they're used to.

So heck yeah, bring on the diversity. Why limit ourselves?

 

[The Lunatic]

I'm fine with diversity.

The problem I have is diversity for the sake of diversity.

If you want to, for example make a story about a female warrior in the middle ages, dealing with the physical limitations of the female form and the status a woman has at that time, that's interesting.

If you want to make a story about a woman in the middle ages with dyed hair, a "Tough" attitude and the ability to swing around a two-handed sword like it's a tennis racquet, that's just a boring Mary Sue.

Most often, it seems that diversity has to be about presenting a certain demographic as exactly the same as everyone else and without any flaws or defects.

Rather, I think we should have games that explore the differences in culture, explore racism, sexism and all that, not just pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[KissingSunlight]

I have no problem with diversity. Like other people say, it's about bad writing. It's about making their race or other diverse characteristics their only personality quirk. I'll also add when people complain that a diverse character is a villain or an anti-hero who does bad things. Also, when people needlessly change characters in established IP's that damage the integrity of the story. *ahem* Fantastic Four (2015).

Let me add, the political correct side that are for diversity have been more bigoted this year. When they complained that Zoe Saldana was "not dark enough" to play Nina Simone. http://newsone.com/2039971/zoe-saldana-nina-simone/

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

"Diversity for diversity's sake"

So what the hell is "default", and why?

 

[Prime_Hunter_H01]

While there is a population of people who do actively dislike diversity and think any hint of it is an agenda, see the Jimquisition episode on the game Virginia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QLmLaNyJBE (I do not remember how to embed)

I think the push back is more against a lazy check list approach to diversity, its the idea of the token x. I do not read comic books though for some of the Marvel ones mentioned I remember the announcements for those characters were framed as more of a PR gesture. In these cases I hope the word pandering was mistaken for the word condescending.

To me it felt like they were presenting the main attraction at a zoo, using diversity as a gimmick to draw in a target demographic rather than letting the work speak for itself.

When done right it should be organic, don't present the character as diverse, just make the character and present them as a character. If any one has a problem with it for the reason of diversity, let them bring it up, if the idea of diversity is a selling point to someone, let them make that conclusion them self.

We should have already passed the point of token representation being enough, though thanks to remaining prejudice it can be easy to lump people who are unimpressed with diversity for diversities sake in to the same crowd that is actively against it.

 

[Saltyk]

This is a thorny subject. So much so that I fear this thread will get locked before long. And one that I have mixed feelings on.

On the one hand, I do not mind changing a character's race/sex/whatever if it doesn't really change who the character is and especially if the actor really fits the role. As an example, I didn't mind Marvel making Heimdall black as it really doesn't change anything about who he is. And, for all you can say about the movie Daredevil, Michael Clark Duncan was the perfect person to play Kingpin (too bad the movie wasn't better).

On the other hand, I tend to have issues when you change a character's race/sex when those are key aspects of who they are. Imagine the uproar if they had cast someone who wasn't black to play Black Panther, even if that person was a different minority. This is why I didn't like the casting of Johnny Storm in the last fantastic Four movie as he is supposed to be the brother of Sue and her not being the same race just distracts from their characters. Similarly, I have issues with every single person in The Last Airbender.

The concept of pandering was also brought up, and I will say this is something I can understand as well. I won't say it will always ruin a movie (Tilda Swinton being cast as the Ancient One instead of a person who could even pass for Tibetian was pandering to China for example), but I do think it speaks ill of the frame of mind that a work is made in. That it's being made to send a message rather than to entertain. And that also means that you're likely not getting the best people working on it, but people who have "conviction". I think this might be part of the problem with the recent Ghostbusters film. It was pretty obviously pandering. I think this hurt people's perceptions of the film going in, for better or ill. I guess you could say that making a small decision to pander to someone is not an issue, but making the entire film around pandering can very easily be an issue if it is not made with the right frame of mind.

At the end of the day, it's like this. Will changing a character alter them or the work in any way? Can you make the work better for it? Depending on the answers to those questions should tell you if changing a character's race or gender is a good idea.

 

[Zhukov]

Well, this thread is going exactly the way I was trying to avoid.

No matter how one approaches or frames the topic it seems people are determined to trot out the same points they do every time.

*sigh*

Fuck it.

If you want to make a story about a woman in the middle ages with dyed hair, a "Tough" attitude and the ability to swing around a two-handed sword like it's a tennis racquet, that's just a boring Mary Sue.

Ahh, the Mary Sue angle.

I don't quite disagree. But tell me, if I make a story about a confident, charismatic, unflappable and highly capable male action hero who kills all the baddies and gets all the ladies have I made a boring Mary Sue (or Marty Stu or whatever) or have I made a fun badass?

Because such characters, who are a dime a dozen, have a way of mysteeeriously avoiding the whole Mary Sue angle.

Rather, I think we should have games that explore the differences in culture, explore racism, sexism and all that, not just pretend it doesn't exist.

*story attempts to explore themes of culture or assorted 'isms through the identity of its hero.*
"Jeez, can't you just have your diverse hero without make a big deal about it and beating us over the head with a The Point?"
*story has diverse hero for the hell of it presented without further ado*
Jeez, if you're going to have a diverse hero you should at least do something with it rather than pretend the 'isms don't exist.

I don't really have a preference myself, I think either approach can work fine, but it's clear to me that you can't please everyone on that front.

I'll also add when people complain that a diverse character is a villain or an anti-hero who does bad things.

I actually agree with you here. Non-standard characters should be able to do the whole gamut of personalities and moralities and so forth.

Also, when people needlessly change characters in established IP's that damage the integrity of the story. *ahem* Fantastic Four (2015).

I'm going to spit your own words straight back at you on this one.

"It's about bad writing."

Would casting a white dude as Johnny have made 2015's Fantastic 4 any less of a stinker? Do you really think that is what damaged the integrity of that story?

Or does the bad writing caveat only go one way?

Let me add, the political correct side that are for diversity have been more bigoted this year. When they complained that Zoe Saldana was "not dark enough" to play Nina Simone. http://newsone.com/2039971/zoe-saldana-nina-simone/

You... did read that article that you linked, right?

Also, you might want to look up the definition of "bigotry".

 

[Zhukov]

On the one hand, I do not mind changing a character's race/sex/whatever...

...

At the end of the day, it's like this. Will changing a character alter them or the work in any way? Can you make the work better for it? Depending on the answers to those questions should tell you if changing a character's race or gender is a good idea.

Okay. Not to single you out or jump down your throat...

But.

Did I, at any point whatsoever, mention or allude to changing a character's race/sex/whatever?

Like I said, no matter how one attempts to broach this subject or from what angle, it always veers straight into this territory.

 

[Prime_Hunter_H01]

"Diversity for diversity's sake"

So what the hell is "default", and why?

It depends on what you mean by this question, default can mean the historically most common portrayal of protagonists, or what you would instinctively expect in a certain character role.

Diversity for diversities sake, at least to me is, putting to much emphasis on a trait, such as race, and expecting that appeal to carry the work despite bad writing, or unintentionally overshadowing the rest of a work due to a misguided marketing attempt.

The OP said it best, people want to see traits that represent themselves, and this can come from any trait not just physical. Though this has seemed to manifested in lazy attempts to appeal to some kind of moral high ground.

Best said by The Lunatic

If you want to, for example make a story about a female warrior in the middle ages, dealing with the physical limitations of the female form and the status a woman has at that time, that's interesting.

If you want to make a story about a woman in the middle ages with dyed hair, a "Tough" attitude and the ability to swing around a two-handed sword like it's a tennis racquet, that's just a boring Mary Sue.