Poll: Should stories be praised for being progressive?

[ThatOtherGirl]

Besides, don't you think that it would have been much better if they had revealed it when you had gained the character's trust? That would have made more sense to me. Having it up front like that just seemed... forced. Like they were advertising that this character was transgender to everyone that was playing the game, rather than building it up to it while talking to the character after recruiting her.

Not necessarily. Speaking as a trans person, in many situations I find it very convenient to just get coming out to a person out of the way at the first decent opportunity. There are some situations where I will keep it on the down low, but sometimes I also just want to get it out of the way so I can know if this person is going to be worth interacting with or not. I hate to make new friends only for them to flip out and get mad at me and be all prejudice in my direction when they find out I am trans, which they inevitably will because I don't have the energy or desire to hide it in my day to day life. I don't want to establish trust with someone if they are just going to abuse it later.

 

[shrekfan246]

Well, in the defense of Pokemon, The Legend of Zelda, and Final Fantasy, one of the core tenants of Baldur's Gate, among other things, is the relationship you have with your party members and how much they trust you, where as in Zelda and Final Fantasy, that is not the case. Besides, don't you think that it would have been much better if they had revealed it when you had gained the character's trust? That would have made more sense to me. Having it up front like that just seemed... forced. Like they were advertising that this character was transgender to everyone that was playing the game, rather than building it up to it while talking to the character after recruiting her.

For the record, I haven't played Siege of Dragonspear yet but I think the reaction to it was utterly, mindblowingly stupid. I don't care how poorly-written the character was or was not, the way people responded to it was disproportionately angry and entitled, as it always happens to be whenever people are upset about "SJWs". (And I say this because yes, I did look up the reaction, and by and large most of them were just whinging about "SJWs" and "progressivism", rather than actually criticizing a damn thing in the game.)

So, if one of your rivals in Pokemon was transgender, you wouldn't mind? Or if, say, you could play as what amounts to a female version of Link? Or if one of the main characters in Final Fantasy XV turned out to be transgender?

What, exactly, makes the distinction between something being "forced" and not? Why does there need to be some arbitrary length of time before a character is allowed to come out as being "non-standard"? Why do they need more of a reason than "because the writer thought it was a good idea"?

Again, nobody ever questions why a character is a straight white male, unless they're trying to make a point in threads like this one or asking why we can't have more variety in our fiction. So why does everybody suddenly start demanding that representation needs to explain itself whenever a minority character appears in anything?

 

[Gengisgame]

No, that doesn't mean you can't prefer as an individual, I tend to prefer caucasian protagonists because that's what I am, an oriental is more likely to prefer n oriental protagonists, a black may prefer a black protagonist. A progressive may prefer a non-white protagonist because they think it makes the world a better place and it makes them happy.

There's 2 types of praise where talking about here.

Praise because you like.

and praise because you think it's morally superior.

I think there's something messed up with the latter.

 

[Ryallen]

Well, in the defense of Pokemon, The Legend of Zelda, and Final Fantasy, one of the core tenants of Baldur's Gate, among other things, is the relationship you have with your party members and how much they trust you, where as in Zelda and Final Fantasy, that is not the case. Besides, don't you think that it would have been much better if they had revealed it when you had gained the character's trust? That would have made more sense to me. Having it up front like that just seemed... forced. Like they were advertising that this character was transgender to everyone that was playing the game, rather than building it up to it while talking to the character after recruiting her.

For the record, I haven't played Siege of Dragonspear yet but I think the reaction to it was utterly, mindblowingly stupid. I don't care how poorly-written the character was or was not, the way people responded to it was disproportionately angry and entitled, as it always happens to be whenever people are upset about "SJWs". (And I say this because yes, I did look up the reaction, and by and large most of them were just whinging about "SJWs" and "progressivism", rather than actually criticizing a damn thing in the game.)

So, if one of your rivals in Pokemon was transgender, you wouldn't mind? Or if, say, you could play as what amounts to a female version of Link? Or if one of the main characters in Final Fantasy XV turned out to be transgender?

What, exactly, makes the distinction between something being "forced" and not? Why does there need to be some arbitrary length of time before a character is allowed to come out as being "non-standard"? Why do they need more of a reason than "because the writer thought it was a good idea"?

Again, nobody ever questions why a character is a straight white male, unless they're trying to make a point in threads like this one or asking why we can't have more variety in our fiction. So why does everybody suddenly start demanding that representation needs to explain itself whenever a minority character appears in anything?

To answer your first question, no. I really wouldn't mind if one of the characters in FFXV was transgender or if the rival in Pokemon was transgender. This isn't a thread based from anger, but rather from curiosity. I had a question that I wanted an answer to, so I posted this. I feel like you're seeing anger where there is none.

Second, about the Siege of Dragonspear thing, I read the dialogue. It was really, really bad. You know those Family Guy cutaway gags where there's an obvious setup then a punchline? It was like reading that, except there was no punchline but someone coming out of the closet for their sexual identity. And the goblin thing also bothered me, if you read what I posted about that.

Third, when I say forced, I mean shoe-horned in. As in put in for the sake of itself and no other reason. Such as having a black character simply to say that there is a black character, or a transgendered character to say that they have a transgendered character. I admit, that with a black person there should be little to no distinction. With someone who identifies as a different gender than what they were born as, I feel that there would be some distinction in how they act compared to people who aren't transgendered.

I'm not demanding anything other than just opinions on a rather complicated topic. You seem to be projecting frustration for a marginalized group onto me, despite my apparently failed attempts at calm conversation. I apologize if I seem like someone that you described

 

[RedDeadFred]

No. Being progressive or not should be something that adds depth to the world of the story, not something to praise it for. Our world hasn't always been progressive and in many ways, still isn't. If stories were always progressive and were praised as such, we'd have a rather limited scope for storytelling based on the human experience. Prejudices are such a major part of human conflict, so I don't see doing away with them in storytelling as somehow making that story inherently better.

 

[shrekfan246]

Third, when I say forced, I mean shoe-horned in. As in put in for the sake of itself and no other reason. Such as having a black character simply to say that there is a black character, or a transgendered character to say that they have a transgendered character.

This is based purely on your own perceptions of whatever media you're interpreting. You're the one assuming that these characters are token. This does not answer my question, because you are still setting yourself up as some arbitrary gatekeeper for what is "shoe-horned in" and not. You seem to hold some very specific criteria that must be implemented before a character is allowed to be something other than "default", and if those criteria are not met then those characters need to otherwise justify their existence because they're not good enough. What, pray tell, would justify their inclusion to you?

I admit, that with a black person there should be little to no distinction. With someone who identifies as a different gender than what they were born as, I feel that there would be some distinction in how they act compared to people who aren't transgendered.

Oh boy.

No.

Trans people aren't magical space unicorns. They're people. Just like you or me. A lot of gay men aren't particularly effeminate either. These are negative stereotypes created and driven by toxic societal standards.

Why do you think a trans person would conduct themselves any differently than a "normal" person? You do know that by and large many trans people just want to be seen as "normal"?

 

[Recusant]

How many of you are light enough to hang from a tree, suspended only by your tail? How many of you can properly brachiate as a full-grown adult? This is what "progressive" means, at least as it's being used in this day and age: evolution. It's not about moving toward something, but away from something. It's not about what's right, only what's later. The people of the twenty-second century will look back on you in horror because you killed animals for food (or permitted others to do so). The people of the twenty-fourth will look back on you in horror because you killed plants for food. The twenty-third will think you monstrous for considering men equal to women, the twenty-fifth for thinking adults equal to children.

While I have little doubt that our current cultural zeitgeist is being espoused by people genuinely trying to do the right thing, nobility of intention doesn't guarantee nobility of methods, let alone results. So, should we praise stories exemplifying the ideological flavor of the month? Should the people of the 1850's have praised Communist stories? The people of the 1920's eugenicist ones? The people of the 1530's Protestant ones? Should we steer our society to reward pushing an ideology on its own people- its own children?

This is not the question we should be asking. The question we should be asking is where's George Santayanna when you need him?

 

[Kingjackl]

I'd say so, diversity is how you get better stories. But that means diversity of all views, not merely stories that reflect YOUR political views.

For example, 'Gran Torino' is a fantastic movie because it shows us the perspective of a jaded unapologetically racist man and how he learns to accept the people around him in a changing world. The story of that movie is progressive, but it doesn't shy away from showing us the ugly parts of the world as well.

Also, look at Mad Max: Fury Road. One of the best movies of last year, and also one of the most unsubtly feminist. That aspect is part of what made it resonate with people. So yeah, people like when stories try to break new grounds, and it can make them better as a result.

 

[Areloch]

Much as a game mechanic or story trope chosen for the express purpose of being different and being able to list it as a bullet point, I'd say no.

If those are done well, then it should be praised for being well handled, same as any progressivism, but it should not be praised solely because it is included.

 

[Fox12]

Sure, I think there's something courageous about putting your reputation on the line in order to stand up for your morals. That diminishes if there's nothing to lose, though. Do I think it was courageous of Victor Hugo to write Les Mis when monarchies were still in charge? Yeah. I mean, he eventually got exiled over that kind of thing. Would I think he was courageous if he wrote that now? Not really.

Honestly, the only time I get annoyed is when a writer pats themselves on the back for this sort of thing. For instance, if a writer has a female character do something badass, and then a male character goes "but you're a girl." I've seen this before, and I hate it, because the writer is telling us he's being inclusive. A better way of doing it would be to simply have the female character do something badass, because that's part of her character. She's still challenging old school female gender roles, but in a more natural and fluid way.

Umm... if you want to?

So, here's the thing. Why do you think it is that only minority characters are required to justify their existence?

Why isn't the question, "Why is this character a Straight White Male? How does this add to his character? Does this character sufficiently explore what it means to be a Straight White Male? If not, why does he need to exist? Was this character just included to pander to the Straight White Male lobby?"

Anyone who does ask those questions is doing it to make a point, like I am right here, and usually gets shouted down for being a feminazi SJW etc etc.

Other kinds of people exist. Surely they're as valid a character type as ye olde Straight White Male (possibly with brown hair).

Honestly, I never get people who think anything not the 'default' needs to be justified. Are they confused by real life? Looking around going 'Well what does that person being black add to their character? Why is this person a woman?'.

OP: I guess you could say that I praise things for being progressive/diverse just because I am kind of bored of the default, so it's nice to see things which are different. I don't really understand people who do not ever get bored of the Straight White Male parade. I think, (I hope), over time that we will get to a point where it doesn't need praising because we have a wider range of diverse stories available. I don't think we're quite there yet, though.

Not only that, but is it really even progressive to have black people in fiction... Just existing? Why would people get up in arms over a character having a black parent? I've seen the same thing happen with Saga, where people have been moaning about the interatial romance, even though the color of their skin doesn't factor into the story at all. Why does it even matter to some people?

 

[Zontar]

It's almost as if the mere existence of minority characters is enough to constitute undue attention in the eyes of some.

That's true for some, but I was more talking about characters who have whatever it is that makes them a minority have that be a part of their character beyond it being a part of who they are. A perfect example is Steve Cortez from Mass Effect 3, who had it spelt out for the audience that he was gay when he first met Shepard. The problem is it was handled in such a ham fisted way that made it clear his role in the story was only to be the gay character and not to be a dynamic and interesting one. He also followed the odd trend in entertainment of gay characters telling other people they just met that they are gay, which is odd because this doesn't happen in real life conversation. Put it down to laziness across the industry, but the way people who are gay make others aware of that fact in conversation is nothing at all like we see in most entertainment, and for a lot of people that takes them out of it as a result.

Do you think this would happen if there were more such characters?

When there is one single [insert minority here] character then, yeah, they are often seen as representative of that group as a whole and the writer's attitude toward said group. Personally, I think it's unfair and hasty to assume underlying motivation like that, but I understand why it happens.

See the problem is that the issue which prompted the backlash against The 100 was that one of the multiple gay characters on a show where people regularly got killed ended up killed. Hell, the story arc in question had quite a few characters killed, yet it was only the one who had basically no choice but to be offed due to contractual obligations that people complained about.

The whole issue stemmed from a character being treated like a character instead of being treated like a perfect princess.

Oh yeah, gotta maintain that realism.

That's been the driving force behind the progressivism of Hollywood Liberals for the past 50 years after all.

I'm not even joking about that, the more openly left leaning members of Hollywood's elite actually complain about the fact entertainment isn't more realistic as a whole, and it's why we saw the rise in gritty urban series in the 70s.

Though in any event using a male or female character for specific type of stories is simply due to the fact it's easier to suspend one's disbelief that it makes sense. A story about someone in the military is far more likely to be of a man simply because over 90% of forces in most nations are men (unless the entire story is about the difficulties of a woman trying to fit into a system designed for men due to its nature and purpose requiring such to be the case).

We're subconsciously more likely to suspend our disbelief if the little things are realistic to how we understand them. Like in my examples in previous posts, it's hard for us to take a female cast for a story like Generation Kill seriously because it just doesn't happen in real life, or a male cast of something like Sex and the City because men who do the things that show's cast does don't tend to have anything resembling the personalities they do.

 

[WindKnight]

Snip

I didn't wanna leave this hanging, but I can see we're not going to agree. It's fine if you don't think media needs more representation, but I do think that.

So I'll just agree to disagree.

How can you do this. I'll never understand people who can 'agree to disagree' like this, I barely even grasp the concept.

I mean, he's so obviously wrong. It's not without reason I'm not always good with people.

Cause ultimately, your not going to be able to agree, and any further arguments are essentially rehashing the same points over and over, potentially getting more heated until someone says or does something heated that they either regret, or causes problems generally. Its just 'yeah, lets leave this here before one of us starts screaming and throwing poop'

 

[lacktheknack]

Do you value progressiveness?

<spoiler=Yes>Praise it!

<spoiler=No>Don't praise it!

 

[Worgen]

Progressiveness in media is kind of like an accurate portrayal of video games in media. By this point we shouldn't have to praise it, but we still do. Even today, in 2016, we still hear atari sounds being used as a short hand for someone playing a video game and its still rather rare for people that aren't the default, white male to get as much of a voice. We are getting better but still not there yet.

 

[Gorrath]

I voted yes but that's probably because I identify as a social progressive. As to my actual reasoning; a piece of media can and shuld be praised for what sets it apart. If you present me with a good show starring a bunch of typical characters I've seen a million times, it's still a good show. If you present me with a bad show full of characters I've seen a million times, it'll still be a bad show. If you present me with a good show full of characters I rarely get to see, I'll probably enjoy it all the more. Not only do I get to see good writing, directing, cinematography, I get to see a diverse and interesting cast playing those roles. And if the show sucks, I at least get to see something outside of the norm.

Sound like a horseshit argument? Consider the following. What if we got all the Marvel movies we've had and loved (well, most of us) and imagine all those same movies, same characters, same writing and directing but every single actor was a same-y looking white dude with a five-o-clock shadow. Would that add or detract from the experience? What if Black Widow was this guy, Spiderman was this guy, Falcon was this guy? Would that make the whole experience better or worse? I'd say worse, as it'd make it all less interesting to look at, to watch.

How about a terribad movie? A really shitty film unbound by any redeeming factor? Is that film made worse by having stuff you've never or barely seen before? Imagine Rocky Horror Picture show where the whole cast is straight. It would make the show not just bad but fucking boring to boot.

Diversity is good from a creative standpoint and it's good for everyone! The great misrepresentation about diversity in media is that it only benefits some minority. It doesn't, it benefits us all! So, should diversity be praised? Yes, quite, unless you have a situation where it somehow is detracting in a real meaningful way from the media. Everything should be judged within its context and on its merits and I think diversity is more often than not going to be meritorious.

Prove me wrong!

 

[mecegirl]

I'd say yes only because its still rare. It shouldn't be progressive to have diverse characters but it is and its crazy that it is. Our media is so cookie cutter nowdays that any deviation from the norm is a step forward. Of course there is a difference between something being praised just because vs being praised for doing something well. I just think we get to hung up on things being done well. Not everything that isn't progressive is done well and we allow it to slip under the radar. If summer action blockbuster is shallow but has a straight white male protagonist we just turn our brains off and enjoy. If the protagonist or even a side character is anything else but a straight white male folks start crying tokenism or nit picking everything. When really unless the characters was written to fulfill some tired and/or derogatory trope why should we care? Why can't the super spy be a Chinese american woman? If she blows shit up and looks cool while doing so then great. Its a summer blockbuster. They can get into issues or race and sex but it isn't necessary. And in a way just letting it be is progressive because it's treating her the same way the would a white male character. For a wish fulfillment type of story the point is that the main character is just bad ass, so no need to show her overcoming racism or sexism.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

It is not a good quality in and of itself, however having more diversity overall is good. It does not improve the work but it does something to alleviate a problem.

It's like if it was standard to name the protagonist Mark. There's nothing wrong with that name. The name Leonard is not superior. But if everyone kept naming the main character Mark it might be nice to see people break that trend. It doesn't improve the story, but it is a nice change to a standard that exists for no good reason.

 

[Callate]

It kind of depends, to my mind. I think there are two extremes that work pretty well.

One is, "This character is 'x' (insert typically under-represented group here); so?" That is, just do it, don't make a big deal of it. Dare to imagine a world where being 'x' doesn't mean said character has to be the exemplar of all 'x' could do if they weren't being kept down by The Man. Conceive of a character who is as good, bad, smart, stupid, talented, flawed, and human as everyone else. 'X' are people; that's all you need to say, no underscore or spotlight required. Like everyone else, they are among us, and we deal with them, and most of the time no one needs to go apoplectic about it.

The other is "I have something I feel is important I need to say about 'x'. And I understand that not everyone is going to be on board with that, so I'm going to earn your ear by presenting my position with intelligence and tact, taking other points of view into account, and recognizing that when all is said and done you may still disagree, but hopefully I will have won you over. But I have confidence that the issue is important enough, and my case well-presented enough, that I will have given you something to consider whether you were in agreement to begin with or staunchly opposed from the outset."

The problem is all the shit in between:

"Hey! This character is 'x'! I don't care if that offends you! Hell, I hope that offends you, because if you'd be offended by 'x', you don't deserve to be part of my select and awesome audience! 'X' is way more important than anything you might feel! In fact, it's so important, you're going to sit in that chair and listen while I go on about 'x' for thirty minutes straight, whether you like it or not! You owe me your attention while I talk about 'x', because you're not 'x', and so you're part of the goddamn problem!"

"...Hey! Where are you going?!"

If I wanted to be preached at, I would go to church. I do not owe you my ear, especially not in a product I paid for allegedly for its value as entertainment.

If what you say is interesting, and you present it well, you will probably find an audience. If you come off from the get-go as antagonistic, abrasive, and self-indulgent to your audience, it doesn't matter if you're advocating for people to keep breathing. It doesn't matter how awesome your cause is. In fact, you might want to consider if you're harming your cause if you think people owe it to you to agree, and the only response you want to hear is "Testify! Preach it!"

That's the reality, like it or not.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

I could post at length about this, but really, what's the point when everything's been said, and almost everyone's tucked away in their dogmatic corner, preparing pillow forts against The Enemy in a culture war that they rabidly willed into being.

Should art/entertainment be "praised" for being "progressive"? Why not, given it can be praised and criticised for all kinds of reasons. Art can have cultural and social value without being good, and can have none and be excellently crafted. Art reflects who and what we are; the past, the present, and the possible futures - it is a conduit for all these things. Given issues of race, gender, religion, sexuality, et al still need to be 'solved' in the world, art that reflects those forces in flux are logical and essential.

'Progressive art' (a term which might change drastically depending on subjective definition and culture. I mean, hell, I've heard some Americans regard Obama as an 'extremist', so cultural perceptions do kooky things to words... ) is not a threat to anyone or anything. It can be hamfisted, but so can all art. It can be egoistic and destructively myopic, but so can all art.

But, broadly speaking, it exists out of a desire and willingness for diverse, inclusive expression and connection - everyone wants a place in the world, everyone wishes to ostensibly understand it/themselves, and we do this through and with other people who can empathise with our perspective and existence. Ergo, I typically praise it because I see that its heart is in the right place.

...obvious caveat is obvious: that doesn't mean you need to hand out awards just for box ticking, not by a long shot. But there's nothing bad or damaging about positively acknowledging progressive values in a given work.

A story should be praised for being an awesome story; whether it's progressive or conservative or representative or whatever is hip these days seems irrelevant.

...to you. There's all kinds of art, and all kinds of people engaging with it.

To insist a form of expression be judged solely on X seems to be a rather narrow minded perspective (great works don't need characters let alone stories), and does art not have a relative cultural value beyond its core components?

If an awesome story has nothing but minorities it's still an awesome story; likewise if an awesome story has not a single minority in it, it's still an awesome story. There's no need to go all identity politics here - that path is filled with SJWs.

What's an SJW? I've heard a few hundred definitions of the ill-defined term, so I'm just curious what yours might be. PM me, if you like, to avoid further derailment.

As for going all "identity politics"; if art exists for us to express ourselves and to explore who and what we are, why should 'identity politics' (whatever that really means) be exempt? If you don't like art to function as a conduit for certain themes, then enjoy whatever you enjoy, but it seems churlish to begrudge other voices their own exploratory fun, be it done well or poorly.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

He brought up that he had a husband in a conversation where he was talking about how he died. So any time a person mentions that they have a spouse and it clarifies that they're gay, it's hamfisted? Is it hamfisted when someone brings up they're heterosexual marriage? Because I kinda doubt you'd say that. Tell me, how do you establish someone as gay without it being hamfisted? And in a way that there's no ambiguity of them being gay? Telling someone he just met that he was gay? Shepard walked in on him when he was listening to a recording his dead husband makes. The topic was brought up! It's perfectly freaking natural! It's the late 22nd century, I'd like to think people would've become more comfortable with idly revealing their sexuality. Especially when there's a race of pansexual hot space babes running around.

Gay people have a bad tendency to get killed in fiction.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BuryYourGays

For fuck's sake, the last season of the walking Walking Dead revealed that a woman was biesexual and then killed her ten minutes later. So I'm not terribly surprised that people are still sensitive about them being killed. The same way they're still sensitive about the one black guy being killed and women being raped just to make a man feel bad. No. The controversy stemmed from another corpse being added to the pile. Don't strawman people, thank you kindly. I think people would like a few more characters to get through their stories alive before they get gunned down en mass. Unlike straight people, they don't have an army of alternative replacements standing behind them.

I don't care what Hollywood thinks, because they're proven themselves to be utter idiots.

It's easier to suspend disbelief? Uh, says who? When I see a Space Marine rip off a Warboss' head, I don't think "Gosh, only a MAN could do that. Gene seeds don't work with women...because Games Workshop apparently only wants to pander to teenage boys" And what about military stories that take place in the future? With power armor and the like? I have to say, in a world that's ok with Guts cutting armored men and horses in half with one swing of his sword, Arnold gunning down hundreds upon hundreds of men, everything Master Chief gets up to, it feels odd that people just can't accept it being done by someone with XX chromosomes. It says...interesting things about our culture.

Yeah, it works if you want your story to have a gritty realistic feel, but for everything else that explanation doesn't fly.