Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
OF GAMES, REPRESENTATION, AND WOMEN'S CHEEKBONES
Posts
PentagonBuddy
View playlists
Closeauthor=LockeZauthor=PentagonBuddyThis amuses me, posted in a political hot topic discussion that has already been accused of being hostile
If they're saying shitty things in general, in Internet Public, most of the time I think it's best not to engage it. Involving yourself in incredibly hostile discussions is verrrrrry draining
Ah-hahahaha the irony was not lost on me
it is p funny but also worth noting that bit, specifically, is in reference to people complaining about what you're working on, not "should you get involved in Hot Topics in general?"
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Funny, I feel like most people would say the opposite. They won't jump into random arguments that have nothing to do with them, but they'll immediately engage with any argument about the problems with something they made. The integrity of their own creative output is, understandably, more important to them than a theoretical discussion about the creative output of other people.
I will say that in general I think "write what you know" is a fair policy. Most writers will write more believable stories if they write about their own group instead of other groups, and if they write about characters who are similar to people they know personally. For the most part this will usually mean that it's about as common to find a certain type of character in a story as it is to find that type of person in real life. After all, the number of writers who know a transsexual is probably about the same as the number of anyone elses who know a transsexual (arguably even higher, if you believe the stereotypes about Hollywood).
There are obvious exceptions where this policy doesn't work, like groups that are physically unable to create a certain type of creative work being less likely to appear in it. But it would certainly work for things as simple as body types.
Also re: League of Legends, this is like the uproar over Lightning's breasts getting larger in each FF13 sequel, except in reverse. It's hilarious to me that the internet went berserk over both things. People just don't like change.
I will say that in general I think "write what you know" is a fair policy. Most writers will write more believable stories if they write about their own group instead of other groups, and if they write about characters who are similar to people they know personally. For the most part this will usually mean that it's about as common to find a certain type of character in a story as it is to find that type of person in real life. After all, the number of writers who know a transsexual is probably about the same as the number of anyone elses who know a transsexual (arguably even higher, if you believe the stereotypes about Hollywood).
There are obvious exceptions where this policy doesn't work, like groups that are physically unable to create a certain type of creative work being less likely to appear in it. But it would certainly work for things as simple as body types.
Also re: League of Legends, this is like the uproar over Lightning's breasts getting larger in each FF13 sequel, except in reverse. It's hilarious to me that the internet went berserk over both things. People just don't like change.
before anything else, thanks for the overwhelming response? i'm kinda surprised that a single day - an afternoon, in my perspective - would allow for so many interesting conversations, and i most certainly wasn't ready for seeing it grow while i was writting answers for it, so... i don't feel that i can properly adress every point made - because there were many, and that's a lot of work - but i feel that it'd be just to address some things that called my attention.
@liberty, when i speak of the male gaze, i speak of a very specific concept coined in feminist studies to describe how patriarchy influences character design, presentation, and narrative construction. as far as i'm aware, there was never any description of the female gaze yet, so i'll suggest a bit of reading on it, since i guess expanding on it could be interesting for the comprehension of the phenomenon :3
which in turn suggests that most people around here have had very little exposition of any feminist, racial and sexual critique of media, and that i might have written my message in a bit of an arcane way for the current audience.
@mawk raises a fair point on this regard, which does brings it closer to my intended critique.
((also, avoid at all costs the use of transvestite to describe a trans person unless they explictly call themselves that. transness is not that ^,^"))
@snowowl, you missed my point entirely. yes, this is about an idea of how trans people should look, which is by nature of all stereotypication is stigmatizing, and give that the stigma that trans people receive is negative, we have here a discriminating, marginalizing and violent attitude to trans people. if you still can't see how that work, i suggest reading goffman's stigma and then a bit of our own experiences with society. tumblr tends to be a place for that, but it seems people have issues with distinguishing personal blogs from troll blogs, so i won't suggest it, but the transgriot and toni d'orsay's blogs come to mind - you'll find more as you explore. also, read from the theory-less, the rant blogs, the vent blogs, the support groups, it's a good slice of our reality, and tends to present the situation really fast.
@mawk, for your shutdown of the golden mean fallacy - well intended, even if not that very effective - you receive my gratitude. kudos.
@max mcgee, well. thanks @mawk.
@feldschlacht iv. a great point. one that i'd like to have raised myself, actually. the greatest ignorance is not the lack of information, but rather the denial of it.
@ratty524, a good overview of part of the issue, in which regards to sexim. yup yup, that's a bit of my point, indeed.
@mawk and @feldschlacht iv, thanks. a whole lot of them <3
@liberty, my eternal gratitude. like, wow, holy fuck. yeah, it matters a lot. i'm elated, here <3
@mawk, you're my gender neutral heroic figure. thaaaaanks a whole lot by actually addressing my question <3 about the despair tourism, a term a like is disaster or inspiration porn, depending on its manifestation, but i also like yours a lot x3
also, yup yup, i particularly like your approach. seems sensitive and well informed x3
@snowowl, if i could never see transphobia and, specifically, transmisogyny again, trust me, it'd be too early. you are being somewhat condenscending, and i urge you to approach these matters not only with a bit more tact, but also take a look at the author i suggested. it can add quite a bit, i feel, to your repertoire.
@mawk, yeah, the whole of forcing inclusion baffles me. just, not, because it's people saying that they're so ununsed to see people who look and act in a specific way that they need a justification for their existance in that story.
@max mcgee, hegemonic takes a different meaning in media related studies, as in cultural studies. but, it's more of less like that, but to thoughts - as soon as a thought become common enough to be understood as natural, it's hegemonic. i can't think, on top of my mind, many authors to discuss that, even if there are many. said's orientalism offers a good approach to it, however. also, the entirety of the feminist critique of the concept of male gaze is a very, very relevant part of my own critique, so get on that. finally, if you really need to understand the difference between the two in a tangible manner, the first enters escher girls and repair her armor, while the second only enters the first, and barely. look them up, that's a lot of difference.
@pentagonbuddy, first, thanks for addressing my question. second, your avatar is simply entrancing, and i'm a bit scared of that small pout at the end. i can see how those worries work, yeah, though i'm inclined to think that, yeah, telling compelling stories about people that exist outside the hegemonic narrative is one of the most important part not only of validating these people, but also changing the hegemonic narrative to someone else entirely. my use of symbolic violence was actually an attempt to avoid people derailing it, so, yeah, thanks for that. medievalpoc has lots, lots of issues, but they do serve at the very least of an example of it, indeed. speculative fiction is a good field for this, specially black speculative fiction. afrofuturism is all gold, i'm telling ya. and, hey, thanks, this is great feedback indeed. gonna be mindful of it. all in all, i'm really grateful for the opportunity of reading your answer, and for your time and attention - you rock! <3
@yellowmagic, yeah, that's actually a great point, i hadn't noticed that tidbit. true.
@lockez, your insight is interesting, though i'd like to raise you two important things. first, it's not 'a transexual', as it isn't 'a gay', 'a black', 'an asian' and so on. we're people, get on in the program. second, no, that's golden mean fallacy. one is a pushback against transgression of an hegemonic norm, whereas the other is a pushback against an hegemonic norm - there's institutional power in the first the second do not possess. in more plain terms, the first is acceptable and expected (awful people will be awful) and reinforces existing stigma and discrimination, the second is transgressive (those damn feminist at it again) and tries to balance the libra.
*sighs* that was a lot to read, and i feel like i've learned a lot about it. given the general misunderstanding of the situation, i'm wondering if i should try my hand at a copilation of useful concepts and terms, so this kind of debate can be more informed more often..? at least, i feel that some of the derailment could be avoided this way, given the amazing (@.@ @liberty) dedication to keep the thread going.
EDIT: changed some terms for clarity x3
@liberty, when i speak of the male gaze, i speak of a very specific concept coined in feminist studies to describe how patriarchy influences character design, presentation, and narrative construction. as far as i'm aware, there was never any description of the female gaze yet, so i'll suggest a bit of reading on it, since i guess expanding on it could be interesting for the comprehension of the phenomenon :3
which in turn suggests that most people around here have had very little exposition of any feminist, racial and sexual critique of media, and that i might have written my message in a bit of an arcane way for the current audience.
@mawk raises a fair point on this regard, which does brings it closer to my intended critique.
((also, avoid at all costs the use of transvestite to describe a trans person unless they explictly call themselves that. transness is not that ^,^"))
@snowowl, you missed my point entirely. yes, this is about an idea of how trans people should look, which is by nature of all stereotypication is stigmatizing, and give that the stigma that trans people receive is negative, we have here a discriminating, marginalizing and violent attitude to trans people. if you still can't see how that work, i suggest reading goffman's stigma and then a bit of our own experiences with society. tumblr tends to be a place for that, but it seems people have issues with distinguishing personal blogs from troll blogs, so i won't suggest it, but the transgriot and toni d'orsay's blogs come to mind - you'll find more as you explore. also, read from the theory-less, the rant blogs, the vent blogs, the support groups, it's a good slice of our reality, and tends to present the situation really fast.
@mawk, for your shutdown of the golden mean fallacy - well intended, even if not that very effective - you receive my gratitude. kudos.
@max mcgee, well. thanks @mawk.
@feldschlacht iv. a great point. one that i'd like to have raised myself, actually. the greatest ignorance is not the lack of information, but rather the denial of it.
@ratty524, a good overview of part of the issue, in which regards to sexim. yup yup, that's a bit of my point, indeed.
@mawk and @feldschlacht iv, thanks. a whole lot of them <3
@liberty, my eternal gratitude. like, wow, holy fuck. yeah, it matters a lot. i'm elated, here <3
@mawk, you're my gender neutral heroic figure. thaaaaanks a whole lot by actually addressing my question <3 about the despair tourism, a term a like is disaster or inspiration porn, depending on its manifestation, but i also like yours a lot x3
also, yup yup, i particularly like your approach. seems sensitive and well informed x3
@snowowl, if i could never see transphobia and, specifically, transmisogyny again, trust me, it'd be too early. you are being somewhat condenscending, and i urge you to approach these matters not only with a bit more tact, but also take a look at the author i suggested. it can add quite a bit, i feel, to your repertoire.
@mawk, yeah, the whole of forcing inclusion baffles me. just, not, because it's people saying that they're so ununsed to see people who look and act in a specific way that they need a justification for their existance in that story.
@max mcgee, hegemonic takes a different meaning in media related studies, as in cultural studies. but, it's more of less like that, but to thoughts - as soon as a thought become common enough to be understood as natural, it's hegemonic. i can't think, on top of my mind, many authors to discuss that, even if there are many. said's orientalism offers a good approach to it, however. also, the entirety of the feminist critique of the concept of male gaze is a very, very relevant part of my own critique, so get on that. finally, if you really need to understand the difference between the two in a tangible manner, the first enters escher girls and repair her armor, while the second only enters the first, and barely. look them up, that's a lot of difference.
@pentagonbuddy, first, thanks for addressing my question. second, your avatar is simply entrancing, and i'm a bit scared of that small pout at the end. i can see how those worries work, yeah, though i'm inclined to think that, yeah, telling compelling stories about people that exist outside the hegemonic narrative is one of the most important part not only of validating these people, but also changing the hegemonic narrative to someone else entirely. my use of symbolic violence was actually an attempt to avoid people derailing it, so, yeah, thanks for that. medievalpoc has lots, lots of issues, but they do serve at the very least of an example of it, indeed. speculative fiction is a good field for this, specially black speculative fiction. afrofuturism is all gold, i'm telling ya. and, hey, thanks, this is great feedback indeed. gonna be mindful of it. all in all, i'm really grateful for the opportunity of reading your answer, and for your time and attention - you rock! <3
@yellowmagic, yeah, that's actually a great point, i hadn't noticed that tidbit. true.
@lockez, your insight is interesting, though i'd like to raise you two important things. first, it's not 'a transexual', as it isn't 'a gay', 'a black', 'an asian' and so on. we're people, get on in the program. second, no, that's golden mean fallacy. one is a pushback against transgression of an hegemonic norm, whereas the other is a pushback against an hegemonic norm - there's institutional power in the first the second do not possess. in more plain terms, the first is acceptable and expected (awful people will be awful) and reinforces existing stigma and discrimination, the second is transgressive (those damn feminist at it again) and tries to balance the libra.
*sighs* that was a lot to read, and i feel like i've learned a lot about it. given the general misunderstanding of the situation, i'm wondering if i should try my hand at a copilation of useful concepts and terms, so this kind of debate can be more informed more often..? at least, i feel that some of the derailment could be avoided this way, given the amazing (@.@ @liberty) dedication to keep the thread going.
EDIT: changed some terms for clarity x3
*reaches into bag of phrases* uh...let's see...
The follow up for "write what you know" should always be "know what you write"
In less trite words, I don't think even being a member of a group you're trying to write mean you're gonna automatically do a good/believable/whatever you wanna call it job. Sure, you probably have insider info and that's fantastic and helpful and all, but it's good to avoid thinking of your experiences as universal.
Plus I dunno, I'm not feeling the...
Yeah, yeah, I know you tacked on the "for the most part" and aren't saying this is ALWAYS true, but I think it's not even true half the time. And how common it is to find whatever type of person IRL varies waaaay too much by circumstance. "IRL" is too broad.
Like, just one example: London, like p much any modern city, has a sizable amount of diversity in its demographics. Alright. Sure. If you go by census numbers, yeah I think about 60% of the population is still white, but that 40% of mixed race/various ethnic groups is nothing to sneeze at and still translates to millions of people. BBC Sherlock, Doctor Who, all kinds of prominent british (or non-british) shows set in london (or Sometimes In London) focus on primarily white casts and the stories of white characters. And hell, if you go into certain areas of the city it becomes way more likely to find someone of a particular ethnicity, and you can find these kind of ethnic enclaves in pretty much any city.
But even without the focus on numbers or "how likely" anything is, I think it's worth asking what it says when a particular group gets more spotlight from more writers than others. It's never an accident. It's often subconscious and done without malicious intent, but it's not an accident or something that "just happens".
This is why I think there needs to be active efforts to write more inclusive stories. Not passive ones or just deciding "I'll write whatever comes naturally and never question why I default to certain things". I mean if you -- yes, you, whoever is reading this sentence -- don't want to? whatever man that's your business. But I do believe that media representation is important, affects some important non-fictional things, and writers/"content creators"/whatever should try to AT THE VERY LEAST not perpetuate harmful stereotypes/misconceptions. Like dang, even if you don't give a shit about """representation""" I don't think it's asking too much to hope other writers will think critically about their own work.
How visible any group is in media is very separate from how common it is to meet someone like that IRL.
Edit: Plus when it comes to fictional worlds, there's no need to reference how likely anything is in the real world. Every aspect of that world, down to how the physics work, is under the writer's control, and when everyone "just happens" to be white, or "just happens" to end up straight, it says things about what that writer considers default. This is separate from how likely it is to meet someone from either of those groups IRL.
Edit II:
Yeah, generally the more vocab terms you use, unless you explain them very clearly you're gonna run into a lot of misunderstanding or people being confused. whether or not you use those terms is up to you, and tbh there's reasons a lot of them exist, but the general audience of rmn is not familiar with media studies in an academic sense.
also, you flatter me!
The follow up for "write what you know" should always be "know what you write"
In less trite words, I don't think even being a member of a group you're trying to write mean you're gonna automatically do a good/believable/whatever you wanna call it job. Sure, you probably have insider info and that's fantastic and helpful and all, but it's good to avoid thinking of your experiences as universal.
Plus I dunno, I'm not feeling the...
author=LockeZ
For the most part this will usually mean that it's about as common to find a certain type of character in a story as it is to find that type of person in real life.
Yeah, yeah, I know you tacked on the "for the most part" and aren't saying this is ALWAYS true, but I think it's not even true half the time. And how common it is to find whatever type of person IRL varies waaaay too much by circumstance. "IRL" is too broad.
Like, just one example: London, like p much any modern city, has a sizable amount of diversity in its demographics. Alright. Sure. If you go by census numbers, yeah I think about 60% of the population is still white, but that 40% of mixed race/various ethnic groups is nothing to sneeze at and still translates to millions of people. BBC Sherlock, Doctor Who, all kinds of prominent british (or non-british) shows set in london (or Sometimes In London) focus on primarily white casts and the stories of white characters. And hell, if you go into certain areas of the city it becomes way more likely to find someone of a particular ethnicity, and you can find these kind of ethnic enclaves in pretty much any city.
But even without the focus on numbers or "how likely" anything is, I think it's worth asking what it says when a particular group gets more spotlight from more writers than others. It's never an accident. It's often subconscious and done without malicious intent, but it's not an accident or something that "just happens".
This is why I think there needs to be active efforts to write more inclusive stories. Not passive ones or just deciding "I'll write whatever comes naturally and never question why I default to certain things". I mean if you -- yes, you, whoever is reading this sentence -- don't want to? whatever man that's your business. But I do believe that media representation is important, affects some important non-fictional things, and writers/"content creators"/whatever should try to AT THE VERY LEAST not perpetuate harmful stereotypes/misconceptions. Like dang, even if you don't give a shit about """representation""" I don't think it's asking too much to hope other writers will think critically about their own work.
How visible any group is in media is very separate from how common it is to meet someone like that IRL.
Edit: Plus when it comes to fictional worlds, there's no need to reference how likely anything is in the real world. Every aspect of that world, down to how the physics work, is under the writer's control, and when everyone "just happens" to be white, or "just happens" to end up straight, it says things about what that writer considers default. This is separate from how likely it is to meet someone from either of those groups IRL.
Edit II:
author=WetMattos
most people around here have had very little exposition of any feminist, racial and sexual critique of media, and that i might have written my message in a bit of an arcane way for the current audience.
Yeah, generally the more vocab terms you use, unless you explain them very clearly you're gonna run into a lot of misunderstanding or people being confused. whether or not you use those terms is up to you, and tbh there's reasons a lot of them exist, but the general audience of rmn is not familiar with media studies in an academic sense.
also, you flatter me!
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
@PentagonBuddy: Your examples are true because so many artists don't write what they know. Instead, they write what they think the most profitable target audience wants to see. If they just wrote what they knew, then art would reflect life. Instead they sacrifice the quality of their work in favor of a bigger profit.
Can't fully blame them, I guess. Everyone needs cash. Maybe all art should be forced to be non-profit.
Can't fully blame them, I guess. Everyone needs cash. Maybe all art should be forced to be non-profit.
@lockez, that's a bit of a reach. a big reach. i'm pretty sure that moffat, for a top of the head example, does not know enough of non hegemonic narratives to even fill a page with a meaningful, representative story. same about joss whedon (yes, that joss whedon).
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
I don't really know what you're talking about, I think maybe you just started having a discussion with someone you're imagining is here.
But if that's what they know then that's what they should write. It'll be a better story that way. The people who know about the other side of society should write about that other side.
But if that's what they know then that's what they should write. It'll be a better story that way. The people who know about the other side of society should write about that other side.
@lockez, not quite. we were talking about bit budget productions, and representation. i just came up with two big budget writters/directors who i'm pretty sure don't understand the point of being representative of marginalized people.
because, being stigmatized, and thus marginalized, is a dehumanization effort. any dehumanization effort implies in lowering the value of the groups' narratives, so to reduce their ability to confront such dehumanization. blackness is represented as animalistic, femininity, as weak, transness as deviant, just to exemplify. so, when writing about marginalized groups, one must go beyond these narratives, and one could say that all and every effort of writing marginalized groups is, by definition, speculative fiction. because it's about rewriting to social script to approaching these kinds of reality. and, yes, i'm pretty aware that this is very meta, and looks really arcane, but once you get the hang of it, it becomes far easier. feminist media critique, said's orientalism, toni d'orsay writings on media representation, these are good starts, i feel.
because, being stigmatized, and thus marginalized, is a dehumanization effort. any dehumanization effort implies in lowering the value of the groups' narratives, so to reduce their ability to confront such dehumanization. blackness is represented as animalistic, femininity, as weak, transness as deviant, just to exemplify. so, when writing about marginalized groups, one must go beyond these narratives, and one could say that all and every effort of writing marginalized groups is, by definition, speculative fiction. because it's about rewriting to social script to approaching these kinds of reality. and, yes, i'm pretty aware that this is very meta, and looks really arcane, but once you get the hang of it, it becomes far easier. feminist media critique, said's orientalism, toni d'orsay writings on media representation, these are good starts, i feel.
author=LockeZ
But if that's what they know then that's what they should write. It'll be a better story that way. The people who know about the other side of society should write about that other side.
Probably, yeah. It's hard for me, personally. I don't know if I'd rather have No Representation over Bad Representation, and when people don't know shit about what they're trying to write...it doesn't go well, even when they mean well.
And like, I even agree that there needs to be more ppl FROM the groups that could use more representation being the ones to write their stories. Here I wanna point out what mawk said earlier...
author=mawk
I truly believe that people should take initiative to include marginalized and ignored groups in their work, whether that means racial or sexual minorities, characters of varied body types, trans and intersex people (of varied types and approaches, since not everyone transitions or chooses to present in the same way), and so on. this is the sort of thing that gets people complaining about 'diversity for diversity's sake', but I feel that viewpoint is uncomfortably close to the practice of treating whiteness, cisness, and maleness as humanity's default state -- and that's a part of why this is such a problem in the first place! we need to ask ourselves 'does this character need to be a straight white guy', because otherwise that decision is invisible to us; we've learned that the straight white protagonist is the default, and all alternatives need some kind of plot reason to justify their presence in the story.
at the same time, I don't feel that people should try to create media about the experience of being black, or mentally ill, or trans, without themselves belonging to that group. how many books and games are there where the neurotypical author writes an autistic side-character in as some whimsical fairy who enriches the protagonist's life (and then usually dies once their job is done)? how many people take the struggles of a marginalized group on as an aesthetic without respecting that group's experiences and pain? it always feels to me like despair tourism, though I understand that many others are happy for the representation even if it isn't a trans or autistic author's voice being heard.
I would encourage people who know about "the other side of society" to just, make more things, period. Make all kinds of stuff. But I also encourage people outside those groups to learn and try to write more inclusive stories... However, not to the degree of like, someone who is straight writing a story ABOUT "the lesbian experience". This is different than someone who is straight writing a woman who is a lesbian into their work.
We could use more people in general who were willing to try such things instead of limiting their writing to what they know -- i.e. the kind of "default stuff" like "a character is probably a straight white guy unless she's going to be the love interest, and I guess maybe the comedy relief guy can be black". If they have NO IDEA what it's like to be a lesbian, or black, or trans, or all three at once, and they wanna write a character like that...take some time and learn a bit. trying to learn more about other people is always cool + positive.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
NB I just skimmed this topic after the first post because holy shit.
The answer to the idea of "You need a reason for a character to be a lady/not white/trans/other not 'default' thing!" is, "What's the reason for them to be male/white/cis/etc?"
I tend to make most of my characters nonwhite ethnicity solely because there's just too darn many white people stories already. (I also go for ladytypes and lesbian stuff, but that's more personal indulgence than actually trying to improve things. :V )
I have tried to figure out a relevant way to add in a trans character somewhere, but haven't been successful; I'm not sure if there's a good way to so it without catering to some stereotype or having it be the Point of the Story. Wait, except I did have Jolanta in Wyrm Warriors. That was easy because it was just in her gender stat and came up nowhere else.
The answer to the idea of "You need a reason for a character to be a lady/not white/trans/other not 'default' thing!" is, "What's the reason for them to be male/white/cis/etc?"
I tend to make most of my characters nonwhite ethnicity solely because there's just too darn many white people stories already. (I also go for ladytypes and lesbian stuff, but that's more personal indulgence than actually trying to improve things. :V )
I have tried to figure out a relevant way to add in a trans character somewhere, but haven't been successful; I'm not sure if there's a good way to so it without catering to some stereotype or having it be the Point of the Story. Wait, except I did have Jolanta in Wyrm Warriors. That was easy because it was just in her gender stat and came up nowhere else.
@sooz, about transness and representation, i might have some things for you.
ever played a porpentine game? no? start with with those we love alive - the very mention of its name pierces my heart and threatens to bring tears to my eyes - and go from there. she's also amazing to learn new ways to explore narratives and interaction, so it'll be a learning experience. she's always referencing other trans created games, so it's not hard to expand from there. it's a bit hard, at first, to learn how to address our experiences without being either intrusive or violent, but it's worth it. going for more 'feminine', more caring narratives can help a lot with that.
ever played a porpentine game? no? start with with those we love alive - the very mention of its name pierces my heart and threatens to bring tears to my eyes - and go from there. she's also amazing to learn new ways to explore narratives and interaction, so it'll be a learning experience. she's always referencing other trans created games, so it's not hard to expand from there. it's a bit hard, at first, to learn how to address our experiences without being either intrusive or violent, but it's worth it. going for more 'feminine', more caring narratives can help a lot with that.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
It's more that I prefer to write minority characters where it has about as much impact on things in their setting as, say, foot size to us. This is very easy to do with cisladies, different ethnicities, and gay people- all I have to do is show- but for a transperson, there's no elegant way I've found to make it clear without drawing attention to it. I can't figure out how to depict "person who is a genre story protagonist (and happens to have a body that doesn't conform to their gender, but that has no impact on anything)" rather than "Look, kids! This person is trans, see? This is a Story About A Person Being Trans."
I suppose I could add in some incidental details- a translady shaving her face or something- but it's a lot harder to get across than more superficial things like "This space marine has titties" or "This foppish noble has dark skin and thick lips." And I don't want to pull a Dumbledore and be like, "PS this person was x minority the whole time k bye!" (Though that may just be my slavish adherence to "Show, don't tell." I have actually struggled with the fact that I need to put in captions for things like "Five years ago" because THERE MUST BE A WAY TO GET THIS ACROSS WITHOUT WORDS DAMMIT! I think I have a serious problem.)
ETA: Also I will try this thing you linked. I have never played a TWINE before and I am already a little suspicious at it wanting me to write on my skin. If this turns into some manic pixie dream girl thing I swear to god... :V
I suppose I could add in some incidental details- a translady shaving her face or something- but it's a lot harder to get across than more superficial things like "This space marine has titties" or "This foppish noble has dark skin and thick lips." And I don't want to pull a Dumbledore and be like, "PS this person was x minority the whole time k bye!" (Though that may just be my slavish adherence to "Show, don't tell." I have actually struggled with the fact that I need to put in captions for things like "Five years ago" because THERE MUST BE A WAY TO GET THIS ACROSS WITHOUT WORDS DAMMIT! I think I have a serious problem.)
ETA: Also I will try this thing you linked. I have never played a TWINE before and I am already a little suspicious at it wanting me to write on my skin. If this turns into some manic pixie dream girl thing I swear to god... :V
@LockeZ: As a writer no. Don't just write what you know - or at least, don't write only what you know. That's how you white-wash and gender-wash things. If you're writing fantasy, you can't 'write what you know' when you're making it up and if you're making it up you might as well add racial diversity in there while you're at it because just saying 'I wrote what I knew' isn't enough to excuse another middle-aged white dude and his mistress in a chainmail bikini.
Seriously, there is a reason writers take so long to write books and it's because they do a hell of a lot of research. So that they know what they're writing about. I don't know what it was like to be a pirate but if I want to write about it I need to research it. I don't know what it was like to be a concubine but if I write about it I research it. There is no excuse to only 'write what you know' and anyone citing that as their modus operandi is either lazy or intentionally making excuses.
no offense
Seriously, there is a reason writers take so long to write books and it's because they do a hell of a lot of research. So that they know what they're writing about. I don't know what it was like to be a pirate but if I want to write about it I need to research it. I don't know what it was like to be a concubine but if I write about it I research it. There is no excuse to only 'write what you know' and anyone citing that as their modus operandi is either lazy or intentionally making excuses.
no offense
@sooz
trust porpentine. also, the reason why i choose this particular twine is twofold: first, it's a pretty intense emotional experience, and second, the way by which we know a character is trans is because we see them taking hormones. elegant, significative, subjective. that's a good lession, i think.
also, if your adherence to "show, don't tell" is that pragmatic, you should give me a call next time you end up against such wall. five years ago is solved by giving an earlier or later, if we're talking about an opening scene, chronological clue to the current time, and inserting another, seemingly unrelated clue in the flashback scene. trust the players.
trust porpentine. also, the reason why i choose this particular twine is twofold: first, it's a pretty intense emotional experience, and second, the way by which we know a character is trans is because we see them taking hormones. elegant, significative, subjective. that's a good lession, i think.
also, if your adherence to "show, don't tell" is that pragmatic, you should give me a call next time you end up against such wall. five years ago is solved by giving an earlier or later, if we're talking about an opening scene, chronological clue to the current time, and inserting another, seemingly unrelated clue in the flashback scene. trust the players.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
Having tried the linked game... it's, um, not really my thing. In that it seems to just be faffing about with no apparent rhyme or reason, but with a bunch of spoopy gunk dumped on top. I prefer my experiences to have a semblance of a narrative, rather than a set of unrelated vignettes.
"Readers," in this case, and that was not really an option in that particular case, as they were as yet unrelated, in different areas, featuring different people. Trust me, if a caption were not necessary, a caption would not have happened.
ETA:
If we stuck to "write what you know" all we would have is a bunch of autobiographies, and lord knows that would be the death of entertainment and possibly the human race via boredom.
I mean I do not have the lived experience of being an undead monster hunter or an orphan resurrected by questionably ethical applications of a holy relic and sent to fight plant zombies or a person imprisoned in a horrific and otherworldly place because of an inherited trait that makes me dangerous to the world, but I like to think that my efforts in writing such have not produced only piles of drek and mediocrity.
author=WetMattos
also, if your adherence to "show, don't tell" is that pragmatic, you should give me a call next time you end up against such wall. five years ago is solved by giving an earlier or later, if we're talking about an opening scene, chronological clue to the current time, and inserting another, seemingly unrelated clue in the flashback scene. trust the players.
"Readers," in this case, and that was not really an option in that particular case, as they were as yet unrelated, in different areas, featuring different people. Trust me, if a caption were not necessary, a caption would not have happened.
ETA:
If we stuck to "write what you know" all we would have is a bunch of autobiographies, and lord knows that would be the death of entertainment and possibly the human race via boredom.
I mean I do not have the lived experience of being an undead monster hunter or an orphan resurrected by questionably ethical applications of a holy relic and sent to fight plant zombies or a person imprisoned in a horrific and otherworldly place because of an inherited trait that makes me dangerous to the world, but I like to think that my efforts in writing such have not produced only piles of drek and mediocrity.
author=Sooz
Having tried the linked game... it's, um, not really my thing. In that it seems to just be faffing about with no apparent rhyme or reason, but with a bunch of spoopy gunk dumped on top. I prefer my experiences to have a semblance of a narrative, rather than a set of unrelated vignettes.
this is an important part of the plot, and an intended one. i can't go into details without spoiling the end, but the feeling the narrative creates, that whatever you do makes no difference, is very relevant to the overall plot.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
I'll just take your word for it. If I want to feel like whatever I do makes no difference, I can always just read about politics.
@WetMattos: Yes, quite arcane, I find your jargon and terminology rather impenetrable. Also keep in mind that philosophy grounded in radical feminist and racial theory is not like...fact. It is academic material created prolifically by a very insular academic community and a very specific subculture and is very self-referential and incestuous. (I took a single gender studies course in college and spent the entirety of it disagreeing with pretty much every single thing the professor taught.)
I am not interested in reading about "Feminist/Gender Politics Theory XYZ" because I don't believe it has value and it is not worth my time. However if you were to unpack yourself how a character can be hegemonic, in natural language, that is something I'd take the time to read and try to grasp. But "read author xyz" or "look into theory xyz" is not something I have time/energy for.
If you don't have the time to break down these ideas, obviously that's fine. Just saying, that's something I'd be definitely be willing to engage with. But if understanding this stuff has "reading and accepting all theories produced by academic feminism and gender studies" as a prerequisite, that is never going to happen.
@Yellow_Magic:
As a professional writer I realize that this resembles mystical thinking, but to me, characters have an inherent truth to them. So no, white is not the "default" race for a character I think of. The default race for a character I think of is whatever race they are when I think of them. This is not something that I don't think about, exactly, but it's also very much not something that I plan ahead of time.
When my mind creates a character, it does so holistically. That character then has a race, a gender, an identity, maybe normative, maybe not, but in any case part of that character's holistic truth. I realize that this is...not a perfectly clear explanation. But thinking that anyone is anything by default is...kind of antithetical to the way I make art? Likewise, so is planning to have a "diverse" and "inclusive" cast...that's anathema to the way I create too. Characters don't exactly come from my brain fully formed, but they do come out with the basic shapes, race, gender, and so forth. There is no default.
The fact of thinking of a character that is a minority is not offensive to me, it's natural. It's the idea of planning in advance that X, Y, Z of your characters will be X, Y, Z minorities for the sake of being perceived as sufficiently "diverse" or "inclusive" to bow to political correctness that I find abhorrent, because it seems very dishonest.
That said, given about 80% of what's written in tumblry circles as critique of works that depict minorities, I totally understand why writers would want to sidestep the entire minefield of an issue by just writing people the same color they are. There doesn't seem to be any way of portraying female characters or whatever, minority x, that won't offend at least an overwhelmingly vocal minority. Look at arch-feminist Joss Whedon getting screamed off of twitter by a frothing mob of rabid radfems.
I am not interested in reading about "Feminist/Gender Politics Theory XYZ" because I don't believe it has value and it is not worth my time. However if you were to unpack yourself how a character can be hegemonic, in natural language, that is something I'd take the time to read and try to grasp. But "read author xyz" or "look into theory xyz" is not something I have time/energy for.
If you don't have the time to break down these ideas, obviously that's fine. Just saying, that's something I'd be definitely be willing to engage with. But if understanding this stuff has "reading and accepting all theories produced by academic feminism and gender studies" as a prerequisite, that is never going to happen.
@Yellow_Magic:
As a professional writer I realize that this resembles mystical thinking, but to me, characters have an inherent truth to them. So no, white is not the "default" race for a character I think of. The default race for a character I think of is whatever race they are when I think of them. This is not something that I don't think about, exactly, but it's also very much not something that I plan ahead of time.
When my mind creates a character, it does so holistically. That character then has a race, a gender, an identity, maybe normative, maybe not, but in any case part of that character's holistic truth. I realize that this is...not a perfectly clear explanation. But thinking that anyone is anything by default is...kind of antithetical to the way I make art? Likewise, so is planning to have a "diverse" and "inclusive" cast...that's anathema to the way I create too. Characters don't exactly come from my brain fully formed, but they do come out with the basic shapes, race, gender, and so forth. There is no default.
The fact of thinking of a character that is a minority is not offensive to me, it's natural. It's the idea of planning in advance that X, Y, Z of your characters will be X, Y, Z minorities for the sake of being perceived as sufficiently "diverse" or "inclusive" to bow to political correctness that I find abhorrent, because it seems very dishonest.
That said, given about 80% of what's written in tumblry circles as critique of works that depict minorities, I totally understand why writers would want to sidestep the entire minefield of an issue by just writing people the same color they are. There doesn't seem to be any way of portraying female characters or whatever, minority x, that won't offend at least an overwhelmingly vocal minority. Look at arch-feminist Joss Whedon getting screamed off of twitter by a frothing mob of rabid radfems.
ubon
66
Max, I think you've proven at this point that you can't actually post on this topic (any topic, maybe?) without going on a lengthy tangent about how terrible you think feminists are.
WetMattos, I'm really happy the nonsense in this topic hasn't ruined it for you -- this is a really good discussion, in fits and starts, and I'm really happy you put it together + continue to give insight. portrayal of trans characters in particular is a subject that super evades me especially since, like, there are almost zero good examples to go by in mainstream titles.
(With Those We Love Alive has been on my list for, like, weeks??? but I'm awful at actually consuming media, whoops)
WetMattos, I'm really happy the nonsense in this topic hasn't ruined it for you -- this is a really good discussion, in fits and starts, and I'm really happy you put it together + continue to give insight. portrayal of trans characters in particular is a subject that super evades me especially since, like, there are almost zero good examples to go by in mainstream titles.
(With Those We Love Alive has been on my list for, like, weeks??? but I'm awful at actually consuming media, whoops)
Oh, boy. This thread... Welp! I'd like to respond to some of the things said here, but, this is too much for anyone. xD Besides I'm probably the "golden mean fallacy" personified *points at avatar*, so I doubt my opinion is going to fly very well around here anyway. So, you guys keep pretending you have everything figured out and that you can speak for everybody else, and I'll just throw my support behind Max's posts. He hasn't broken anything yet, so I think that's Ok. More or less, that's where I stand on this topic too.
Just let me add this: Please, don't let something like this scare you away from playing videogames, specially when you're aware it's coming from a vocal minority. If you really feel that way, just take a break or something, and come back when you are ready. And I know this probably sounds bad to you, but, I mean... I'm fairly sure nobody wants that. That's gotta count for something.
Edit: Ok, just this one real quick...
Yes, it could mean that. ""Essentially"" But not necessarily true. And I think there's a bit of a "jump of logic" about defaulting (Heh;) to that conclusion. Specially when you pay attention to some of the arguments that follow that same train of thought: "White supremacy!", "Dehumanization!" etc. Which, imo, are worthy of a few gold medals, if you know what I'm saying. =P
Just let me add this: Please, don't let something like this scare you away from playing videogames, specially when you're aware it's coming from a vocal minority. If you really feel that way, just take a break or something, and come back when you are ready. And I know this probably sounds bad to you, but, I mean... I'm fairly sure nobody wants that. That's gotta count for something.
Edit: Ok, just this one real quick...
The issue is with an all-white cast, you're essentially admitting that you think of white as the 'default' race...
Yes, it could mean that. ""Essentially"" But not necessarily true. And I think there's a bit of a "jump of logic" about defaulting (Heh;) to that conclusion. Specially when you pay attention to some of the arguments that follow that same train of thought: "White supremacy!", "Dehumanization!" etc. Which, imo, are worthy of a few gold medals, if you know what I'm saying. =P
