Gender and Sexuality Representation in OOTS

[King of Nowhere]

I don't see why people assume Xykon is incapable of performing sexual acts. There are plenty of polymorph spells. even if xykon don't have them in his spelllist, he could easily get a magic item to turn into a younger man every once in a while.

Xykon himself seems to never have thought about it, on the other hand. Incidentally, it would also allow him to taste coffe. Maybe there's some reason the spell don't work, maybe he didn't want to spend the money. Or maybe he just never considered it.

As for haley latent bisexuality, the border between hetero and bi is not so well defined. But I would not cconsider her fully bi just for some kisses.

[hamishspence]

And this is terrible. Way to go, WotC. We can't have dudes doing the same thing succubi do. That would be icky and gross. Mhm.

3e incubi were actually ickier.

4e ones were actually closer to the original "dream-invader" myths. With a bit of possessor demon as well.

[Raineh Daze]

RE: Previous page. Yay, an argument that basically reads 'heteronormativity is the norm, therefore it is perfectly fine to have works of fiction express this, and complaining is wrong because this is the normal thing'.

I think I'm done with this thread. Have fun with it.

[Shadowknight12]

3e incubi were actually ickier.

4e ones were actually closer to the original "dream-invader" myths. With a bit of possessor demon as well.

Yeah, but I would bet the contents of my wallet that both instances were desexualised to avoid grossing out the straight male fanbase.

Here's the rub, though. Some stories work better with mostly men, some with mostly women, and most could probably be told fine with either. The author shouldn't feel obligated to tell either kind of story. You have every right to object to a lack of representation of women in a particular type of media. Or a lack of homosexuality. That's fine. Eventually, the market will fill that role because publishers will see there is money to be made in publishing it for that niche. Eventually it might even get normalized in the culture at large. Media plays a big part in that, which is cool.

What one shouldn't do is get upset that the author isn't actively telling those kinds of stories or actively normalizing women as characters/homosexuality/etc. IF the author is perpetuating stereotypes or somehow acting prejudiced towards women, gay persons, etc. sure, get mad. Point it out. But if the author just happens to focus on straight, male characters? That is perfectly fine. The author has every right to do that as much as another author has every right to focus on female, gay characters.

You are arguing against something nobody has proposed or defended. I have stated, in the very post you're quoting, that there is no expectation that the Giant change the story in any way. For all intents and purposes, the story is already finished. LBGT+ inclusion is not going to happen, because the odds of major characters being introduced diminishes the closer you are to the end. While I'm sure there might be one or two last-minute important characters waiting, the intention is still not to tell the writer what to do.

A work can be analysed and discussed without the people doing so ever intending for the writer to change their work in the slightest.

So please kindly stop charging that windmill. It's not a giant.

If you think that most stories are about straight men and that is why authors should try and shy away from it, that is an argument that you find the story less interesting or cliche. Not an argument that the author is doing anything immoral. Because an artist shouldn't have to limit the type of art they do based on the time period they live in and what is normalized.

I fail to see where I have referenced morality or immorality in my posts. That too, is a windmill.

(It goes both ways. The author should feel free to tell stories about things that are or aren't normalized.) A lot of it is market, too, not any insidiousness. The demographic of D&D players is going to include more straight males than anything else. Same with video games. The publishers could capture a larger portion of the female or homosexual market by representing it more, sure. But there is more financial risk in trying to capture a new market.

Windmill.

So, as for video games, I think it is fair to call foul that a given franchise is sexually exploitative of its female characters or has lots of stupid women without smart women, or portrays homosexuals as a joke or as overly cliched. It is not fair to call foul just because a franchise doesn't focus on women or gay people. It is fair to say you aren't interested in buying it, though.

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Shoot, an author can have few women in leadership roles or LGBT feelings that are suppressed or rarely shown even in a fantasy or sci-fi universe because the author is trying to mirror the real world with his fiction, not create an idealized world. There doesn't even have to be some greater theme to the author showing men/women/gay/straight in certain roles other than that is how the author views the world. In lots of places and industries, men dominate them. I'm not saying its good, but I often hear people cry foul when an author represents that in some sort of fantasy world.

Windmill again.

You are addressing roughly 10% of what I actually said. The rest is purely your own fabrication.

RE: Previous page. Yay, an argument that basically reads 'heteronormativity is the norm, therefore it is perfectly fine to have works of fiction express this, and complaining is wrong because this is the normal thing'.

I think I'm done with this thread. Have fun with it.

Don't worry, you get used it. I've heard it all before, it's always the same.

[hamishspence]

Yeah, but I would bet the contents of my wallet that both instances were desexualised to avoid grossing out the straight male fanbase.

Not really.

4e incubus- Demonomicon:

Although an incubus can control a mortal host at a distance, its power can be partially blocked at a site consecrated against evil. The demon thus attempts to obtain a creature's trust by inhabiting its dreams, convincing it to willingly accept the incubus's dark embrace.

With their minds fractured, an incubus's cast-off victims serve the demon in the hope of regaining its attention and favor. Rakes, thugs, and other dissolute humanoids are often found following an incubus.

[Bird]

And Elan. That's a third of the Order of the Stick, a third of the Linear Guild, and you can safely ignore Tsukiko. You can even add a [E?] tag for Belkar (if he sees V as male and he stilled kissed V, that does count as experimentation/bicuriosity). That would make the tag applicable to half the Order. I wouldn't scoff at that.

Add in Vaarsuvius, who implicitly challenges gender assumptions, and that's two thirds of the order who have broken the heteronormative mold in some way, at some point.

For sure, this isn't everything it might be -- since the "evidence" for some characters amounts to one page gags. I agree that it's something to take seriously, though, because it's a lot more than you see in most media.

By the way, in the Order of the Stick Coloring Book, Vaarsuvius' page asks you to circle whether V is a boy or girl.

The answer key in the back of the book says

Spoiler

Show

"That's very interesting, and probably says a lot about how you see gender roles. Why don't you ask your parents what they think? Be sure to ask them why they think that, too.

V has the potential to open up a healthy conversation about gender assumptions every time he/she appears. Frankly, I think that's wonderful, and something the Giant deserves a ton of credit for.

[Shadowknight12]

Not really.

4e incubus- Demonomicon:

Well, colour me surprised. That and Pathfinder satyrs being canonically bisexual (with straight/gay leanings as the DM sees fit) might restore some of my dying faith in the RPG industry regarding its myopia to everything that isn't straight and male.

Add in Vaarsuvius, who implicitly challenges gender assumptions, and that's two thirds of the order who have broken the heteronormative mold in some way, at some point.

For sure, this isn't everything it might be -- since the "evidence" for some characters amounts to one page gags. I agree that it's something to take seriously, though, because it's a lot more than you see in most media.

By the way, in the Order of the Stick Coloring Book, Vaarsuvius' page asks you to circle whether V is a boy or girl.

The answer key in the back of the book says

Spoiler

Show

"That's very interesting, and probably says a lot about how you see gender roles. Why don't you ask your parents what they think? Be sure to ask them why they think that, too.

V has the potential to open up a healthy conversation about gender assumptions every time he/she appears. Frankly, I think that's wonderful, and something the Giant deserves a ton of credit for.

I couldn't possibly agree more, in all accounts. Much like the Deva that Roy got in the afterlife, I value trying a hell of a lot more than failing to achieve. I personally admire the Giant for his attempts to represent marginalised groups and break stereotypes, despite what the end result might be.

Hell, the fact that the Giant tried this much might mean that, in the future, those who take him as an inspiration might take his inclusion as a baseline, and if they, in turn, also try, we might reach true equality and inclusion some day.

Rather than throwing someone under the bus for not meeting an arbitrary high standard, we should be celebrating what they did right and point out where they could have improved, to further education and to serve as an example for the future.

[SowZ]

Yeah, but I would bet the contents of my wallet that both instances were desexualised to avoid grossing out the straight male fanbase.



You are arguing against something nobody has proposed or defended. I have stated, in the very post you're quoting, that there is no expectation that the Giant change the story in any way. For all intents and purposes, the story is already finished. LBGT+ inclusion is not going to happen, because the odds of major characters being introduced diminishes the closer you are to the end. While I'm sure there might be one or two last-minute important characters waiting, the intention is still not to tell the writer what to do.

A work can be analysed and discussed without the people doing so ever intending for the writer to change their work in the slightest.

So please kindly stop charging that windmill. It's not a giant.



I fail to see where I have referenced morality or immorality in my posts. That too, is a windmill.



Windmill.



Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.



Windmill again.

You are addressing roughly 10% of what I actually said. The rest is purely your own fabrication.



Don't worry, you get used it. I've heard it all before, it's always the same.

What I'm addressing is this;

This always crops up, always, whenever we try to breach this subject. I frequent a gaming forum, where I take a very strong feminist (almost radfem) stance on the inclusion of women in the gaming industry, and I see that exact phrase over and over. And what I read is "Why can't you go back to being quiet and stop making us feel guilty that we're enjoying something that marginalises you?"

Nobody is going to lambast you for enjoying a story that is imperfect in some area. All stories are imperfect in some area, so if we set such ridiculous high standards, we couldn't enjoy any stories, period. Enjoying something does not mean we shouldn't speak of what it could do better, or analyse it to see what it got right and what it got wrong.

My points are arguing a few things. 1. the argument 'Enjoy the story for what it is/does,' is a valid point. 2. the OOTS story is not more imperfect because the lack of, nor would it necessarily be better for the inclusion of, more gay or female characters. Which is the implication, there. Not anymore than a story would be imperfect for the lack of straight or male characters. 3. The lack of women or gay characters etc. etc. in a body of work does not marginalize said group. If that wasn't your intent, then I think it was irrelevant to talk about being quiet when marginalized.

[Shadowknight12]

My points are arguing a few things. 1. the argument 'Enjoy the story for what it is/does,' is a valid point.

Not in this case, as that argument implies enjoying the story for what it is/does is mutually exclusive with analysis and criticism (also, by the way, in case it needs to be said, criticism isn't a dirty word. It's perfectly possible to analyse and criticise something you like and enjoy very much).

2. the OOTS story is not more imperfect because the lack of, nor would it necessarily be better for the inclusion of, more gay or female characters. Which is the implication, there. Not anymore than a story would be imperfect for the lack of straight or male characters.

Imperfection is subjective. To me, such things make the story imperfect, while I couldn't care less about the way it handles D&D rules. To others, its casual flippancy towards the D&D ruleset would make the story imperfect. If you do not agree with me, that's fine. I do not mind. Those of us who care about these things are discussing them and analysing the work in this thread. I do not consider this any less of a worthy pursuit than the MitD guessing thread or the Class and Geekery thread.

3. The lack of women or gay characters etc. etc. in a body of work does not marginalize said group. If that wasn't your intent, then I think it was irrelevant to talk about being quiet when marginalized.

On a societal level, keeping certain groups away from the media, whether consciously or unconsciously, perpetuates marginalisation. Marginalisation is not the same as hate crime or hate speech. People can unconsciously marginalise others because they are emulating the behaviours of other creators, and marginalise people in their own works without consciously meaning to.

A straight man who devoted himself to a hobby made by straight men for other straight men, and who wrote a story based on that hobby, with a primarily straight male audience in mind, is not at fault for marginalising groups that aren't straight and male (and cis, and able-bodied, and white, and so on). This does not make said straight man a monster. This does not mean his work needs to be censored or altered in any way. He was simply the product of his upbringing and society.

However, that doesn't mean that marginalised groups don't feel further marginalised by their lack of inclusion in the media, of which the OotS webcomic is a part of (the media, not the marginalised groups). Marginalisation exists, and it exists in several degrees. Nobody here is saying that the marginalisation in OotS is of an extreme degree. On the contrary, many of us are loudly praising the Giant for having such a minimal marginalisation, when the standard for other works of the same genre carries a significantly higher degree of marginalisation.

Nobody is telling you that you can't enjoy a work that engages in marginalisation. Almost all works do. Nobody is condemning the Giant for engaging in minimal marginalisation when it's something that everyone does.

Instead of pretending that the marginalisation doesn't exist and that the people who suggest so are wrong, it might be more productive to accept that an enjoyable work has marginalisation, that the marginalisation need no detract from the enjoyment of the work, and that an analysis of the marginalisation in question might yield valuable information for future works. That's all. It need not be an ideological war.

[SowZ]

Not in this case, as that argument implies enjoying the story for what it is/does is mutually exclusive with analysis and criticism (also, by the way, in case it needs to be said, criticism isn't a dirty word. It's perfectly possible to analyse and criticise something you like and enjoy very much).



Imperfection is subjective. To me, such things make the story imperfect, while I couldn't care less about the way it handles D&D rules. To others, its casual flippancy towards the D&D ruleset would make the story imperfect. If you do not agree with me, that's fine. I do not mind. Those of us who care about these things are discussing them and analysing the work in this thread. I do not consider this any less of a worthy pursuit than the MitD guessing thread or the Class and Geekery thread.



On a societal level, keeping certain groups away from the media, whether consciously or unconsciously, perpetuates marginalisation. Marginalisation is not the same as hate crime or hate speech. People can unconsciously marginalise others because they are emulating the behaviours of other creators, and marginalise people in their own works without consciously meaning to.

A straight man who devoted himself to a hobby made by straight men for other straight men, and who wrote a story based on that hobby, with a primarily straight male audience in mind, is not at fault for marginalising groups that aren't straight and male (and cis, and able-bodied, and white, and so on). This does not make said straight man a monster. This does not mean his work needs to be censored or altered in any way. He was simply the product of his upbringing and society.

However, that doesn't mean that marginalised groups don't feel further marginalised by their lack of inclusion in the media, of which the OotS webcomic is a part of (the media, not the marginalised groups). Marginalisation exists, and it exists in several degrees. Nobody here is saying that the marginalisation in OotS is of an extreme degree. On the contrary, many of us are loudly praising the Giant for having such a minimal marginalisation, when the standard for other works of the same genre carries a significantly higher degree of marginalisation.

Nobody is telling you that you can't enjoy a work that engages in marginalisation. Almost all works do. Nobody is condemning the Giant for engaging in minimal marginalisation when it's something that everyone does.

Instead of pretending that the marginalisation doesn't exist and that the people who suggest so are wrong, it might be more productive to accept that an enjoyable work has marginalisation, that the marginalisation need no detract from the enjoyment of the work, and that an analysis of the marginalisation in question might yield valuable information for future works. That's all. It need not be an ideological war.

My biggest issue is that it implies that the artist is guilty of marginalization or not guilty of it based on the time period he or she is born in. If we happened to live in a society where being bisexual was normative, by your definition of marginalizing, and being either homosexual or heterosexual was considered bizarre, then it would be marginalizing not to include prominent heterosexual and homosexual characters in a body of work.

I don't think so. It would be marginalizing if it failed to include heterosexual or homosexual characters where they would clearly exist or if it portrayed what characters were hetero/homosexual negatively or cliched.

If an author wants to write a story all about gay characters, great. Or if it is set in an all girls dorm, awesome. Or if it is an island with a bunch of grade school boys trying to survive, good for him. The stories aren't less perfect for the lack of diversity. They tell the story they are supposed to tell. One difference might be that those concepts don't really allow the diversity, whereas most concepts would.

But in my opinion, when it doesn't matter what gender/orientation/ethnicity a character is, the author should have the freedom to pick that character based on verisimilitude and the aesthetic the author prefers. There shouldn't be a sense of obligation to balance the cast out just for the sake of balancing the cast out. I would disagree with this only when it breaks believability. If the setting has a 74% female population and we almost never meet females, yeah, thats a problem.

But it is a problem of consistency, (and the author may have made that mistake because of social norms,) but it isn't inherently some social problem.

I'm a writer. I do try and include some gay characters because it fleshes out the setting and adds new character dynamics to play with. But I wouldn't want to feel like I should add gay characters because of outside influences. I want to add things because it is good for the story within the context of the story, not because of societal pressures.

[jere7my]

Well said, Shadowknight. I would add:

On a societal level, keeping certain groups away from the media, whether consciously or unconsciously, perpetuates marginalisation. Marginalisation is not the same as hate crime or hate speech. People can unconsciously marginalise others because they are emulating the behaviours of other creators, and marginalise people in their own works without consciously meaning to.

There is nothing wrong with writing a story filled with straight white males. The Name of the Rose is set in a medieval monastery; it's a brilliant book, but it's not exactly inclusive.

But an author should always be aware of the reasons why he or she is making choices. If a story works better with straight white males than it would with women or LGBT characters or non-white characters, that's reason enough. If you're making your characters straight white men because that's the default in your head, and you're making those choices without giving it any thought, then it's probably worth examining. Stories are made better by constant self-interrogation of authorial choices; even if you end up with straight white men, that process is worthwhile.

[Astrella]

Fantasy worlds are still often very biased towards mirroring real life, it's not like oppression actually takes fair turns prevalence wise in fantasy, and often it's just a lazy copying rather than an in universe justification of the inequality.

Edit; Also queer representation doesn't come near to matching real life numbers, no matter the genre of media.

[oppyu]

By that logic we shouldn't list Hylgia either.

I really don't want to look for that comic, but before introducing Inky, V talks about love and relationships (describing shim as "mate"). So he/she's (I always tought that V is female, and Inky male, with V as dominant partner, but that's not the topic here) not just one scene wonder, they are/were married, they have children (although adopted), and that makes I important enough to list him as love interest.

True, but we didn't see any of that. We didn't see V and Inky get married, we didn't see them adopting kids, little to no time was spent going through V's feelings on the matter... s/he wasn't so much a love interest as a backstory romance. Compared to Hilgya Firehelm, where we get a short but sweet built up as the two of them get closer on-panel, then they bump dwarven uglies on-panel, then they have an ugly on-panel break up.

And Elan. That's a third of the Order of the Stick, a third of the Linear Guild, and you can safely ignore Tsukiko. You can even add a [E?] tag for Belkar (if he sees V as male and he stilled kissed V, that does count as experimentation/bicuriosity). That would make the tag applicable to half the Order. I wouldn't scoff at that.

We don't know what happened with Elan at bard camp. For all we know, he could have accidentally done something homosexual, and then been stigmatised by his fellow bards. And Belkar was absolutely, magnificently drunk. If his behavior was in any way supported by his sober conduct I'd think about it, but at the time being the Vaarsuvius thing is just drunken tomfoolery. (I can't believe I just used the word 'tomfoolery'.)

[Shadowknight12]

My biggest issue is that it implies that the artist is guilty of marginalization or not guilty of it based on the time period he or she is born in. If we happened to live in a society where being bisexual was normative, by your definition of marginalizing, and being either homosexual or heterosexual was considered bizarre, then it would be marginalizing not to include prominent heterosexual and homosexual characters in a body of work.

This is correct. Marginalisation indeed is a product of cultural mores, which is why so much effort is put into education and hoping for a future where culture changes and marginalisation no longer happens (or is considered an exceptional thing).

I don't think so. It would be marginalizing if it failed to include heterosexual or homosexual characters where they would clearly exist or if it portrayed what characters were hetero/homosexual negatively or cliched.

Marginalisation is not black and white. It is not an on-off switch. It is a continuum of behaviours, a gradient. Some marginalisation is minimal and some reaches the level of hate speech. There is a whole world in between.

If an author wants to write a story all about gay characters, great. Or if it is set in an all girls dorm, awesome. Or if it is an island with a bunch of grade school boys trying to survive, good for him. The stories aren't less perfect for the lack of diversity. They tell the story they are supposed to tell. One difference might be that those concepts don't really allow the diversity, whereas most concepts would.

You disregarded my previous points about how imperfection is subjective and how nobody is trying to censor any author, tell them what to do, or have their work altered. I encourage you to re-read them. An art critic is not a censor.

But in my opinion, when it doesn't matter what gender/orientation/ethnicity a character is, the author should have the freedom to pick that character based on verisimilitude and the aesthetic the author prefers. There shouldn't be a sense of obligation to balance the cast out just for the sake of balancing the cast out. I would disagree with this only when it breaks believability. If the setting has a 74% female population and we almost never meet females, yeah, thats a problem.

Nobody is trying to censor anything or tell writers what to do. Nobody is telling writers what they can or can't do. We are criticising and analysing, and giving people information/education that they might be unaware of, to do with it what they will.

Also, I do not agree (in the slightest) with your assumption that representation must be a slave to demography. Asexuals might only be 1% of the population, but that does not invalidate analysing their marginalisation in the media. The same goes for the entire LGBT+ spectrum, as not a single letter in the whole QUILTBAG acronym (plus pansexuals) are majorities, and yet people like me will still continue to desire their inclusion.

I'm a writer. I do try and include some gay characters because it fleshes out the setting and adds new character dynamics to play with. But I wouldn't want to feel like I should add gay characters because of outside influences. I want to add things because it is good for the story within the context of the story, not because of societal pressures.

Nobody is out to get you. Nobody is out to tell you what to do. Criticism is not censorship or a demand for the product to be altered.

Please, stop arguing against that, because that is an argument nobody is making.

Well said, Shadowknight. I would add:

There is nothing wrong with writing a story filled with straight white males. The Name of the Rose is set in a medieval monastery; it's a brilliant book, but it's not exactly inclusive.

But an author should always be aware of the reasons why he or she is making choices. If a story works better with straight white males than it would with women or LGBT characters or non-white characters, that's reason enough. If you're making your characters straight white men because that's the default in your head, and you're making those choices without giving it any thought, then it's probably worth examining. Stories are made better by constant self-interrogation of authorial choices; even if you end up with straight white men, that process is worthwhile.

I agree, though I wouldn't purport to imply that such self-examination ought to be mandatory. Merely encouraged, lest they accuse us of being censors and trying to tell writers what to do.

EDIT:

We don't know what happened with Elan at bard camp. For all we know, he could have accidentally done something homosexual, and then been stigmatised by his fellow bards. And Belkar was absolutely, magnificently drunk. If his behavior was in any way supported by his sober conduct I'd think about it, but at the time being the Vaarsuvius thing is just drunken tomfoolery. (I can't believe I just used the word 'tomfoolery'.)

The theory that Elan has a bicurious side that he keeps hidden because of narrative conventions (see: the Samantha storyline where he unquestionably assumes his narrative role is to seduce female antagonists) is just as plausible as that one. The truth, obviously, is that it was just a one-time gag that will never be mentioned again, so we're never going to get confirmation one way or another.

No matter how drunk a straight person gets, they won't be pulling any moves on people they perceive as being of the same gender if there isn't already some baseline desire. Alcohol merely removes inhibitions and clouds judgement, it's not a love potion.

[SowZ]

This is correct. Marginalisation indeed is a product of cultural mores, which is why so much effort is put into education and hoping for a future where culture changes and marginalisation no longer happens (or is considered an exceptional thing).



Marginalisation is not black and white. It is not an on-off switch. It is a continuum of behaviours, a gradient. Some marginalisation is minimal and some reaches the level of hate speech. There is a whole world in between.



You disregarded my previous points about how imperfection is subjective and how nobody is trying to censor any author, tell them what to do, or have their work altered. I encourage you to re-read them. An art critic is not a censor.



Nobody is trying to censor anything or tell writers what to do. Nobody is telling writers what they can or can't do. We are criticising and analysing, and giving people information/education that they might be unaware of, to do with it what they will.

Also, I do not agree (in the slightest) with your assumption that representation must be a slave to demography. Asexuals might only be 1% of the population, but that does not invalidate analysing their marginalisation in the media. The same goes for the entire LGBT+ spectrum, as not a single letter in the whole QUILTBAG acronym (plus pansexuals) are majorities, and yet people like me will still continue to desire their inclusion.



Nobody is out to get you. Nobody is out to tell you what to do. Criticism is not censorship or a demand for the product to be altered.

Please, stop arguing against that, because that is an argument nobody is making.



I agree, though I wouldn't purport to imply that such self-examination ought to be mandatory. Merely encouraged, lest they accuse us of being censors and trying to tell writers what to do.

EDIT:



The theory that Elan has a bicurious side that he keeps hidden because of narrative conventions (see: the Samantha storyline where he unquestionably assumes his narrative role is to seduce female antagonists) is just as plausible as that one. The truth, obviously, is that it was just a one-time gag that will never be mentioned again, so we're never going to get confirmation one way or another.

No matter how drunk a straight person gets, they won't be pulling any moves on people they perceive as being of the same gender if there isn't already some baseline desire. Alcohol merely removes inhibitions and clouds judgement, it's not a love potion.

I realize you are not saying writers should be forced to write one way or another. Yes, imperfection is subjective. I am disagreeing with your definitions of it. When I say,

If an author wants to write a story all about gay characters, great. Or if it is set in an all girls dorm, awesome. Or if it is an island with a bunch of grade school boys trying to survive, good for him. The stories aren't less perfect for the lack of diversity. They tell the story they are supposed to tell. One difference might be that those concepts don't really allow the diversity, whereas most concepts would.

and you respond by saying no one is censoring authors, you're completely missing my point.

Of course I know you aren't trying to pass laws or bully authors around. That isn't my point. My point is that where you are saying you think that lack of diversity or representation is an imperfection, I am saying it is not. It can be the best way to tell a certain story. I know you're not be saying, "We have to boycott the author if he doesn't include a gay character." What you are saying is, "I critique the lack of female characters." That can be a legitimate critique in some contexts, but by itself I think it is an unfair critique.

I'm aware that a critiquing art is not censorship and is someones right. Just as it is my right to say when I don't think a certain critique is fair. In my quoted section, where did I accuse you of censoring? My point was that the story is not less perfect for the lack of diversity, not that anyone is keeping the artist from telling that story.

Further, I never once implied that representation is a slave to demography. Multiple times I said a story can be all gay, great, and clearly that goes against demography. I don't know where you are getting at. I did say that in a setting where most people were women, it would be a problem, (as in breaks believability,) if we never meet women. That is not at all the same as what you are saying I believe.

If marginalization is just the lack of including certain types of people in a work, and not negative portrayals of those people, I fully support marginalization and hope it never goes away. Some stories benefit from being all female, or all male, or just about all gay, or just about all straight, or all Chinese.

As for not trying to limit authors, I see a general metric being used that doesn't factor in the needs of that work specifically. Like I said, as an author I want to make characters gay or straight of male or female based soley on the needs of that story and what would be good for that story. Unless I'm commenting on something social, I don't want outside forces to influence the demographics in my story. No, you aren't trying to force me to write what you prefer. I would not at all object to you saying you aren't interested in a writing that doesn't include strong female leads, for example. What you are interested in is totally your call. What I do object to is you saying the work is less perfect because of that.

[Raineh Daze]

What you are instead saying is that works should not be criticised for lack of inclusiveness, because they might require a specific cast to work. Unless that is built into the premise, I cannot see how it's a valid defence.

Set at an all boys' school? Lack of women makes sense.

Set in a setting without such restrictions? Then it's lack of representation that the story in no way would suffer from if the gender balance was more equal. Gender and sexuality do not wholly determine character role.

[Zmeoaice]

Maybe we can look at race too.

Order of the Stick
Roy Greenhilt: Black, main protagonist, leader,
Elan: White, supporting protagonist,
Haley Starshine: White, supporting protagonist, second-in-command/leader (of AzuCR),
Belkar Bitterleaf: White (hobbit), supporting protagonist
Vaarsuvius: White (elf) supporting protagonist
Durkon Thundershield: white(? somewhat darkish skin) (dwarf) supporting protagonist, dead.

Team Evil
Xykon: white, major antagonist, leader
Redcloak: No real life counterpart-Green (goblin) major antagonist, second-in-command
MitD: N/A major character
Tsukiko: East Asian, supporting antagonist, vying for second-in-command, dead.
Jirix: No real life counterpart-Orange (Hobgoblin) supporting antagonist

Linear Guild
Nale: White, major antagonist, leader
Sabine: Black (Demon), major antagonist, second-in-command
thog: No real life counterpart-Green (Half-orc), major antagonist, dead(?)
Zz'dtri: No real life counterpart-Grey (Drow), supporting antagonist
Yukyuk: No real life counterpart-Orange (Kobold), supporting antagonist, dead
Pompey: White (half-elf), supporting antagonist
Leeky Windstaff: black(?) gnome, supporting antagonist
Yokyok: No real life counterpart-orange (Kobold), supporting antagonist, dead
Yikyik: No real life counterpart- Orange (Kobold), supporting antagonist, dead
Hilgya Firehelm: White (dwarf), supporting antagonist,

Azure City
Shojo: East Asian, major ally, leader, dead
Hinjo: East Asian, major ally, leader
O-Chul: East Asian, major ally
Lien: East Asian, supporting ally
Daigo Da-: East Asian, supporting ally, love interest of Kazumi Kato
Kazumi Kato: East Asian, supporting ally, love interest of Daigo Da-
Miko Miyazaki: East Asian, major ally/antagonist, dead
Daimyo Kubota: East Asian, supporting antagonist, leader, dead
Therkla: No real life counterpart-green (half-orc), straight, supporting ally/antagonist,

Team Tarquin
Tarquin: White, straight, major antagonist, leader
Malack: No real life counterpart-snow white (vampire lizardfolk), major antagonist, second-in-command
Empress of Blood: No real life counterpart-red (dragon), minor antagonist, patsy
Kilkil: No real life counterpart-orange (flying Kobold), minor antagonist, lackey

Greysky City
Bozzok: No real life counterpart-green (half-orc), supporting antagonist, leader
Hank: white (halfling), supporting antagonist, second-in-command
Crystal: White, supporting antagonist, dead

Azure City Resistance
Ho Thanh: East Asian, supporting ally, leader, dead
Niu: East Asian, supporting ally, second-in-command (?)
Eye-patched leader: East Asian, minor supporting ally, dead
Knot-topped leader: East Asian, minor supporting ally, dead
Team Peregrine Leader: dark skinned (elf), minor supporting ally, leader (of TP), dead.
Team Peregrine Lieutenant: White (elf), minor supporting ally, second-in-command (of TP), dead.

Other
Celia: White (Slyph), straight, supporting ally,
Qarr: No real life counterpart-red (imp), supporting antagonist
The IFCC: No real life counterpart- black(?) (fiends), major antagonists
The Oracle: No real life counterpart-orange (Kobold), minor character

Order of the Scribble
Soon Kim: East Asian, straight, leader, dead
Lirian: White (elf), straight, second-in-command, dead
Dorukan: White, straight, love interest of Lirian, dead
Serini: White (hobbit), dead (?)
Girard Draketooth: White, dead
Kraagor: Dark skinned (Dwarf), dead

Those Bandits From A Really Long Time Ago
Samantha: White, straight, minor antagonist, leader, dead.
Samantha's Dad: White, minor antagonist, second-in-command, dead.

[Shadowknight12]

I realize you are not saying writers should be forced to write one way or another. Yes, imperfection is subjective. I am disagreeing with your definitions of it. When I say, and you respond by saying no one is censoring authors, you're completely missing my point.

Nobody is asking you to agree with my definition of imperfection. I am allowed to consider whatever I want as imperfect, and I am obeying the rules of civility by not shoving that definition down anybody's throat. Nobody in this thread is trying to convince you to change your mind. If you do not agree with someone's definition of imperfection, that's okay. Nobody will mind. This thread isn't for you.

Of course I know you aren't trying to pass laws or bully authors around. That isn't my point. My point is that where you are saying you think that lack of diversity or representation is an imperfection, I am saying it is not. It can be the best way to tell a certain story. I know you're not be saying, "We have to boycott the author if he doesn't include a gay character." What you are saying is, "I critique the lack of female characters." That can be a legitimate critique in some contexts, but by itself I think it is an unfair critique.

I'm aware that a critiquing art is not censorship and is someones right. Just as it is my right to say when I don't think a certain critique is fair. In my quoted section, where did I accuse you of censoring? My point was that the story is not less perfect for the lack of diversity, not that anyone is keeping the artist from telling that story.

You have every right not to agree with my critique. That does not affect my critique whatsoever, and I still stand by it. I do not agree with you and I am not troubled or moved by that. I am content with agreeing to disagreeing.

If marginalization is just the lack of including certain types of people in a work, and not negative portrayals of those people, I fully support marginalization and hope it never goes away. Some stories benefit from being all female, or all male, or just about all gay, or just about all straight, or all Chinese.

And in this, we too, shall always disagree. The good thing is that nobody's stopping you from writing those stories, just like nobody's stopping me from writing inclusive stories.

As for not trying to limit authors, I see a general metric being used that doesn't factor in the needs of that work specifically. Like I said, as an author I want to make characters gay or straight of male or female based soley on the needs of that story and what would be good for that story. Unless I'm commenting on something social, I don't want outside forces to influence the demographics in my story. No, you aren't trying to force me to write what you prefer. I would not at all object to you saying you aren't interested in a writing that doesn't include strong female leads, for example. What you are interested in is totally your call. What I do object to is you saying the work is less perfect because of that.

Yet it is my prerogative to say exactly that. That's the entire point of imperfection being subjective, that I can have one definition of it and you can have another, and we might disagree on whether a work is imperfect or not, and that is okay.

I respect that your definition of imperfection is not the same as mine, and that you might consider a story imperfect that I wouldn't, and viceversa. Why can't you extend the same courtesy to me?

[SowZ]

Nobody is asking you to agree with my definition of imperfection. I am allowed to consider whatever I want as imperfect, and I am obeying the rules of civility by not shoving that definition down anybody's throat. Nobody in this thread is trying to convince you to change your mind. If you do not agree with someone's definition of imperfection, that's okay. Nobody will mind. This thread isn't for you.



You have every right not to agree with my critique. That does not affect my critique whatsoever, and I still stand by it. I do not agree with you and I am not troubled or moved by that. I am content with agreeing to disagreeing.



And in this, we too, shall always disagree. The good thing is that nobody's stopping you from writing those stories, just like nobody's stopping me from writing inclusive stories.



Yet it is my prerogative to say exactly that. That's the entire point of imperfection being subjective, that I can have one definition of it and you can have another, and we might disagree on whether a work is imperfect or not, and that is okay.

I respect that your definition of imperfection is not the same as mine, and that you might consider a story imperfect that I wouldn't, and viceversa. Why can't you extend the same courtesy to me?

I respect your right to define perfection and imperfection however you please. There is no such thing as true perfection anyway, so it isn't like one of us can be right and the other wrong if choose to define it.

My point is that some stories are told better by including as few demographics as possible, (like Lord of the Flies or many dorm stories,) so it isn't a mark against the quality of the story that the writer chooses not to include a certain gender, just as it isn't a mark against a story that a writer chooses a certain genre that I'm not too fond of. I probably won't read it if I don't like that genre, but it doesn't make the story less perfect because it is that genre. Probably it is the best way to tell that specific story, since shifting genres could make it a substantially different story.

I actually prefer inclusive stories. There are typically more character dynamics and ways to challenge audience perception if you have a varied cast. But some stories wouldn't be benefited by more inclusiveness.

[Raineh Daze]

I respect your right to define perfection and imperfection however you please. There is no such thing as true perfection anyway, so it isn't like one of us can be right and the other wrong if choose to define it.

My point is that some stories are told better by including as few demographics as possible, (like Lord of the Flies or many dorm stories,) so it isn't a mark against the quality of the story that the writer chooses not to include a certain gender, just as it isn't a mark against a story that a writer chooses a certain genre that I'm not too fond of. I probably won't read it if I don't like that genre, but it doesn't make the story less perfect because it is that genre. Probably it is the best way to tell that specific story, since shifting genres could make it a substantially different story.

I actually prefer inclusive stories. There are typically more character dynamics and ways to challenge audience perception if you have a varied cast. But some stories wouldn't be benefited by more inclusiveness.

The fun thing is, most stories would benefit.

This would be one of them, because nothing is derived from the current representation.

You're using, as an example, stories specifically about one group. I'm not terribly sure why.

[jere7my]

As for not trying to limit authors, I see a general metric being used that doesn't factor in the needs of that work specifically. Like I said, as an author I want to make characters gay or straight of male or female based soley on the needs of that story and what would be good for that story.

I don't think anyone here disagrees with that. The issue arises when the characters an author comes up with are straight white males by default, and are only made different if there's a specific story reason for it. That perpetuates the notion that straight, white, and male are the unmarked norms — that an off-the-rack, generic, "normal" character will be straight and white and male, and anyone else has to have a reason for existing.

I have no idea what your process is, so I can't speak to it. But it is not uncommon for a writer to, by default, make the hero a SWM, and the buddy a SWM, and the love interest...oh, wait, we need a woman for that, don't we? And this guy they meet needs a shameful past, so let's make him gay, that's an easy way to add some past emotional angst...etc.

It makes for better stories when a writer doesn't jump immediately to the same demographics we're used to seeing, or at least rolls their characters around in their head after the initial conception, asking themselves questions like, "What if Kraal Thunderthews were a woman; would that make the story stronger?"

[dps]

As has been said above, he wouldn't miss it because he was already incapable. That does not constitute sufficient evidence for asexuality.

The term for someone who is still capable of feeling sexual attraction but incapable of acting on it isn't asexual, it's frustrated.

[Shadowknight12]

I respect your right to define perfection and imperfection however you please. There is no such thing as true perfection anyway, so it isn't like one of us can be right and the other wrong if choose to define it.

Precisely, neither of us is right nor wrong. We simply have different conceptions of imperfection.

My point is that some stories are told better by including as few demographics as possible, (like Lord of the Flies or many dorm stories,) so it isn't a mark against the quality of the story that the writer chooses not to include a certain gender, just as it isn't a mark against a story that a writer chooses a certain genre that I'm not too fond of. I probably won't read it if I don't like that genre, but it doesn't make the story less perfect because it is that genre. Probably it is the best way to tell that specific story, since shifting genres could make it a substantially different story.

I actually prefer inclusive stories. There are typically more character dynamics and ways to challenge audience perception if you have a varied cast. But some stories wouldn't be benefited by more inclusiveness.

And I am not fond of stories whose main premise precludes, by necessity, inclusion, such as the examples you are citing. In my opinion, such a premise would make the story imperfect and it would be worth criticising and analysing the merits of that premise and whether the same objectives could have been achieved with a more inclusive premise.

But I do understand that others may not agree with me, and that's fine. No, really, it is. If you do not share the same interests that I do, it's okay not to join me in that kind of activity.

I understand that the image most people have of those who touch these issues is that of an angry mob that wants to get into your house, tie you up with a pride flag, gag you with a burning bra and destroy all your books, movies, games and forms of media.

But you'll find that most of us are perfectly willing to have civilised and polite conversations where we calmly and politely analyse and criticise a work without harming anybody.

I don't think anyone here disagrees with that. The issue arises when the characters an author comes up with are straight white males by default, and are only made different if there's a specific story reason for it. That perpetuates the notion that straight, white, and male are the unmarked norms — that an off-the-rack, generic, "normal" character will be straight and white and male, and anyone else has to have a reason for existing.

This, this is exactly it. The entire point of inclusion is that, save some exceedingly specific circumstances, a more inclusive story helps dispel stereotypes, the normativity of straight-white-maleness, and turns being non-straight, non-white and non-male into something natural and common, not as a mysterious or exotic Other.

Or at least, that's why I like inclusion.

[Lvl45DM!]

I knew this would happen. I go to sleep check in in the morning and someone had to start an argument rather than just enjoy this thread for what it is.

[Tamari]

Lien is straight, she mentions having a "steady boyfriend" in the DStP bonus material.

[SowZ]

The fun thing is, most stories would benefit.

This would be one of them, because nothing is derived from the current representation.

You're using, as an example, stories specifically about one group. I'm not terribly sure why.

I'm using those examples as an extreme example. Sometimes, there is a specific reason for a limited cast. It's to show that diverse stories aren't inherently better. Most stories could include balanced genders and such, sure. And there's no reason it shouldn't. But if it favors one gender, ethnicity, religion, etc. without a strong reason to do so the issue here isn't so much that there isn't enough minority representation, IMO, (because I don't use that as a metric of quality,) but that the author is making something more boring than it needs to be by limiting character dynamics.

I don't think that's true of OOTS, anyway. There are lots of women in this story who are totally awesome. More men, but not so much so that it makes the story more boring. And women as leaders doesn't seem to be out of place at all in the world. (Some aren't listed in the thread, either, like the leader of one of the resistance groups,) and some aren't great leaders, (like Haley,) but most of the men who lead are pretty lousy leaders, too. (Xykon, Nale, etc.)

As for ethnicity, seems to be well represented. Imbalance is primarily based on region, which makes perfect sense, really.

When it comes to sexual orientation, sure, there isn't a whole lot. But when the subject does come up, it is usually treated respectfully. I don't want to start a story with a check list and see if they have at least X many ethnicities and X many people of less common sexual preferences. Not trying to say you do, but I will look at how the work treats diversity as a whole. Again, there is mention of people being gay, so it is recognized in the comic as fairly normal, but there aren't any main characters confirmed as gay.

I don't think anyone here disagrees with that. The issue arises when the characters an author comes up with are straight white males by default, and are only made different if there's a specific story reason for it. That perpetuates the notion that straight, white, and male are the unmarked norms — that an off-the-rack, generic, "normal" character will be straight and white and male, and anyone else has to have a reason for existing.

I have no idea what your process is, so I can't speak to it. But it is not uncommon for a writer to, by default, make the hero a SWM, and the buddy a SWM, and the love interest...oh, wait, we need a woman for that, don't we? And this guy they meet needs a shameful past, so let's make him gay, that's an easy way to add some past emotional angst...etc.

It makes for better stories when a writer doesn't jump immediately to the same demographics we're used to seeing, or at least rolls their characters around in their head after the initial conception, asking themselves questions like, "What if Kraal Thunderthews were a woman; would that make the story stronger?"

Based on my perceptions and my impression of OOTS world, there are lots of characters I make no assumption about when it comes to sexual orientation. I have no opinion about Thanh's or O-Chul's sex life. V could easily be gay or pansexual, as has been mentioned. It doesn't seem to matter so doesn't come up that often.

Precisely, neither of us is right nor wrong. We simply have different conceptions of imperfection.



And I am not fond of stories whose main premise precludes, by necessity, inclusion, such as the examples you are citing. In my opinion, such a premise would make the story imperfect and it would be worth criticising and analysing the merits of that premise and whether the same objectives could have been achieved with a more inclusive premise.

But I do understand that others may not agree with me, and that's fine. No, really, it is. If you do not share the same interests that I do, it's okay not to join me in that kind of activity.

I understand that the image most people have of those who touch these issues is that of an angry mob that wants to get into your house, tie you up with a pride flag, gag you with a burning bra and destroy all your books, movies, games and forms of media.

But you'll find that most of us are perfectly willing to have civilised and polite conversations where we calmly and politely analyse and criticise a work without harming anybody.



This, this is exactly it. The entire point of inclusion is that, save some exceedingly specific circumstances, a more inclusive story helps dispel stereotypes, the normativity of straight-white-maleness, and turns being non-straight, non-white and non-male into something natural and common, not as a mysterious or exotic Other.

Or at least, that's why I like inclusion.

I don't have any image of you being some sort of extremist. Just that I think a lot of it boils down to preference as opposed to how well a story is crafted. Having a very inclusive story to dispel norms is cool and when writers do it it can be interesting. I wouldn't fault a writer that didn't, though.

[Shadowknight12]

I don't have any image of you being some sort of extremist. Just that I think a lot of it boils down to preference as opposed to how well a story is crafted. Having a very inclusive story to dispel norms is cool and when writers do it it can be interesting. I wouldn't fault a writer that didn't, though.

Nobody's faulting anyone. While the whole "can there be objectivity in art analysis" thing has been the subject of much debate, I am of the personal opinion that some personal preferences, particularly strongly-held ones (and which pertain to the spheres of society, ethics and the like), are perfectly fine to use as a measure for how well a story is crafted.

[jere7my]

Based on my perceptions and my impression of OOTS world, there are lots of characters I make no assumption about when it comes to sexual orientation. I have no opinion about Thanh's or O-Chul's sex life. V could easily be gay or pansexual, as has been mentioned. It doesn't seem to matter so doesn't come up that often.

I was making a general point, not actually talking about anything in OotS. If anything, Rich long ago demonstrated exactly what I'm talking about by choosing to make Roy black. There's no story reason for it; he just is, because, hey, it's normal for some people to be black.

[SowZ]

Nobody's faulting anyone. While the whole "can there be objectivity in art analysis" thing has been the subject of much debate, I am of the personal opinion that some personal preferences, particularly strongly-held ones (and which pertain to the spheres of society, ethics and the like), are perfectly fine to use as a measure for how well a story is crafted.

Hmm, I like to think that the value of an art piece can and usually should stand independent of the story behind its creator, author intent, its time period, and the culture it is written in, (with the obvious exception of true parody and direct social commentary.) You can sometimes get more out of a work if you understand the authors story and the culture, but I view all of that as distinctly separate from the work itself. It's why I don't accept Word of G-d as the end all canon. It may be the authors intent and the authors interpretation, but every other interpretation is just as valid.

[Shadowknight12]

Hmm, I like to think that the value of an art piece can and usually should stand independent of the story behind its creator, author intent, its time period, and the culture it is written in, (with the obvious exception of true parody and direct social commentary.) You can sometimes get more out of a work if you understand the authors story and the culture, but I view all of that as distinctly separate from the work itself. It's why I don't accept Word of G-d as the end all canon. It may be the authors intent and the authors interpretation, but every other interpretation is just as valid.

That is called Death of the Author and is a perfectly valid method of criticism, one which I personally neither reject nor embrace.