On the topic of recent tweets sent out by the Giant

[brian 333]

I want to point out that my stance has never been that showing LGBT characters is somehow bad unless justified and showing straight characters is okay. This is a deliberate mis-reading of my posts.

My point is that any, (note ANY,) sexual identity must be justified within the context of the story.

It makes no more sense to discuss Haley's preference for blond male bards than to discuss Bandana's preference for girls of Haley's build, other than in context of the narrative.

If gender identity or preference is a valid part of the story, then by all means include it in the story. If it is an important aspect of characterization, then by all means, include it in the characterization.

But the same level of justification is required for the inclusion of straight sexual identity as for others. Including any, (note ANY,) sexualization must have a valid story purpose, or the work risks devolving into smut. Showing sex for the purpose of titilization is cheap and shallow.

Let me ask you how many well portrayed LGBT persons have been in media lately? I admit it's getting better but, by and large, over the years the only gay people we've seen speak with a lisp, walk with a hitch in their stride, and come on to every guy on the stage. The only time I ever meet people who act like that is during Mardi Gras, and they aren't really gay people.

It is this kind of stereotyping for the sake of inclusiveness to which I object. And I object to it strongly. Stereotyping is hurtful, and it expresses an ignorance on the part of the writer that is better left unrevealed. Including a stereotype for the sake of appearing inclusive is hurtful to the cause of normalization of LGBT humans, as much as the stereotyping of blacks in cinema was for over 80 years.

Not every LGBT person is Liberace. In fact, all of them except Liberace aren't. Every person is unique. Unique persons who happen to be LGBT are good additions to works of fiction.

But please don't toss in a dancing lawnmower man and call that diversity.

[Bulldog Psion]

"Jeez, I wish Rich would stop forcing his views on colourblindness on us. I mean, what narrative purpose did Hinjo's colourblindness serve?"

Preach it, brother! I mean, only about 1.3% of men have that type of colorblindness! Until we have 98.7 men who are designated as NOT colorblind, I demand that 1 man not be included who has it! Furthermore, having just one colorblind person is just tokenism. But having two or more is quota-filling! I demand that Rich justify this choice in terms of the whole narrative in enormous, tedious detail!

[Jormengand]

I want to point out that my stance has never been that showing LGBT characters is somehow bad unless justified and showing straight characters is okay. This is a deliberate mis-reading of my posts.

My point is that any, (note ANY,) sexual identity must be justified within the context of the story.

It makes no more sense to discuss Haley's preference for blond male bards than to discuss Bandana's preference for girls of Haley's build, other than in context of the narrative.

If gender identity or preference is a valid part of the story, then by all means include it in the story. If it is an important aspect of characterization, then by all means, include it in the characterization.

But the same level of justification is required for the inclusion of straight sexual identity as for others. Including any, (note ANY,) sexualization must have a valid story purpose, or the work risks devolving into smut. Showing sex for the purpose of titilization is cheap and shallow.

Let me ask you how many well portrayed LGBT persons have been in media lately? I admit it's getting better but, by and large, over the years the only gay people we've seen speak with a lisp, walk with a hitch in their stride, and come on to every guy on the stage. The only time I ever meet people who act like that is during Mardi Gras, and they aren't really gay people.

It is this kind of stereotyping for the sake of inclusiveness to which I object. And I object to it strongly. Stereotyping is hurtful, and it expresses an ignorance on the part of the writer that is better left unrevealed. Including a stereotype for the sake of appearing inclusive is hurtful to the cause of normalization of LGBT humans, as much as the stereotyping of blacks in cinema was for over 80 years.

Not every LGBT person is Liberace. In fact, all of them except Liberace aren't. Every person is unique. Unique persons who happen to be LGBT are good additions to works of fiction.

But please don't toss in a dancing lawnmower man and call that diversity.

Bandanna could just as easily have been referring to her sister instead of her ex-girlfriend. Rich made her say "Ex" instead because it didn't make any difference. Her sister would have had no relevance to the story either, but you'd not have complained.

As was pointed out, the two people making out behind a tree had precisely zero story purpose, and precisely zero people objected to them.

You're going to have to show me that you're objecting for any basis beyond her being a lesbian, rather than any other random quality she might have had for no reason. You might as well ask why Bandanna has the colour of hair she does.

[Tengu_temp]

My point is that any, (note ANY,) sexual identity must be justified within the context of the story.

I don't agree, for two reasons:
1. Showing that character X is attracted to character Y, even if both are background people with no plot significance, builds the world to some small extent. It shows it's more alive, and has people who act like people and are capable of emotions - including love. A minimalist approach, where only things that are crucial to the main story are shown, is good for some stories, but doesn't work for most of them.
2. People who belong to a minority often feel disappointed or unwelcome if that minority does not show up in the story, and welcome if it does and it's more than just a collection of stereotypes. It's not just me, a white straight cis guy, talking out of his butt, it's something many such people expressed many times, including in this thread. And while you can include, for example, racial minorities by simply having characters of this or that race and don't have to draw attention to it because everyone can see it just by looking, it's hard to show a gay character without either saying they're gay, or showing them act in a romantic manner towards members of the same gender. Which is why some spotlight has to be given to their sexual orientation, even if it's completely unimportant to the story, or else the audience will never learn about it.

What's more important: making many homosexual people feel better about OotS, knowing that its author does not pretend they don't exist and doesn't treat them like evil monsters or horrible caricatures, or having a tiny bit slightly tighter narrative by cutting a line that's not important for the main storyline?

[brian 333]

Preach it, brother! I mean, only about 1.3% of men have that type of colorblindness! Until we have 98.7 men who are designated as NOT colorblind, I demand that 1 man not be included who has it! Furthermore, having just one colorblind person is just tokenism. But having two or more is quota-filling! I demand that Rich justify this choice in terms of the whole narrative in enormous, tedious detail!

This is such an exaggerated misstatement of the views I have posted that it has become insulting. It is as if the poster never actually read what I wrote, but substituted what he believed anyone who would dare to disagree with him would have said and responded to that.

Please read my text with open eyes and open mind. I don't mind debating issues, but I cannot debate if my comments are twisted to mean something I never said. That is a tactic known as the straw man argument and it cheapens the debate.

[SaintRidley]

Following TDG's lead, a collection of incidental straightness that nobody ever complains about not having narrative purpose despite claiming that Bandanna mentioning her ex in one panel suddenly needs narrative purpose (online strips only) from the beginning of DCF to the end of W&XPs. Please somebody else finish it off, because this is very time consuming.

Elan only really considers making hot lady illusions as distractions for male enemies for a while.
Roy's reaction is a bit over the top "protect my straightness"
Durkon's too.
#35
Violet exists only to be straight with Eugene. The horror.
Good goblin's parents are straight though it adds nothing to their characterization.
He's also straight for no reason.
Eve and Larry - implied to be a straight couple, no real reason for it.
Incidentally straight tasty people.
Playdrake
Incidentally straight dirt farmers
Lecherous straight assassin
Straightness: so important to Pompey's character.It's not like any other quasi-imagined slight would do.
Mijung exists so Soon could be straight.
Incidentally straight festival women
Other incidentally straight festival woman
Incidentally straight foreground couple
And her (last panel)
Julia's teachers
Guard
Blind Date on the teevo
War Probation guy hitting on Haley

Not included: Hilgya, instances such as Haley and Elan passing notes in battle (which is way more throwing their straightness in our faces than what Bandanna did), and really any interactions between main characters and love interests real (Celia) or imagined (Miko).

[brian 333]

Bandanna could just as easily have been referring to her sister instead of her ex-girlfriend. Rich made her say "Ex" instead because it didn't make any difference. Her sister would have had no relevance to the story either, but you'd not have complained.

As was pointed out, the two people making out behind a tree had precisely zero story purpose, and precisely zero people objected to them.

You're going to have to show me that you're objecting for any basis beyond her being a lesbian, rather than any other random quality she might have had for no reason. You might as well ask why Bandanna has the colour of hair she does.

I have not objected to either situation. I found nothing wrong with either of them, and in fact supported both when previously challenged on this very issue.

The two people making out behind a tree were part of the character development of Miko, and Bandana's statement was a fleshing out of her character. Both were valid inclusions in the story. There was a valid story purpose, in both cases, although the first one was more of a joke setup than a plot-driver.

[Jormengand]

This is such an exaggerated misstatement of the views I have posted that it has become insulting. It is as if the poster never actually read what I wrote, but substituted what he believed anyone who would dare to disagree with him would have said and responded to that.

Please read my text with open eyes and open mind. I don't mind debating issues, but I cannot debate if my comments are twisted to mean something I never said. That is a tactic known as the straw man argument and it cheapens the debate.

It's funny how everyone is "Misreading" your statements in the exact same way. It's not at all as though that's what you actually, y'know, said, and now you're furiously backtracking, no siree.

Look, maybe you need to tell us exactly what your objection is to Bandanna wasting what I think I calculated was about a 300,000th of your time spent reading the comic by mentioning her ex. Because I'm not seeing it, and neither's anyone else.

EDIT: Or whatever else you were objecting to. If you weren't objecting to Bandanna then who were you objecting to?

[brian 333]

I don't agree, for two reasons:
1. Showing that character X is attracted to character Y, even if both are background people with no plot significance, builds the world to some small extent. It shows it's more alive, and has people who act like people and are capable of emotions - including love. A minimalist approach, where only things that are crucial to the main story are shown, is good for some stories, but doesn't work for most of them.
2. People who belong to a minority often feel disappointed or unwelcome if that minority does not show up in the story, and welcome if it does and it's more than just a collection of stereotypes. It's not just me, a white straight cis guy, talking out of his butt, it's something many such people expressed many times, including in this thread. And while you can include, for example, racial minorities by simply having characters of this or that race and don't have to draw attention to it because everyone can see it just by looking, it's hard to show a gay character without either saying they're gay, or showing them act in a romantic manner towards members of the same gender. Which is why some spotlight has to be given to their sexual orientation, even if it's completely unimportant to the story, or else the audience will never learn about it.

1. There is nothing wrong with worldbuilding, and I have not objected to it. In fact, I demonstrated an example of it when I mentioned in an earlier post a park scene with two old men holding hands as the main characters walked by.

2. This is the crux of my argument and I'd like to point out that I agree with what you have said. Except this: the typical depiction of homosexual persons in cinema are generally insulting and derogatory. This is not what you want people to believe is the norm for such persons. Not all lesbians are overweight, tattooed, flannel-wearing truck drivers, and not all gays are effeminate boys with bad fashion sense and a lisp. LGBT people are people, and should be shown as such. If all you have time for is a stereotype that can be identified on sight, then you shouldn't include that because stereotypes do not promote understanding of LGBT persons and, in fact, promote misunderstandings.

[Toper]

Yeah, my impression is that Brian basically thinks some depictions of minorities count as "tokens" and he doesn't like those, but he thinks Bandana was fine. How he decides what's a token and what's not I do not know; he talks about story relevance, but that seems silly. The dirt farmers' race and sexuality, say, is not particularly relevant, but it's hard to avoid giving them some race and sexuality.

So Brian's attempted justification sounds to me and others, a lot like a failed attempt to rationalize his discomfort with certain depictions of minorities. So we're kind of surprised that he thinks Bandana is fine. That impression of ours might be totally wrong, but I think it's where people's reactions are coming from.

[brian 333]

It's funny how everyone is "Misreading" your statements in the exact same way. It's not at all as though that's what you actually, y'know, said, and now you're furiously backtracking, no siree.

Look, maybe you need to tell us exactly what your objection is to Bandanna wasting what I think I calculated was about a 300,000th of your time spent reading the comic by mentioning her ex. Because I'm not seeing it, and neither's anyone else.

EDIT: Or whatever else you were objecting to. If you weren't objecting to Bandanna then who were you objecting to?

Please find any statement I have made which demonstrates I have in any way backtracked.

People are not misreading my statements, they are reading the statements of others who have mis-stated what I wrote. If they had read my statements they would know I have stated that I approved of the way The Giant handled the inclusion of Bandana's sexuality in his comic.

If you had read my earlier posts you would see that my objection is to stereotyping and tokenism, both of which have proven harmful to the cause of equal rights for racial minorities in the past, and both of which are the cause of difficulty in assimilation of LGBT persons into our culture currently.

Stereotyping is the unrealistic representation of a group of people by a familiar caricature. This leads people who don't know otherwise to believe that that group of people is accurately represented by the stereotype.

Tokenism is the inclusion of a particular member of a class or group for no other purpose than to demonstrate the broad-mindedness of the one who made the choice to include that person. However, a token representation can only be made if the person is visually different enough to be noticed, because the character's part is so minor that it cannot be expressed otherwise. This leads to either stereotyping or digression, and both methods distract from the narrative.

Please go back and find these statements I made earlier from which I am now backtracking. I am curious to see the result.

[Jormengand]

Stereotyping is the unrealistic representation of a group of people by a familiar caricature. This leads people who don't know otherwise to believe that that group of people is accurately represented by the stereotype.

Tokenism is the inclusion of a particular member of a class or group for no other purpose than to demonstrate the broad-mindedness of the one who made the choice to include that person. However, a token representation can only be made if the person is visually different enough to be noticed, because the character's part is so minor that it cannot be expressed otherwise. This leads to either stereotyping or digression, and both methods distract from the narrative.

So, why exactly are you arguing about a comic which has done neither of those things?

[brian 333]

Yeah, my impression is that Brian basically thinks some depictions of minorities count as "tokens" and he doesn't like those, but he thinks Bandana was fine. How he decides what's a token and what's not I do not know; he talks about story relevance, but that seems silly. The dirt farmers' race and sexuality, say, is not particularly relevant, but it's hard to avoid giving them some race and sexuality.

So Brian's attempted justification sounds to me and others, a lot like a failed attempt to rationalize his discomfort with certain depictions of minorities. So we're kind of surprised that he thinks Bandana is fine. That impression of ours might be totally wrong, but I think it's where people's reactions are coming from.

Why does story relevance seem silly to you? If it's not important to the story or to the composition of the characters who make the story happen, why have it in there at all? It appears The Giant agrees with me on that point:

I'm convinced that "awkward" is the new "filler" or "deus ex machina" around here. Everything that people don't like but can't express exactly why they don't like it is "awkward."

SMBC is a great comic, but it has the freedom to introduce any character it wants in any situation it wants and then discard it the next strip. If I showed Banadana with her girlfriend, that would mean that I was stuck with the character Bandana's Girlfriend, for whom I have no plans or story beats and would serve no narrative purpose (and, indeed, occupy time better spent focusing on Bandana's dreams and aspirations). Would it be better to have an extra gay character if that character's literal only purpose was to point to another character and say, "SHE'S GAY"? I don't believe so, no.

Relevance is the key. If you spend a page or two showing me a gun, then by Checkov's Law, that gun must be somehow important to the tale, whether as in directly being fired later in the show, or as a tool to aid in building the character owner of the gun. If it is mere scenery, that is okay too, but don't waste a page talking about something irrelevant to the story. That kind of digression makes a very poor story.

Also: any discomfort in the depictions of minorities is in the belief of the reader; it does not exist in any of my writings. I am not a homophobe, though some have attempted to paint me as such.

[brian 333]

So, why exactly are you arguing about a comic which has done neither of those things?

My first post was scrubbed because I foolishly quoted scripture to throw in the face of those who hold faith-based bias against homosexuality. But the rules of the forum forbid the quoting of scripture or the discussion of real religion.

My second post was an acknowledgement that The Giant had done a good job of including Bandana's sexual identity into the narrative.

I then read a series of posts which effectively said, "Jam all the LGBT characters you can into every work so we can get some exposure."

My third post, in which I brought up the concept of tokenism and stereotyping as negative, was a warning to those posters that care should be taken to avoid that kind of inclusiveness for nothing but the sake of inclusiveness. I stated that characters should be relevant to the story, and their sexuality should be a component of their characterization.

This lead some to mis-quote me as saying gays should have to be relevant, but it's okay if straights are not, which I never said, nor ever intended, nor which could have ever been construed by anything I said. In fact, I strongly disagree with the entire premise.

My point on that issue is strictly this: any story element should be relevant in some way to the story. Diverse characters are good, and development of what makes them characters is relevant. Gay or straight, if a character's sexuality is not important to the tale, it really shouldn't be included.

An interesting note that came up during the discussion: Dumbledore's sexuality. I'm not sure what sexuality has to do with pre-teen reading material, but it was stated that J.K. Rowling said Dumbledore was gay in an interview. Well and good. It never came up in the books, or the movies, (so far as I know,) because it was never a relevant detail. Knowing the answer for sure would not enhance the story in any way, and would require time to write in such details better spent on plot-relevant details.

[martianmister]

There is nothing more emblematic of this forum than three or four pages of debate between people who, as it turns out, pretty much agree with each other.

Or claims to agree with each other.

[Tengu_temp]

2. This is the crux of my argument and I'd like to point out that I agree with what you have said. Except this: the typical depiction of homosexual persons in cinema are generally insulting and derogatory. This is not what you want people to believe is the norm for such persons. Not all lesbians are overweight, tattooed, flannel-wearing truck drivers, and not all gays are effeminate boys with bad fashion sense and a lisp. LGBT people are people, and should be shown as such. If all you have time for is a stereotype that can be identified on sight, then you shouldn't include that because stereotypes do not promote understanding of LGBT persons and, in fact, promote misunderstandings.

Yeah, I pretty much meant this when I mentioned stereotypes. A ridiculous and offensive stereotype is even worse than just not having minority characters at all.

Luckily, that's not the case with GitP.

[ti'esar]

An interesting note that came up during the discussion: Dumbledore's sexuality. I'm not sure what sexuality has to do with pre-teen reading material, but it was stated that J.K. Rowling said Dumbledore was gay in an interview. Well and good. It never came up in the books, or the movies, (so far as I know,) because it was never a relevant detail. Knowing the answer for sure would not enhance the story in any way, and would require time to write in such details better spent on plot-relevant details.

If a fact about a fictional character isn't actually established "on screen", it's not really a fact.

There is no Dumbledore. He doesn't exist beyond what's established for him on the page. Yes, things told about him after the fact by the author might be of interest to a fan trying to develop a complete encyclopedic understanding of everything in the Harry Potter universe, but as far as issues of representation goes, if it's not something the reader sees going through the events of the books, I don't see how it can possibly qualify as representation.

[Keltest]

There is no Dumbledore. He doesn't exist beyond what's established for him on the page. Yes, things told about him after the fact by the author might be of interest to a fan trying to develop a complete encyclopedic understanding of everything in the Harry Potter universe, but as far as issues of representation goes, if it's not something the reader sees going through the events of the books, I don't see how it can possibly qualify as representation.

So Hinjo isn't really colorblind then?

[ti'esar]

So Hinjo isn't really colorblind then?

The way I see it, he is in a "canonical" sense, but if I was a red-green colorblind person looking to see people like me represented in OOTS, I wouldn't exactly see that comment as anything more than the absolute minimum.

In general, I'm not a big fan of stuff that's actually important being revealed only in author comments and not in the story proper.

[Jormengand]

So Hinjo isn't really colorblind then?

He could be. He could not be. Hey, just because some guy in a completely different universe from Hinjo said he was colourblind doesn't mean it's true! Doesn't mean it's false, either.

[CaDzilla]

So Hinjo isn't really colorblind then?

I think he's saying that it's pointless to have an LGBT character if there's nothing that shows that they're LGBT.

[Knaight]

So Hinjo isn't really colorblind then?

There's no indication that Hinjo is colorblind within the actual text, and as such Hinjo is a bad example of representations of colorblind people. There's also no indication that Hinjo isn't colorblind, which makes that also a dubious example.

Coming back to the tweets themselves, it's worth noting that they are public, and intended to be read. They aren't just a response to the person in question, they are also a statement to potential readers that if they are homophobic to the point of abandoning the comic that they are not welcome in the readership.

It's that part that makes the tweets so enjoyable. The readership can't effectively be welcoming to both bigots and the people they're bigoted towards, and the tweets are a clear indication of exactly which of those groups is the welcome one. It's downright refreshing.

[Keltest]

The way I see it, he is in a "canonical" sense, but if I was a red-green colorblind person looking to see people like me represented in OOTS, I wouldn't exactly see that comment as anything more than the absolute minimum.

In general, I'm not a big fan of stuff that's actually important being revealed only in author comments and not in the story proper.

I guess my point is, stories are more than just what is written on the page. If you limit yourself only to what you personally have read, youre missing a large part of the story. Take a series like The Dresden Files, for example. If you stop halfway through, youre missing some critical pieces of information that make you look back and reconsider everything you read up until that point. That doesn't make the earlier books any less valid, but it offers radically different insights when you think about them. I suppose yes, if the information is particularly obscure its less than meaningful, but that doesn't mean very public word of Author announcements should be treated the same way.

[crayzz]

My point is that any, (note ANY,) sexual identity must be justified within the context of the story.

Why? Why do I need to justify sexuality, and not names, hair colour, dress style, speech patterns, nationality, gender, height, etc. Now, any or all of those things can serve narrative purpose, as much as sexuality can. But it's absolutely absurd to assert that every detail must be justified in story. Doing so, in fact, is very unrealistic; many aspects of almost any but the most story are incidental. They're the texture and the backdrop of the world.

Since justifying every character detail just isn't going to happen, why must sexuality in particular be justified in context?

I guess my point is, stories are more than just what is written on the page.

Has anyone read Inkheart?

Spoiler: Just in case

Show

The premise of the story is that a man has the strange power to bring things out of a story he's reading out loud. He brings out an evil villain and some of his henchmen. Later, the villain establishes a base of operations, and has the man's daughter (the main character) and the author of the book from which the villain came. The villain refuses to believe that the author is actually the author... until the author starts revealing details about the villain (the villains lowly origins, who his mother is, etc) that were never actually part of the book.

There are often details and aspects of stories that aren't explicit, but are considered by the author when writing the book. Dumbledore being gay isn't necessary, no, but his relationship with Grindelwald is coloured by the fact.

[brian 333]

Why? Why do I need to justify sexuality, and not names, hair colour, dress style, speech patterns, nationality, gender, height, etc. Now, any or all of those things can serve narrative purpose, as much as sexuality can. But it's absolutely absurd to assert that every detail must be justified in story. Doing so, in fact, is very unrealistic; many aspects of almost any but the most story are incidental. They're the texture and the backdrop of the world.

Since justifying every character detail just isn't going to happen, why must sexuality in particular be justified in context?



Has anyone read Inkheart?

Spoiler: Just in case

Show

The premise of the story is that a man has the strange power to bring things out of a story he's reading out loud. He brings out an evil villain and some of his henchmen. Later, the villain establishes a base of operations, and has the man's daughter (the main character) and the author of the book from which the villain came. The villain refuses to believe that the author is actually the author... until the author starts revealing details about the villain (the villains lowly origins, who his mother is, etc) that were never actually part of the book.

There are often details and aspects of stories that aren't explicit, but are considered by the author when writing the book. Dumbledore being gay isn't necessary, no, but his relationship with Grindelwald is coloured by the fact.

Irrelevance is the bane of good writing. Anything which distracts the reader from the point of the story should be excised because all good stories have a point to make, and anything which distracts from that point makes it harder for the reader to get that point.

Why? Why do I need to justify sexuality, and not names, hair colour, dress style, speech patterns, nationality, gender, height, etc.

Why do you need to include any such details?

Let's step back a moment and take a look at the word 'justify'. I think some people may have mistaken the word to mean something other than what it actually means, as if it meant there is a sterner test for some details than for others. Justify simply means there is a reason to include it, and it applies to all details within a story. Why is the hair color relevant? It may well be, in your story, and if so include it. If it takes time away from the tale without adding anything of value, it's not justified.

Now to continue with an example, we'll use Bus Driver again. Bus Driver is an irrelevant character to our story who serves no narrative purpose other than our protagonist needed to take a bus from point A to point B.

Example 1
At that point I got on the bus. The bus driver said, "We're only going to 39'th street, it's the end of my shift."

It was a warm spring day and the walk from 39th to 45'th wasn't so long. I had time. So I paid the fare and took a seat.

Example 2
At that point I got on the bus. The bus driver had dyed his hair green and wore three gold eyebrow rings on his left eye. He wore his uniform cap at a jaunty angle and his wire-frame octagon glasses looked like they had gone out of style in the 1960's. Even his regulation uniform was worn with a casual disregard for the uniform code of the City Transportation Department, having his shirt-tails knotted above his well toned abdomen and open above the knot, with his tie reversed and hanging down his back like a ponytail. Rather than trousers he wore shorts cut high enough to reveal smooth shaven legs, and he wore his penny loafer shoes without socks.

The bus driver said, with a lisp, "I can only take you as far as 39'th street, honey, it's the end of my shift."

It was a warm spring day and the walk from 39th to 45'th wasn't so long. I had time. So I paid the fare and took a seat.


Naturally, Example 2 adds details not useful in the context of the story. In fact, it took time to write that could have been better spent on other things, and it actually distracts from the narrative because, rather than being an example of inclusiveness, it is an example of stereotyping which will naturally be seen as offensive by pretty much everyone. In Example 1 we may have a better example of a gay Bus Driver, or a woman Bus Driver, or a [insert minority] Bus Driver, depending upon the projection of the reader. In Example 2 we are forced by useless detail to an image of Bus Driver which is totally irrelevant to the tale at hand.

Thus, we cannot justify the inclusion of Example 2 in our tale. It distracts from the story and does not add anything positive. It is a case of needless stereotyping and token inclusion that the story is better off without.

[oppyu]

So everyone agrees that

1) More representation of LGBT communities and in general more diverse casting is good.
2) Offensive stereotypes are not good.
3) Taking random extras and making them gay is not... anything really. I don't know why the notion of taking some random extra, pointing out they're gay and then abandoning them because their sole reason for their existence is pointing out that they're gay is being continuously argued against. Nobody is saying we should do that. Someone's beating a dead strawman there.

[brian 333]

Because Number 3 is exactly what many who seek 'inclusiveness' end up doing. Examples in media abound.

I personally come from the end of the Civil Rights Era, and saw this kind of thing held up as being, 'Inclusive of minorities'. It was, in fact, offensive and it ended up being harmful to the cause. If the LGBT population can avoid this then cultural acceptance will come faster.

Remember my earlier example about the TV shows 'Good Times' and 'Cosby Show'? The first was a never-ending string of stereotypes which reinforced the negative images of a black family, while the second avoided stereotypes and humanized the Huxtable family. The first did nothing to improve cultural relations, the second turned black people into people in the minds of many white families.

There is a vast power of imagery to which we all must be alert, both for our own use as writers and artists, and for our own protection in a world which harbors hate.

[Bulldog Psion]

Someone's beating a dead strawman there.

I find this turn of phrase to be particularly hilarious, for whatever reason. Not in the context of this conversation, even -- just for its own sake.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Example 1
At that point I got on the bus. The bus driver said, "We're only going to 39'th street, it's the end of my shift."

It was a warm spring day and the walk from 39th to 45'th wasn't so long. I had time. So I paid the fare and took a seat.

Example 2
At that point I got on the bus. The bus driver had dyed his hair green and wore three gold eyebrow rings on his left eye. He wore his uniform cap at a jaunty angle and his wire-frame octagon glasses looked like they had gone out of style in the 1960's. Even his regulation uniform was worn with a casual disregard for the uniform code of the City Transportation Department, having his shirt-tails knotted above his well toned abdomen and open above the knot, with his tie reversed and hanging down his back like a ponytail. Rather than trousers he wore shorts cut high enough to reveal smooth shaven legs, and he wore his penny loafer shoes without socks.

The bus driver said, with a lisp, "I can only take you as far as 39'th street, honey, it's the end of my shift."

It was a warm spring day and the walk from 39th to 45'th wasn't so long. I had time. So I paid the fare and took a seat.

Your examples fail to make your point (and thus, undermine it). Neither of them advances the story in any meaningful way - they both could be substituted with "I got on the bus to 45" or, if something crucial will happen in the walk, "I got on the bus to 39, then walked to 45". The whole business with the shift is utterly inconsequential to the story. So is the fact that he paid the fare, unless the character is really strapped for cash.

What you call irrelevant, I call world building. For example, it tells me we are in a city that allows strange people customer-facing jobs, i.e. it is a relaxed, probably "liberal" (in the American sense) city. And thus, it makes for a more compelling read. Otherwise, every book can be resumed to the following phrase, once all "irrelevant" detail is removed:

It happened.

Also, for what is worth, I reject your more general position that everyone not male and white and heterosexual is irrelevant to the story, for the same reasons everyone else has told you about.

Grey Wolf

[ChristianSt]

Your examples fail to make your point (and thus, undermine it). Neither of them advances the story in any meaningful way - they both could be substituted with "I got on the bus to 45" or, if something crucial will happen in the walk, "I got on the bus to 39, then walked to 45". The whole business with the shift is utterly inconsequential to the story. So is the fact that he paid the fare, unless the character is really strapped for cash.

What you call irrelevant, I call world building. For example, it tells me we are in a city that allows strange people customer-facing jobs, i.e. it is a relaxed, probably "liberal" (in the American sense) city. And thus, it makes for a more compelling read. Otherwise, every book can be resumed to the following phrase, once all "irrelevant" detail is removed:

It happened.

Also, for what is worth, I reject your more general position that everyone not male and white and heterosexual is irrelevant to the story, for the same reasons everyone else has told you about.

Grey Wolf

I couldn't phrase that better myself (though I would use "Stuff happened." as a general book summary ). Only because something isn't relevant (relevant to what, anyway?) doesn't say it can't enhance a story. Otherwise I could present you a complete Lord of the Ring alternative stripped bare of most irrelevant details:

"Frodo thwarted Sauron's plans by carrying a magical ring across the world and throwing it into a volcano."

Though I think that >99,99% of people probably still prefer the original unabridged version by J.R.R. Tolkien (and imo rightful).


A story doesn't need to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant. Some mediums (especially TV) have some issues with this, because they have more constrains on space, but imo especially in written form (and imo a webcomic isn't that far away) an author imo can do whatever he/she thinks is best for his story. A story isn't bad only because it contains "filler material". That "filler material" can still be highly enjoyable to consume, and removing it might lessen the experience for readers.

Some people might prefer stories without such background. But that (as wanting more such background) is personal taste. There isn't any useful metric "X is better because it contains less (or more) 'irrelevant' stuff".