Actually if you would line up my characters most of them would be straight (and probably white and male as well, but I guess that is beside the point here). But since the main characters are usually the ones being gay (well, usually), the focus is more on a LGBT theme than a straight one. But then again, it's usually not the theme, but just a part of the character that might have a role of none at all.
I got the same feeling while watching Person of Interest. And two episodes ago when Root and Shaw finally got down to doing the nasty, it just felt odd. Both characters seemed to be trying to dominate the other and that kind of relationship (no matter the sexuality) rarely works, not long-term anyway.
Pretty much. Relationships rely on a yin yang type power dynamic. You get two dominant type personalities and they just end up fighting all the time. @Rick n Morty Yeah. To be honest I hate when they throw in token gays just to be progressive. Like we're some odd foreign culture trying to integrate or something. That may sound off I dunno, I haven't had my coffee yet.
I looked it up and some psychologists seem to be saying you can. It's just harder. And I think it depends between cases too. And please, can someone, anyone actually give me a method of determining "token" that doesn't rely on utterly biased interpretation. Because I don't think it's real. People aren't LGBT for some kind of reason. We just are. And unless it matters to the story you don't need a reason in a story either. So how do you define "token"?
I define token as throwing in a character thats basically bland with few defining features except for the reason they were thrown in for. I.E. when sitcoms in the 1960's-1980's would throw in a black character that spoke jive and was a walking stereotype. Or throwing in a gay character for similar reasons simply to be progressive. There's a difference between a gay character that is there naturally and someone added out of no where because the developers felt like the cast wasn't diverse enough. The latter tends to be forced and generally reduces the quality of the media.
That's just bad writing though. It can happen for all sorts of cases. All the writers need is to feel like they can get away with writing some simplistic characters and some of them will.
Yeah, it is bad writing. That's what I think throwing in a "Token" character is. It can also be used as a poor attempt to broaden their demographic. Believe me I'm not saying having different characters is bad, quite the opposite in fact. Since I tend to have lesbian, gay, and bisexuals in my writing.
Yeah. And there's no way to know for certain that an author did it just to be progressive unless they say so. They may simply have mishandled it. Also, I don't think you need to reason to have a gay character to begin with.
Part 1 - Two dominant personalities can fight, or they can learn to get along. And then rely on each other to take over the world! Seriously - two strong, forceful people in the same relationship, on the same team? It can be fantastic. Part 2 - I think part of the problem with this discussion is that we're ascribing motivations we can't possibly know. "Just to be progressive" is a guess, not a fact. The most we can really know, unless the creators have told us differently, is that a certain character doesn't work for us--maybe they don't feel organic, maybe we think the characterization changed... whatever. But there are plenty of straight white characters who are completely unsuccessful for me, and I don't say that's because the authors are pandering to straight white readers or whatever. ETA: Crossposted with Steerpike.
Yeah. Generally what I'm saying applies to television and other media rather than writing. When the people in charge of a tv show the need to add a certain type of character. As Trudeau said "because its 2016"
But again, how do you prove it? It seems like a fundamentally pointless idea. It doesn't really matter.
Same argument, though, right? I mean, in Trudeau's case, he was absolutely right - he needed a diverse cabinet because he was representing a diverse country and needed a lot of different voices advising him. But in the media's case, we can't know their reasons - did they include a gay character because they were pandering, or because that character felt right for the world they were trying to create?
Eh, I'd say with Trudeau it's more political than that. Of course being one of the gay conservatives I've been critical of the man. (shout out to Milo Yiannopoulos) @Oscar Leigh Ultimately it's speculation.
I respect anyone who's a gay conservative, I think in some way that takes bravery to be open about considering the limited space for it at least mainstream. But I have to say; I don't like Milo Yiannopoulous. He raises good points sometimes but he comes of a bit of a cock and he says these things that just sound arrogant and I don't know. I just don't like him that much.
I mean, I don't agree with all the things he says don't get me wrong. I just admire how he has the courage to say what he thinks in an increasingly politically correct world. Anyway, I'm sorry for going into politics
No, don't you understand?! A gay conservative and a gay socialist are honour bound to fight to the death. There can only be one!!
I used to work for a couple of gay men who were Republicans here in the U.S. That put them in the minority among gay men, but they held to their convictions.
Since we are not in the Debate Room, folks, kindly keep the responses aimed at the original question posted by the OP. @Oscar Leigh, sweetie, I'm looking at you.
That last thing was a joke on that very concept. And the discussion of Milo Yiannopoulos was very brief and already over.
That's true, and something else I think needs to be considered is that there will be growing pains for any writer who deals with LGBT characters for the first time, just as there would be if they were writing a police detective or senior citizen for the first time. They aren't going to get it right first try. Stephen King once said that if you like horror, you need to be willing to read some pretty bad writing. Until LGBT becomes more mainstream, perhaps the same thing applies.
I wouldn't describe it like that. Honestly, the reason people are asking this or some variation on so many threads is the reason they can't write the characters. Stop treating it like it changes anything other than the obvious. We're just people. I could easily be straight or bi, my personality doesn't change that. But I am gay because that's just the way my body has ended up behaving.
I take your point. But, male writers also ask how to write female characters as well as vice versa. Sexuality does seem to affect the way we view (and interact with) the world, so I think there's a bit more to it than that. Observation is the best teacher in most cases, but it isn't always possible if the writer doesn't know anyone of the sexuality they want to write about. So, I think it's fair to ask someone who is of that persuasion (for lack of a better word). It's like when I asked a friend of mine what it's like to be a twin. His reply? What's it like not to be a twin.
Interesting how "What's it like not to be a twin" is a statement there instead of a question. ANYWAY, it's a simple question for me to answer. I would equate it to being married. They're always around you, they know a lot about you and you know a lot about them. Oh, they're complete cocks nope, that's just my one.
Yeah, I missed the question mark there. This friend hadn't seen his twin in many years, hadn't even been in the same country for a long time. Maybe he was still there in my friend's head? Don't know. It wasn't a very satisfying answer (just as I couldn't give him a satisfying answer about what it was like not to be a twin) so I didn't learn a damned thing... and neither did he.
But most of the time when male writers ask how to write female characters, the advice I give is to just write a character who happens to be female. Yes, depending on culture, there may be some differences in socialization, but if you're far enough into the characterization, you should pick up on that instinctively rather than intellectually. It's as if the question is too big and too small at the same time. Too big because what could anyone say in a 200-word forum post that would actually help a writer or anyone else understand the vastness of what it's like to live as another person? And too small because it's asking about only one aspect of characterization as if that aspect is somehow unrelated and disconnected from all the other aspects of characterization an author needs to consider.
