Is this really still a thing? 1 1

[Dr. Balls]

On 1/19/2023 at 9:48 PM, Calmics said:

Comicsgate began because some men didn't like a bunch of women going out for shakes 

Very true - I forgot about that and had to re-read a little refresher in it.

Which, with that in mind - I have to fall back on what I spoke about earlier, but spinning it around for other groups: where's the harm in writing about what you have experiences or perspectives in? Why should a female writing a favorite hero of yours be chastised for bringing her female perspective? I mean, some of the reactions are from people who act like no one in the history of a person's favorite character ever took them in a direction they never liked.

Do I hold it against Joe Quesada for jacking up Wolverine's origins? No. I certainly didn't like it - but I don't selectively dislike all Cubans because he wrote it. That would be ludicrous. It was his call, and Marvel supported it - so they went with it. Kelly Sue DeConnick wrote an amazing run of Captain Marvel that I loved. When the new Ms. Marvel came out, I didn't like it. I find nothing wrong in anyone of any stripe getting the job and putting their perspective on it. Are comics too feminist? Too gay? Too inclusive? Who cares? If they write a compelling story about a female character that I like - I'll read it. If it has too much perspective in one direction that I don't sympathize with, or understand - I'll stop reading it. On the other side of the argument, I believe it's perfectly fine to not to want to read stories about trans or women's challenges or whatever. At the end of the day - no one is forcing you to read those stories, so my philosophy as I get older is: if I don't like the current direction, I can always re-read back issues. Going online to talk about, criticize and discuss is one thing: spewing vitriol about it doesn't do any good for anyone.

It's pretty simple for me.

So, I guess it still is a "thing".

[Dr. Balls]

An interesting thing came to mind when watching 'That '90s Show' last night (which I thought was super fun). The new cast of kids is very diverse. I wondered a little about what GradeJunky had said about having to include different groups of people just out of the fact you felt pressure to from society.

Just follow me along here:

It takes place in 1995, near Kenosha, WI. In the 1990s Wisconsin's demographics were 92% White, 5% African American, 1% Asian, 9% of Spanish origin - and the majority of those groups were primarily located in Milwaukee County, and under-represented in Kenosha County - where the show would take place.

The writer's for the first episode of That '90's Show were also the showrunners and writers for That '70s Show - which featured one single ethnic minority among the cast back then. In the data link above, you'll see huge growths in population diversity from the 1980's to the 1990's. 

So, in terms of the fictional show - That '90s Show has a hugely diverse cast now. If someone takes issue with that - only by it's appearance - in that it's attempting to be socially inclusive with the cast, rather than realistically representative. However, the data actually shows that a more diverse group of kids all hanging out taking place 15 years after the previous one is actually very accurate.

Did anyone point this out? Probably not. Will people take issue with a diverse cast? Gawd, I hope not. Whether the showrunners actually did their homework or diversified the cast because they gained life experience in the 15 years between the shows or they simply said "we have to be more diverse" - it doesn't really matter. They made the cast a nice cross section of groups, and I don't have a problem with that, as long as they all come together to entertain me.

[the blob]

On 1/18/2023 at 12:13 PM, newshane said:

Interesting. 

I'm currently in the early stages of writing a novel. I'm a white male. I want one of the main characters to be a black woman. It's a period piece (early 20th century, southern USA), so I'm also struggling with the use of a "forbidden" racial epithet in some of the dialogue. 

Given today's climate, I'm scared that this will give publishers a reason to reject me. I'm also worried about the potential backlash that could come from the "mis-characterization" of race. On the other hand, I would like to include a little bit of diversity (all the other characters are white) to connect with a wider audience. 

I feel like I'm screwed if I do and screwed if I don't. A really precarious and downright silly situation. 

In the end, the only way I will succeed is to remain true to my own creation. I must speak without censorship in order to maintain authenticity as an artist. The chips fall where they may. 

All goes back to this: does the artist create art as a cathartic expression, thereby serving himself? Or does the artist create art specifically for mass consumption, making compromises in the original vision? 

Rock and a hard place. 

 

n*****   eazy peezy. And run your dialogue by 3-27 african american friends. Have them sign something (notarized) saying they thought the dialogue was ok and non-offensive/non culturally appropriating

 

 

Edited January 23, 2023 by the blob

[Ryan.]