Testing my English language skills...

[wshaffer]

If I were to say to you, "Gee, it would be nice if [some series of audio dramas] featured more gay characters who weren't evil and/or closeted/deeply in denial about their sexuality," would you interpret this to mean:

a. That every character in [some series of audio dramas] must be unambiguously identified as to their sexuality.
b. That every portrayal of gay characters must be uniformly positive.
c. That the sexuality of characters in [some series of audio dramas] must conform rigidly to the statistical representation of various types of sexuality in the population as a whole.
d. That drama has an obligation to be statistically representative in every way of the world's population, and that [some series of audio dramas] should be criticized for not setting more stories in China.
e. That a positive depiction of gay sexuality trumps all other considerations in creating good drama, such as good storytelling, good characterization, or entertainment value.

Because people over on Gallifrey Base sure keep responding as if I and other posters had said one of a-e, and I'm pretty sure I didn't.

I know - welcome to Internet discourse. At least the discussion has remained relatively civil so far.

Comments

[timprov.livejournal.com]

I thought that always meant "I just know these two characters are in a wonderful loving relationship WHY WON'T THE CREATORS ADMIT IT?"

[wshaffer.livejournal.com]

In any fandom other than one where a substantial proportion of people deny that the main character ever had sex despite the fact that he has a granddaughter, you'd undoubtedly be right.