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

[brewsternorth.livejournal.com]

This (and their, to me, somewhat incomprehensible registration policy) is why I stay away from the Forum Formerly Known As Outpost Gallifrey.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I wonder whether people who have this difficulty in interpretation think that writing a character of that description is overwhelmingly difficult. Perhaps for them it might be. But I have noticed that when people call for more characters of various descriptions, the response is as though they have demanded the sun, moon, and stars on a silver platter, and it just hasn't been that difficult for me. I mean, sure, it takes some work to look into someone who doesn't fit your own demographics, but...for the amount it's going to show in a short story with a speculative conceit that's about something else? Make reference to an ex of the same sex instead of an ex of a different one, or have the conversational aside be about whether you're going to the Pride Parade this year instead of whether you're going to see a made-up movie. And on you go with your life and your story.

Sigh.

[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]

I pop over now and then for the Big Finish and DVD news and gossip. I generally avoid getting drawn into rows, but sometimes I can't help myself.

[wshaffer.livejournal.com]

I think that's undoubtedly part of it. Plus the sort of flipside of the same issue - that people who are sensitive about this sort of thing tend to have much more vivid memories of the times when efforts at inclusiveness have resulted in strained characterization or bad storytelling or the like. Because when it's not a big deal, it's not a big deal.

[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.

[retsuko.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I can't see how anyone would get a-e from that at all, but this is the 'net. *points at icon*