We're here, we're queer, we're boosting your Nielsen ratings

[eredien]

I don't really engage in many fandoms, and what engagement I do is generally literary- or costume-based, rather than TV- or movie-based.

However, after having read a discussion in rm's blog, I find that there's an important theoretical and artistic point lurking within her recent critique of the lack of gay characters in a new TV show.

After watching the pilot of a show, rm basically said that she couldn't tell if the heterosexual relationship in the pilot would be relevant to the plot--but I bet that before she even watched the pilot, she knew that any heterosexual relationships in the show probably wouldn't be very relevant to her personal romantic interests, as a self-described queer person.

This got me thinking about craft and the failure to entertain as related to craft and audience.

Tere are two main ways that a romance plot can hold an audience's interest:
- it can be personally, romantically relevant.
- it can be artistically relevant (plot-relevant, artistically portrayed, wittily written, etc.)

Modern media privileges depictions of straight people's romantic interactions in a way that queer romantic interactions are rarely privileged: through enabling straight people to ignore bad writing in a way that queer people cannot.

Straight people might forgive a straight romantic subplot's irrelevance to the plot due to the fact that they can take a personal interest in the relationship portrayed. But, for many queer persons, artistic interest is usually the only interesting thing that a straight romantic interaction has going for it. (Note: people who define as bi- or pan-sexual may also find heterosexual romantic relationships interesting on a personal and an artistic level, but even then I believe that many bi- or pan-sexual people may find the portrayal of straight gender roles and sexual roles problematic. I'm pan-sexual, and I know I and my boyfriend find many such portrayals problematic!)

Creators are required to entertain media consumers.
Audiences 'require' entertainment.

If creators focus on the "personal interest" side of a straight romantic relationship to the extent that there seems to be no artistic element to the relationship, that means that, for whatever reason, creators assumed that audiences' "personal interest" in the relationship would be all that was needed to entertain viewers.

That is an incorrect assumption. By making it, they left all audiences who do not have such an interest, and/or those who have that interest and find it problematic, and/or those who do not have that interest and find it problematic, out of their calculations.

Here's the worst part--the creators probably didn't even realize they were making that assumption, because they probably didn't even realize that they had that audience to alienate. Even if did realize, they might not care that they were alienating that audience.

When a queer person finds themselves in that situation (which is common), stating, "gee, I was worried that this particular show wouldn't be entertaining for me, because I couldn't be entertained on a personal level and the creators made no effort to entertain me on an artistic level," isn't strange. It's saying "this show didn't entertain me, its audience. The creators didn't do their job, in terms of craft, in terms of entertaining the audience of which I am a part. Do they care about this portion of their audience? It would be nice if they showed that they did, by entertaining me."

When the queer person goes on to say, "I wish more creators would consider the fact that there are many people out there who are not going to be entertained by portrayals of straight romances solely because they are straight romances--maybe there should be something more there, even for those straight people who are entertained by the fact that straight romances are straight romances," that's not crazy.

When they say, "the fact that Hollywood can make the assumption that everyone in their audience will care about straight romances as straight romances (if nothing else), and even cater to that assumption without realizing it, shows that our media still has a long way to go in making media entertaining for everyone," that's a pretty basic summation of the problem, with a lot left unsaid.

I find that a lot of straight people have huge problems with media that features even one gay character (the "Dumbledore didn't need to be gay!" problem), saying that now they can't relate to that character.

Welcome to reading or watching TV or movies as a queer person, where you can't relate to 90% of fictional characters' romantic relationships, and grow up thinking that's normal!

If you're a straight teenager and you're left without real-life role models, or are actively deprived of real-life role models, you need only watch television to see that your emotional desires and sexual needs are normal, should be made available to you, and are endorsed by the culture around you.

If you're a queer teenager and you're left without real-life role models, or are actively deprived of real-life role models--both of which are quite likely to happen by accidents of birth and deliberate mechanations of religion/politics, if nothing else--you need only watch television to see that your emotional desires and sexual needs are not represented anywhere--or are represented as quirky, disturbing, evil, controversial or depressing abnormalities. You see that people are working to make sure that your emotional desires and sexual needs should not be made public, much less available to you, or anyone else. You see that your emotional desires and sexual needs are not widely endorsed, and are in fact mocked or villified, by the culture around you.

So, Dumbledore's gay. Asking, "does a story need to be queer?" misses the point: real queer people need to be queer, and part of the way they are queer is by telling and listening to stories about themselves.
In that sense, it's good to know that Dumbledore is in my corner--not because I think he's particularly hot (my money is on Snape or Tonks), but because his fictional sexuality is a creator's acknowledgment that the very real sexuality of people like me should exist, and needs to exist, in both the fictional and non-fictional worlds. (It's even nicer to see queer characters having romantic and sexual lives.)

What is it like when creators don't acknowledge that people like you should exist in their creative works?

Here's a selection of sobering mass media moments (these are familiar to people of any marginalized group, I suspect):
- Realizing that you have never seen a representation of someone like you on television or other media, despite having consumed media for 15 or 20 years.
- Realizing that the first time you saw media representing someone like you, they were a comic character, an inoffensive nobody, or a cliched and offensive stereotype.
- Realizing that the first time the media represented someone like you who wasn't a caricature, people stopped watching the show because they were offended that people like you were represented, or said that they couldn't relate to you or care about you.
- Realizing that it is considered prime-time, CNN-worthy news when important or popular creators decide to feature a fictional representation of someone like you.
- Realizing that a lot of people find it offensive when creators decide to feature a fictional representation of someone like you, and mobilize to make the creators stop representing you.

Fictions are the stories we tell ourselves about who we are. When we exclude queer people, or people of color, or people who don't speak our language or pray to our God from our fictions, especially our mainstream, mass-media fictions, we tell ourselves false, impoverished stories.

If people we meet only tell us stories we already know, we are not going to know what to do when we meet people whose stories are different from the ones we know. We might ignore their story, or we might try and fit them into our story, or we might outlaw their story--but all of those options are, in the long run, generally unworkable.

More importantly, if people we meet only tell us stories we already know, we are not going to know what to do when we are the people whose stories are different from the ones we know. We are not going to know what stories to tell ourselves. We are not going to know what stories to tell others about ourselves. We are going to have people telling us it's better for us that we don't have our own stories to tell. We are going to have people telling us that it's better for them that we don't have our own stories to tell. We are going to have to learn to speak again--and when we learn to speak, when we have stories to tell, we are going to have to learn the necessity of speaking loudly, because when we speak, we are going to have to do it despite the many powerful voices telling us that we shouldn't be allowed to speak at all.

Fiction can help us speak; fiction is necessary for us to learn how to speak for ourselves; but to the extent that the creators of fiction do not recognize that we are even there to be entertained, we and fiction are both worse off for it.

Comments

[rm.livejournal.com]

1. THIS IS SO GREAT.
2. You are so much more patient than me.
3. Welcome to reading or watching TV or movies as a queer person, where you can't relate to 90% of fictional characters' romantic relationships, and grow up thinking that's normal! -- I'd say it's even more than 90% -- I don't think queer representation in media equals RL numbers.
4. In Covert Affairs, which is what started all this (in a way that got more and more upsetting as today went on, btw), actually had lots of het relationships, I really really care about and are totally integral to how the show works, but the pilot and the second episode did a TERRIBLE job of explaining this, hence my "dude, what is this?" when I first started watching.
5. Thank you. I'm going to point to this should I ever wind up in another clusterfuck like today's.

[eredien]

1.) Yay! I am glad it was useful; I worried it was rambly even after I cut some things out.

2.) I try to be patient; it's one of my better qualities, I think.

3.) That's probably true. I put 90% mostly because I was sure that if I knew the actual percentage, it would be higher, and people would think I was exaggerating and take this less seriously (sad, I know). I'm also not convinced how you would get such a percentage in the first place--for example, do characters like Jerry/Daphne in "Some Like it Hot" count as gay? I certainly know more queer people in RL than I know fictional queer people.

4.) I don't care about Covert Affairs, but I was really surprised that in the original discussion the persons who engaged you in conversation didn't seem to notice that you said that eventually you saw how those relationships did add to the plot.

I hope future media debates are less stressful and more entertaining for you.

5.) Great! Please link away.

[awils1.livejournal.com]

I think the biggest problem overall is not the intellectual understanding of problematic television, but the fact that so many self-defined 'allies' still consume the media that hurts us, which gives the media producers both intellectual and financial capital. It'll never change unless people actively turn off and say no.

(Awesome post by the way!)

[kaypendragon.livejournal.com]

Only now, you're making the assumption that I'm consuming media for you. As someone who does get enjoyment from heterosexual romances, I'm not going to refuse entertainment simply because it doesn't do anything for you. I am going to continue to watch what I want to watch. This doesn't mean that I won't support you in what you want to watch - I will happily watch your new show or sign your petition or help you write letters to Hollywood. But you have to realize that I have no real reason to "turn off and say no".

[awils1.livejournal.com]

I think you may have missed an original point:

Fictions are the stories we tell ourselves about who we are. When we exclude queer people, or people of color, or people who don't speak our language or pray to our God from our fictions, especially our mainstream, mass-media fictions, we tell ourselves false, impoverished stories.

Although you may not have a explicit reason in terms of identification to reject TV's lack of queerness, you could well have one in demanding that the content better reflect relationships as a whole. Where are the polyamorous het relationships? Where are the pansexual relationships that look heterosexual but are not? Where are the life-long live-in friendships between all varieties of genders? Not to mention that the number of ridiculously overused heterosexual tropes.

The scope of human sexuality needs to be better expressed, and it is obvious that the only way is to reject shows that do it badly and fan ones that do it well. I'm well aware that's hard, and I think it's better to be honest about why you enjoy something that's problematic than be deeply ashamed by it. As such, I appreciate your honesty in your reply -- I'm just not sure you're seeing the whole picture.

[kaypendragon.livejournal.com]

I agree that scope of human sexuality needs to be better expressed, I just don't think you're going to get very far by insisting that people have to refuse to partake in entertainment because it doesn't include your minority group (or broader range of sexuality or political ideals or whatever). It's not realistic.

(I also have to admit that I'm coming at this from the outside. We don't have cable and the only shows we watch on DVD are military SF and Dr. Who, which do a bit better at a wider scope of humanity. I'm not a mainstream type of person. So, yes, I don't see the whole picture because I have already rejected part of it. But as a public librarian, I have a hard time accepting "I don't like it so no one can have it" attitudes, even when they're phrased politely.)

Part 1

[eredien]

So, how can we include more sexual and other minorities in our fictions?

- Include more people of various minorities in the stories we are already telling.
- Tell new stories, about the minorities as interesting and beautiful in their own right.

Obviously, a lot of people are willing to forgive the lack of representation of minorities in their mainstream entertainment, if the entertainment in question does a good job of representing people who are the non-minorities.

A lot of other people do not notice or care about the lack of representation of minorities in their mainstream entertainment; a lot of other people are actively mobilizing against any minority representation in their mainstream entertainment.

In the mainstream entertainment industry, though the number of stories one can tell is limitless, there are only so many places you can tell a story (ie, only so many slots for TV shows, only so many dollars this year for publishing house x to spend signing new authors, only so many dollars in the library budget this year to buy bilingual DVDs).

If the majority of people are ambivalent to actively hostile to minority representation, you are going to see that reflected in the media those people consume already, and in the demand for media those people consume already.

If even people who care about minority representation continue to consume media without demanding decent minority representation because the media is otherwise entertaining, what does that tell the publishing house or the tv executives or the library budgeting office? Basically, that they can keep doing what they are doing and make money--and that won't anger the people who don't want to see minority representation.

But they don't know that they are angering the people who want to see more minority representation, because the people who care about minority representation are, by and large, not asking them to do anything differently.

Part 2

[eredien]

Demanding minority representation through petitions is one way of trying to ensure more minority representation in mainstream entertainment. But how is asking people who don't want to fix a problem (or don't even think it's a problem) going to fix the problem?

You may say, "well, those aren't the people you should be asking to change; you should be asking the people who care about fixing the problem to change."
I totally agree.

You've indicated that you want to watch shows with more minority representation; you want to fix the problem.
You acknowledge that you are going to continue to watch shows without good minority representation, because you think they're otherwise entertaining.
Continuing to consume media without good minority representation won't actually get you the kind of equally-representative media that you want to consume.

Do you understand why it will actually get you more of the same?

Because your consumption habits don't indicate that you're in the market for a different kind of entertainment, and don't indicate that you are frustrated about the lack of minority representation in media.

Your current pattern of consumption shows executives that the only people who are angry enough not to consume media with poor minority representation are the minorities themselves, and maybe a few media creators--both groups too small to matter much on their own.

You can petition for more media with minority representation, or media about minorities--but unless the media executives see a large market of "people who want more minority representation in their media" for that media, they are not going to publish the book featuring the black girl. They are not going to air the show about lesbian moms. They not going to purchase the documentary on maquiladoras. They will put out the book about the white girl, the show about the suburban family, and buy the bilingual edition of "Dora the Explorer" because there is more demand for those things.

Executives are not going to run the risk of angering people who are actively hostile to minority representation until the audience that is tired of poor minority representation shows them that they exist, and want different media.

And until then, executives are going to say, "well, we'd like to represent more minorities, but our figures show that everyone except minorities is happy to consume media that doesn't feature minorities."

Your own media consumption habits contribute to the idea that there isn't a market for this other media.

As a librarian and as a person, I am sure that you know that there's a huge market, and that you form part of that market, and I am sure that you want more minority representation in your media, because you've said it yourself.

But you aren't acting like you're part of that market; you're acting like you're part of the market that doesn't care.

So, why don't petitions really work well?
If even the people that are happy to sign a petition to fix the problem of minority representation in media are happy to go home and watch shows without good minority representation, the executives are going to look at that petition and then conclude that they shouldn't change what they're doing, even if the media creators want to portray more minorities, because the market simply isn't there.

[kaypendragon.livejournal.com]

I feel that I have to point out that there is more to fiction than tv. I totally agree with you that TV sucks. But by stating that "the creators of fiction do not recognize that we are even there to be entertained" you are writing off all the fiction writers who are writing for you simply because NBC or CBS hasn't bought their work to turn it into a bad made-for-tv special.

I can point you towards lots of queer oriented and queer friendly fiction, in both the adult and children's section. There's even some really excellent fiction discussing trans-gender in YA. Yes, a lot of it is new but that means that the writers have heard and listened.

[gaudior.livejournal.com]

It's true that there's a bunch of queer fiction in books (comics, movies, etc). And that's awesome.


But I'm not sure that that's really relevant to the fact that TV has this problem. I mean, TV is one of the major forms of fiction in our country, and arguably the one that the most people consume most often. I think it's reasonable to critique TV's portrayal of queer characters, regardless of what goes on in other forms of fiction.

[kaypendragon.livejournal.com]

Yes - no objection to critiquing TV. I was just pointing out that it's unfair to use TV to generalize to all forms of fiction.

[eredien]

There's definitely more to fiction than TV! :) I deliberately tried to frame the problem as a general media consumption and creation problem rather than a TV problem, because:
- I am not familiar with the show in question
- I honestly haven't watched any TV seriously for about a half-decade, save for a handful of shows--and before that, I was consuming more Japanese TV than American TV.
- I am much more familiar with this problem from a literary point of view, since I write.

My point was that it wasn't just a TV problem; it was a media consumption and media creation problem. That's why I kept using the words "fiction" and "story" and "media" rather than "TV," or at least tried to do so.

I can't find anywhere on the page where I or anyone else said that "the creators of fiction do not even recognize that we are there to be entertained." I think they recognize that we are there to be entertained--however, I don't think they recognize that queer people (and some straight people) are not always entertained by the same things that are assumed to de facto entertain straight people, and they don't recognize that results in a show that is intrinsically less appealing to that part of their audience.

I tried to look at how to correct that problem, and came up with two solutions:

- make the part that is intrinsically less appealing to that part of the audience appealing in another way (artistically appealing).
- make the part that is intrinsically appealing to that part of the audience intrinsically appealing to that audience (personally appealing).

In thinking about those ways to correct the problem, I noticed that the creators didn't seem to see a need to make the part of the show that wasn't intrinsically appealing to a part of their audience appealing to that audience--because a much larger faction of that audience would find it de facto appealing, and that part of the audience was the only part of the audience that they thought of when thinking about the appeal of their show.

That is a problem of craft--not entertaining your audience.

But the failure of craft stemmed from a failure of representation--the idea that "these people might have been in our audience, but we didn't even realize that what we were doing to entertain them wouldn't entertain them--much less think about what we would have needed to do to entertain them."

And then I tried to go on to talk about why that particular failure of representation mattered, and why representation of minorities matters in general.

[navrins]

It seems to me you're making the implicit assumption that a straight person can enjoy seeing depictions of only and any straight romance, and a queer person can enjoy seeing depictions of only and any queer romance. That assumption doesn't seem true to me. Certainly there are plenty of straight romance plots and subplots that hold no interest for me. Am I hearing your assumption correctly?

More broadly, it seems you're making the implicit assumption that a person can only enjoy seeing depictions of relationships like the ones they would personally like to have, and further that the gender of the participants is the only relevant criteria to such relationships. I'm not at all sure it is. I can think of at least one lesbian relationship on TV that I (a straight male) can relate to and enjoy far more than I can to depictions of a stereotypical "guy asks girl out for drinks, they start dating, they fall in love and bitch about each other to their respective friends while their exes hate them even more than they dislike each other" relationship I used to see all over mainstream fiction. It's possible that I'm weird this way, but I don't think I'm *that* weird.

That said, I completely agree with what I think is your main point, that it'd be good if there were more queer relationships in mainstream fiction and if some of those relationships were just there in the background and their queerness wasn't actually relevant to the plot any more than is their shared love of 50s movies or their favorite restaurant. That would help real queer people feel more included in society, and provide more models for straight people to learn to accept queer people. If right now audiences assume a person's queerness needs to be relevant to the plot, or that a queer person is someone they automatically can't relate to, it'd be good for those assumptions to be challenged more.

[gaudior.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure eredien was saying that when you enjoy a romantic plot, you're enjoying it from some combination of either

a) wow, this is really good fiction! It's gripping and thought-provoking and beautiful!

and/or

b) wow, this reminds me of my life! Awww, that was so intense, that time that that happened to me!

And that the former can appeal to anyone no matter what the orientation of the characters, but the latter is much more likely with characters who resemble you more.

[nightengalesknd.livejournal.com]

And as an aromantic asexual, I pretty much exclusively get "a" from the media, and only sometimes that. I skim over most sex scenes in books, just glancing at enough words to make sure I'm not missing any signifigant plot or character revelations. On TV, I pretty much look up when it's over and hope the plot resumes soon.

[navrins]

I agree. What I'm questioning is the extent to which sexual orientation (or even sex) determines how much you
"resemble" a character. For me, it's not that much. It's quite possible for me to feel a lesbian character who has many other traits in common with me resembles me more than does a straight male character who shares few other traits with me.

Granted that many queer people probably consider queerness to be a more important aspect of their character I consider straightness to be of mine, for lots of reasons... but I would think that, given the large number of characteristics on which a fictional character might resemble one or not, even that wouldn't be enough to outweigh everything else. Do you think I'm wrong about that? (I could be.)

[gaudior.livejournal.com]

Kind of yes, kind of no. I certainly have straight couples in fiction (or gay male couples) with whom I identify plenty, and that can lead to my enjoying their stories a lot.

But on the other hand, it's hard to express how much relief I feel when I see portrayed a lesbian couple. Especially if... no, I can't remember the last time I saw a lesbian couple where they were both smart and nerdly and writers and poly and white and American. Never seen my actual life portrayed in fiction. Not even, like, three-quarters of it.

My suspicion is that if there were lots of portrayals of queer couples in mainstream fiction-- like, proportional to the number of queer people in the actual population-- that feeling of relief would be much, much less. I'd feel less intensely moved and delighted when there were actual queer people in my fiction, and less subtly-annoyed when there weren't. If my fiction had a reasonable number of lesbians and a reasonable number of smart people and a reasonable number of nerds and a reasonable number of poly people, it would be less annoying that the complete overlap would happen very rarely. But as it is...

[navrins]

That, I can totally understand and agree with. "I really enjoy stories about people who are like me in this way, and I'm frustrated or unhappy that there are so few." That seems like a very different statement from, "I cannot enjoy stories about people who are not like me in this way."

I wonder how many people feel that way in respect to some attribute of themselves? Do most people really think of themselves as being like most people? Or do most people feel there's some important aspect of their life that they never see represented in fiction? I don't know.

[eredien]

Do most people really think of themselves as being like most people? Or do most people feel there's some important aspect of their life that they never see represented in fiction? I don't know.

I think it depends on what kind of person you think you are, I think, and how often you see that kind of person represented.

I don't know if "most people think of themselves as being like most people"--that's a question that I really think our society is trying to hash out right now, and partly because of that, each individual in it is probably trying to hash it out for themselves individually; these struggles get thrown into relief.

I don't think that I really said or implied, "I cannot enjoy stories about people who are like me in this way"; I tried to go out of my way to say that queer people definitely could enjoy stories about straight people (which is a helpful skill, in a world where so many of our stories are about straight people). I pointed out that some queer people will be able to enjoy portrayals of heterosexual romances on a personal-identification, as well as an artistic level, and I pointed out that probably a larger proportion of queer people are able to enjoy portrayals of heterosexual romances on an artistic level, but perhaps not on a personal-identification level, and pointed out the problems inherent in ignoring those distinctions that I saw in this one instance. I never said it was impossible. I said it was probably harder, and I said it was probably harder along some axes.

I can certainly think of heterosexual relationships (real relationships, and fictional portrayals) that I take great joy in--my straight friends' relationships, for instance. But I don't take great joy in them because I'm able to identify with their particular sexual pairings or urges (even though I, personally, am able to identify with some of those impulses). I take great joy in them because they're my friends' relationships, and I can see how those relationships make my friends happy. Personally, I would call that a "plot-related reason" and so classify it under "artistic" identification, rather than personal sexual identification.

Same for a fictional heterosexual relationship. If the relationship consists of characters having sex or flirting--without much demonstration of why I should care about that relationship in terms of giving me a reason to have an emotional investment in it, or an emotional reaction to it--I am just not going to care much about it as a relationship. Why would I?

[eredien]

Nope. In fact, I was writing in part to demolish those assumptions, because I think the assumption the creators made, "everyone is de facto entertained by straight romances," is an asssumption that:
Is not always true for all straight people
Is not true most of the time for queer people
is one of the assumptions that leads straight people to underrepresent a greater variety of relationships in fictional works.


I talked about the idea that even straight people were poorly served by the assumption that they'd be de facto interested in all straight romances by virtue of being straight themselves.

I talked about the fact that while many queer people might not be de facto interested in straight romances as such, there were many who were, but that the assumption that they'd like these romances only because they were straight served them poorly.

I talked about the idea that even people who do not find straight relationships de facto interesting can find them interesting for other, artistic reasons--but that only works if the creator gives them artistic reasons to care. Rm was saying that she didn't see any artistic reasons to care, and I noticed that it looked like the creators hadn't put any in there because they hadn't realized that they needed to do so, because they didn't question the assumption that straight romances are not de facto interesting to all.

If you think I was arguing that only straight people can like straight romance or that only queer people can like queer romance, I would ask you to reread what I wrote, because there are explicit refutations of those ideas in what I already said.

What did you read that made you think I was arguing from that interpretation? Can you point to something, so I can improve my writing? In a discussion that is about interpretations of assumptions in creative work, I would like to know what you read that made you interpret the assumptions in my work to be the opposite of what I intended.

[zdenka]

I actually had the same reaction/confusion.

You wrote: "Straight people might forgive a straight romantic subplot's irrelevance to the plot due to the fact that they can take a personal interest in the relationship portrayed. But, for many queer persons, artistic interest is usually the only interesting thing that a straight romantic interaction has going for it."

I interpret the two reactions you mention as "that character/relationship is awesome!" and "yay, they're like me!" But the "yay, they're like me" reaction can be for a lot of things that aren't gender or sexuality. For me, being attracted to both men and women, your model says that I should be able to identify with a male/female couple or a female/female couple but not a male/male couple. And I'm just not convinced that's true.

I seem to be missing at least part of your point, so I apologize for that, but I am honestly confused.

[eredien]

"But, for many queer persons, artistic interest is usually the only interesting thing that a straight romantic interaction has going for it."

Maybe I should have highlighted the words "many" and "usually," but I figured that I didn't really need to, since I dwelled on those exceptions at greater length later on.

As far as it goes, I think you've basically interpreted my broad categories correctly.

I think that our disagreement might be stemming from the fact that we might categorize the things that fall in the "yay, they're like me" subset differently. Do you think that is the case?

For instance, if a character is portrayed as a book-lover, or a musician, or as...having a job, for instance...I am way more likely to be interested in the relationship that they have, and how those things play out in the relationship. But I would count those things as part of "plot" or "character development," and hence "artistic." Maybe you wouldn't, and I suspect that may be where our differences lie.

I think that what I was trying to say is there are a lot of times in modern media where a relationship, flirting or sex between two straight people comes first, as a "hook" to get people interested in the characters--and the backstory isn't revealed much at all until later.

In that situation, introducing the relationship before revealing any other information about the characters doesn't make it a "hook" for people who aren't already interested in that kind of relationship on an intrinsic level. Instead, it kind of leaves the people who aren't already interested in that kind of relationship on an intrinsic level wondering, "when am I going to be shown something else about these characters other than the fact that they are interested in each other and/or are sleeping together? Why should I care about the fact that they are in a relationship when I don't know anything else about them, and I don't even know yet why this relationship is important to them?"

I think that this holds true, by the way, for portrayals of relationships of other types. I wouldn't expect a straight person, for instance, to be intrinsically interested in the portrayal of the relationship and/or sexual relations of a couple of gay men without giving them some other information about why they should care about the couple (whether that information is given organically as a part of the scene, or afterwards).

I think that probably the most frustrating thing was not that the information did not exist (rm said that she started to care about the couple in question after a few episodes as she saw how their relationship tied into the plot), but rather that there was no indication at all, during the pilot episode, that the information existed, and was eventually going to be given.

No pictures on the bureau of spouses. No indication of wartime espionage love triangles. No threat of imminent destruction of one or more of the lovers by laser sharks (this, and the fantastic artistic costumes, is pretty much the only thing that makes James Bond movies' relationships artistically interesting).

But just the presentation of two people you don't know yet in a relationship, having sex you aren't interested in? I feel it's kind of like reading the wedding announcements for people you don't know--the best you can usually think is, "well, it's nice they appear to be happy; he has a nice smile and her dress is classy." But you aren't going to care about those people too much, unless you are given some deeper reason to identify with them. And I think that a lot of time, that deeper reason isn't there: we're just supposed to start caring about these people because we are shown that they are interested in each other.

[navrins]

And I think that a lot of time, that deeper reason isn't there: we're just supposed to start caring about these people because we are shown that they are interested in each other.

Huh. I wouldn't even go that far. I think we're just supposed to start caring about these people because the writers aren't skilled enough to realize they haven't given us a reason to.

Or to be more direct: I don't think that the existence of a relationship between two characters is an effective hook to get anybody interested in it. It certainly isn't enough for me, regardless of the genders of the characters. I agree that writers use it that way sometimes, but I think it is simply bad writing, not insensitivity to non-straight people, and that the sexuality of the viewer is more or less independent of their tolerance for bad writing.

(By the way, I'm using the word "non-straight" because I'm not sure "queer" means the same thing, and I don't want to misuse a word I'm not certain I understand.)

[eredien]

Oh, I totally agree that it is bad writing, the assumption that we should be interested because the writers aren't skilled enough to realize they haven't given their audience a real reason to be interested. But I am not sure that I can agree with you re: "the sexuality of the viewer is more or less independent of their tolerance for bad writing," specificially regarding scenes that introduce new characters (straight or queer) by showing them having sex or being in a relationship. I really genuinely think that the existence of a relationship between two characters is often *viewed* as an effective hook to get at least a certain segment of people interested in the characters. I think that daytime soap operas, for example, are a form that stems from this premise being accepted as the guiding principle around which those universes are built.

I don't think it's a good principle. I just think it's a principle. And to the extent that that principle is taken as an unquestioned given, I think that's both bad writing and an assumption about what kind of relationships the audience is supposed to find interesting.

[zdenka]

Sorry for over-generalizing your point. I understand what you were saying better now.

I think part of the problem here is that I virtually never consume media that are realistic and set in the modern-day world, because I almost always find those inherently alienating. So partly I have trouble comprehending your point emotionally because I've already given up on a large chunk of the mainstream, and so I don't expect to see situations that are like my everyday life.

I think that our disagreement might be stemming from the fact that we might categorize the things that fall in the "yay, they're like me" subset differently. Do you think that is the case?

*nod* Yes, I consider things like "musician" and "nerdy" and "translator" to be part of my identity, whether inherent or constructed. I wouldn't necessarily get the "yay like me!" ping just from seeing a character who is a musician, or bisexual -- it would have to be in a way close enough to mine that I felt recognition. But I can see how that could be different for different people.

I also understand the issue of representation -- if there aren't usually positive portrayals (or any portayals) of one's group in the media, it can start to feel very significant. But it seemed like you were talking about something a little different.

[navrins]

Okay, I guess this is the point where I have to admit I responded after only reading the beginning of your post thoroughly, because it was long and I was interested but didn't have much time. I can't say I'm proud of that, but there it is.

Now that I'm rereading it more carefully and thinking about what I said as well, I realize I actually missed *my own* point, as well as possibly missing yours. (So much for trying to type a quick response before heading to work.) The larger point I intended to make when I started typing was that I interpret much of what you say to carry the implication that "someone like me" is synonymous with "someone who shares my sexual orientation." Which is actually something you explicitly complain about in straight people, even as I think you're doing it yourself. I can't tell to what extent you're using it as verbal shorthand, as opposed to actually feeling that sexual orientation is the most important factor in determining whether someone is like you, but to the extent I take your words as a representation of what you think, that is a conclusion I feel I have to draw.

Since you asked, some specific quotes that led me to my interpretation:

"Straight people might forgive a straight romantic subplot's irrelevance to the plot due to the fact that they can take a personal interest in the relationship portrayed." This seems to imply that non-straight people *can't* take a personal interest, or straight people can't take a personal interest in a non-straight romance. And you reinforce that in the next sentence: "But, for many queer persons, artistic interest is usually the only interesting thing that a straight romantic interaction has going for it." You do draw back from that somewhat in the parenthetical, but I may have skimmed over the parenthetical.

"Welcome to reading or watching TV or movies as a queer person, where you can't relate to 90% of fictional characters' romantic relationships." Again, implying that a queer person can't relate to a straight romance.

"I find that a lot of straight people have huge problems with media that features even one gay character (the "Dumbledore didn't need to be gay!" problem), saying that now they can't relate to that character." When I encounter this, I take exactly the same exception to them: "Really? Being gay makes them completely unrelatable, despite all the other ways in which they might be very much like you?" (I don't actually encounter it all that often, but I know that's an artifact of the company I keep.)

"Realizing that you have never seen a representation of someone like you on television or other media." Since the only thing you've been talking about is straightness/queerness, I read "someone like you" to mean "someone with your sexuality" or "a member of your minority subgroup." If you'd explicitly used one of the latter phrases instead, I would have been right with you. But you continue to use "someone like you" straight through the rest of this list, so I can't help but think that's really what you mean.

I think this was the point where I said "wow, I really have to reply to this before I run out the door," and I probably skimmed the rest of the post. But now that I read it more carefully it still doesn't seem to refute that interpretation, though it doesn't give it much more support either.

You might benefit by working on one of the things I've been working on myself lately, which is being more concise. I tend to run verbose, especially when I'm writing about something I've though a lot about. But I usually have a much better, more focused, more readable argument after I delete a third to half of my original draft. Which I am not actually going to do to this comment, though it might benefit if I did. :-)

Part 1

[eredien]

Okay, I guess this is the point where I have to admit I responded after only reading the beginning of your post thoroughly, because it was long and I was interested but didn't have much time.

Okay, that makes me feel a little bit better; I wondered, "god, was I that unclear?" Thanks for mentioning it.

I think that maybe my comments to lignota might be useful, in that I think she and you may be defining the "yay they're like me!" category differently than I am--and of course you're both right, in that sexuality or gender is not always the only or most important axis by which individuals define themselves.

But I think that in a case such as this one--when the only information that we are presented with about someone is their sexuality or gender, and little to no other information about the characters is revealed until the episode that airs the week after next, or in the fifth chapter--it is reasonable to be frustrated by the assumption that the writers made--that the information about their sexuality or gender is going to be intrinsically interesting to us, and will make us be interested in the characters and the portrayal of these characters. If those folks who aren't particularly interested in that portrayal of gender or sexuality aren't given some other information about those characters (which I would file under "artistic"), they aren't going to have a lot to identify with, because they can't go "yay, that's like me" in a gender/sexuality sense, and they can't yet go "yay that's like me" in a plot or character-development or artistic sense, because they haven't yet been given any information that would allow them to identify or connect with with a non-gendered or non-sexual aspect of those characters.

And the problem I was trying to draw attention to was the fact that, for the pilot of this show, apparently the writers didn't see a need to give anyone any information that would allow people to identify or connect with a non-gendered or non-sexual aspect of these characters until several episodes later.

Then I tried to go on to point out why that attitude, in and of itself, was a problem for many different kinds of people--even those who could identify with the gendered or sexual aspects of these characters.

Part 2

[eredien]

Which is actually something you explicitly complain about in straight people, even as I think you're doing it yourself.

I probably should have been more specific when I wrote "someone like me"--I was using it more as a verbal shorthand for "people who cannot identify or connect with a character if the sexual or gendered aspect of them is the totality of what has been presented about that character so far, and the person does not find that sexual or gendered aspect intrinsically interesting to them."

I definitely think that non-straight people can (and probably should) take an interest in straight relationships, and vice versa.

But when the sexual and/or gender identity of the people in those relationships is the only thing about those characters which has been presented to the viewer so far, and you personally are not interested in the sexual and/or gender identity of the people in those relationships, why would you care? In that situation, when you get to the end of the chapter or the episode and realize that you had not been given any other information about those characters, wouldn't you be disappointed as a reader or viewer that you couldn't yet care much about them?

Part 3

[eredien]

"Welcome to reading or watching TV or movies as a queer person, where you can't relate to 90% of fictional characters' romantic relationships." Again, implying that a queer person can't relate to a straight romance.

You're right about those implications, but I was saying that in the context of the surrounding paragraphs--that many straight fictional characters' relationships are portrayed as interesting from the get-go not for plot or other artistic reasons, but because there is an implied assumption that we as viewers are supposed to identify implicitly with the characters' sexual or gender identity.

A lot of fiction introduces characters by showing them sleeping together first, or discussing their prospects for marriage, or what-have-you. And then the plot, or the character development, etc., shows up later.

The gender/sexuality aspect of a character is often used as an hook to draw the reader/viewer into the story through interest, empathy or self-identification; that doesn't work well when you personally as a reader aren't interested in, can't empathize, or don't self-identify with that particular aspect of the character (though of course you may find other aspects of the character to identify with, the fact that you regularly see the gender/sexuality aspect of a character used as the first hook to draw the reader/viewer into a story, rather than some other aspect of the character, is often frustrating).

"I find that a lot of straight people have huge problems with media that features even one gay character (the "Dumbledore didn't need to be gay!" problem), saying that now they can't relate to that character." When I encounter this, I take exactly the same exception to them: "Really? Being gay makes them completely unrelatable, despite all the other ways in which they might be very much like you?" (I don't actually encounter it all that often, but I know that's an artifact of the company I keep.)

Well, if the only thing you know about a character so far is that they're not like you, and you don't know anything else about the character--and then realize that a deliberate choice was made to withhold all other information about this character until next week's episode, you might not feel inclined to stick around for next week's episode. You won't know any of the other ways in which they might be like you.

You might decide to wait and trust that the something else about the character which will allow you to care about them beyond their sexuality or gender will be revealed next chapter or next week.

But it's frustrating that this is a common enough trope that if you fit a certain demographic, most of the time you are going to have to decide if it's worth your time and energy to wait and trust the creator to reveal something that will make you care more.

And it's really frustrating that most creators don't even seem to realize that introducing their characters only in terms of gender and sexuality can be a problem, or that by introducing their characters that way, they are asking a certain segment of their demographic to trust that they will give out information that will allow that demographic to be able to identify with those characters next week--when folks who aren't in that demographic may not face such a decision, or such a delay.

In terms of writing this post, I already revised and deleted quite a bit of stuff from this before I posted it; it went through 2.5 drafts. I think that I would benefit from finer-grained explanations of my terms, and that's something I am working on in general.

But I think maybe the main point of contention between you and lignota and I is, perhaps, where we draw the line between "self-identification with a character in terms of plot, character, or other artistic merits" and "self-identification with a character, in terms of sexuality/gender."

Re: Part 2

[navrins]

Ah, there's a context I didn't have. I agree completely that if we've only been given one attribute of a character, then we can only identify with that character on the basis of that attribute, and if that attribute is something you don't often find in characters (like being lesbian) then it's a lot more exciting than something common (like being straight).

Of course, I'd also say that if we've only been given one attribute of a character, the writers and/or actor aren't doing their jobs very well, regardless of what attribute it is. See my response to your comment to lignota below.

Re: Part 2

[eredien]

Hm. I didn't think that I needed to point out the fact that their sexuality was the only attribute of the characters we'd been given so far, since I thought I had made it clear from my original post, but it looks as if maybe I didn't do so.

[gaudior.livejournal.com]

I find that a lot of straight people have huge problems with media that features even one gay character (the "Dumbledore didn't need to be gay!" problem), saying that now they can't relate to that character.

Welcome to reading or watching TV or movies as a queer person, where you can't relate to 90% of fictional characters' romantic relationships, and grow up thinking that's normal!

Yeah, this! This drives me nuts. I mean yes, it's nice that there are some queer characters sometimes, but I really do feel quite damn invisible a lot of the time.

And then there's the thing-- so, when I invent a fictional character, my default human is: white, female, queer, and very intelligent. And then I change aspects of that as fits the character and the story better. But that means that I will end up writing a whole lot of queer women in my books... and every once in a while, I wonder whether people will think that puts me in a "niche," and ask why I have to be so focused on queerness and why I do so much writing about a special interest group.

Embarrasing Writer-Related Anecdote

[eredien]

my default human is: white, female, queer, and very intelligent.

Huh. I thought about this for a long time, and I'm not sure if I have a "default human."

why I do so much writing about a special interest group.

I accidentally asked Samuel Delany basically this at a reading once when what I meant to say was "wow, you featured a character who was like me and I've never seen that before! What made you do that and why do so few other writers do this?" But I'd stayed up until 2 am reading the book in a frenzy of incredible enlightenment, so it came out as "why do you have so many disabled people in your books?" I wanted to sink into the floor; he was very gracious.

[ab3nd.livejournal.com]

Fictions are the stories we tell ourselves about who we are. When we exclude queer people, or people of color, or people who don't speak our language or pray to our God from our fictions, especially our mainstream, mass-media fictions, we tell ourselves false, impoverished stories.

This may be a case of letting my misanthropic streak run the keyboard for a few minutes, but couldn't the lack of portrayal of minorities be viewed as a (perhaps not made explicit by the authors) component of the fiction? That is, we already assume that some show (Do I know what people watch? No.) takes place in a universe with certain differences from the one we accept as real. In Firefly, there is interplanetary travel, a culture of insane berserkers, and big damn heroes. These are viewed as part of the fiction, what makes "The 'verse" what it is.

In that case "There are no gay people" or "The only gay people are effeminate men who make snarky remarks about the curtains" or "There's only one black guy, and he has Old-timey Wisdom (I'm looking at you, Stephen King)" is as much a part of the fictional universe as the ray guns and space squids. The action of the fiction takes place in a universe where there are no gay/black/Islamic/unfamiliar/strange people, and to a large portion of the audience, that's a very comforting thing.

This isn't assuming that the people who watch TV are evil (well, not all of them, it's a big group). Most of them are not going to say "I wish there were no members of whatever minority freaks me out in the world", either because they don't, or because we are taught that that's not a thing you can safely say, but if they have an opportunity to spend a few hours watching that world, they will. They just select that entertainment which makes them feel best.

[eredien]

They just select that entertainment which makes them feel best.

I think most people select the entertainment that makes them feel best, but I think it's telling that a lot of entertainment that people select because it makes them feel best just happens to have "no gay/black/Islamic/unfamiliar/strange people."

There are some shows where there are few people of color, for instance, to make a point about that fact (the excellent movie "Pleasantville," for instance), but most shows on TV are not science fiction shows. I suppose that a show set in a small town in the midwest, for instance, might have fewer Islamic people, but many shows take place in major metropolitan areas with a fair amount of religious and cultural diversity--there's no excuse for science-fictionizing Chicago if your story is about a bunch of roommates or a single dad and his kid.

[gaudior.livejournal.com]

ab3nd, I think that's a good (and unnerving) point. People tend to talk about TV ("the boob tube") as being mindless entertainment-- come home, flop down in front of the TV and relax-- and I could see how, for a lot of people, watching something about people who unnerve them is not relaxing.

That's... sad. That my life unnerves people. But there it is.

Sigh.

[eredien]

For those of you who are thinking about such things, this post from rm's journal has a little more discussion of people's personal take on whether it's important to see characters like themselves in fiction, or whether they use fiction in order to see characters who aren't like themselves.

I realize that I need, or at least would like, both in my fictions--but now I also realize that that might not be the case for everyone. And that might also be where some of the lines are being drawn.

[flutteringazure.livejournal.com]

Here by way of rm. This is a very interesting article and discussion! Need to read it a bit more thoroughly though :)

Thank you for pointing me towards looking up the word pan-sexual (I didn't hear it before). Suddenly quite a few things in my life are falling into place *smiles*

Mind if I friend?

[eredien]

Oh, not at all! Please friend away.