On the topic of recent tweets sent out by the Giant

[Studoku]

Well, the Giant only said character, not recurring character.

He only had 140 characters in which to talk about his characters.

[declinator]

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

It is far more likely that they drew up a list of names for each role and didn't notice that their lists only included white people than that they deliberately constrained themselves to only white people. It's still racism, but it is different in kind and requires a different response.

In the Hunger Games novels, Katniss is described as having "olive skin" and "straight black hair" and an overall unclear ethnicity. The casting call specifically looked for a "Caucasian, between ages 15 and 20", thus excluding any non-white actress from even auditioning. Would you attribute that to stupidity?

[Jaxzan Proditor]

He only had 140 characters in which to talk about his characters.

I'm pretty sure he had enough room to at least fit in "minor".

[malloyd]

How is it that any discussion of sexual minorities always involves an analogy including paedophiles?

For the same reason it always includes an analogy to heterosexuals for the inverse case.

Or the reason American racism arguments always draw analogies to black and white, and not say Koreans and native Japanese which could work for a similar argument in Japan. To make the analogies work you need groups that just about everybody in your audience will understand the relationship you are trying to draw the analogy to.

[137beth]

I wonder, do these people randomly quit reading other comics when someone is shown driving a white car, when they personally prefer red cars?

Or do they ragequit when someone is shown eating a vegetarian salad? Or conversely, tucking into a Big Kahuna Burger?

Do they send offended messages when a tub of chocolate ice cream is shown, as opposed to mint?

Their outrage makes no sense to me. I hope that the door doesn't hit them on their way out to their cave to sit there pouting and sucking their thumb.

Well, V has been shown eating vegetarian meals for along time

The email was not sent directly to me, it was sent to Ookoodook in response to a newsletter email that they sent promoting the new book; it was part of a deliberate attempt to pressure that company into ceasing doing business with me. Ookoodook forwarded it to me. Therefore, it was the email writer who chose to bring third parties into the discussion; I simply brought more third parties in. If he wanted to have a private discussion with me, he should have, you know, started a private discussion with me.

As for why I shared the event, the part that most troubled me was not the fact that the person held such hateful views (which I will not quote here because they don't deserve to be propagated, but went quite a bit further than simply informing me of their dissatisfaction). The part that bothered me was that apparently, this person thought that I was on the same side of this issue until recently. It offended me to think that even one of my readers could think that I supported the sort of bigotry this person was spewing. I made the tweet in order to make it crystal clear to as many readers as possible my position, in the hopes that anyone else who felt the same as this guy would similarly go elsewhere for their entertainment.

EDIT: Also, my apology is actually 100% sincere. I do deeply apologize for not including LGBT representation more prominently, and I do wish that I had made more of an effort to reflect my values in the comic before now. That statement deserves to be made regardless of other considerations.

This post feels really good to read.

[Bulldog Psion]

Using "pedophilia" also enables putting a slant on the conversation from the start. The association enables a homophobe to justify themselves and cast an aspersion on gays, setting a negative tone and associating gay sex with a horrible sexual crime, up front, without needing to using adjectives or descriptions.

It's a word which, in this context, comes with a whole agenda.

Which is precisely why it's used.

Edit: modern Russia has made this accusation a literal part of their language. "Pederas'" is now their word for "homosexual person," which is often informally shortened to "pedik." They make no linguistic differentiation at all between a gay and a pederast.

[oppyu]

Well per the last CDC study, fewer than 3% of the US population self-identifies as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. So if that study is accurate than approximately 1 out of every 33 characters in the story should be homo or bisexual to accurately reflect the population. You listed 46 names above. Of those, 3 are clearly gay or bisexual (Sabine, gay Cliffport prison guard, and Bandana.) So based off your list the Giant is averaging about 1 in 15 characters as being non-hetero sexual. That's a rate of non-heterosexuality twice what the CDC study would predict from a random sampling of the population, so based off your list it actually looks like the Giant is doing a good job at representing non-heterosexual characters.

(And that's not even including the characters that the text strongly suggests are at least somewhat bisexual (e.g. Belkar, Haley, Elan, and Nale) and the characters about whom we don't know what their orientation is (Vaarsuvius and Inkyrius.)

While I'm flattered that you're taking a list I threw together in five minutes as a comprehensive list of every sexuality depicted in the comic, the basic numbers are both inaccurate and really not the poi- oh, whatever.

Yeah, that Giant sure did a bang up job representing LBGT minorities huh?

[thisisnotspam]

Using "pedophilia" also enables putting a slant on the conversation from the start. The association enables a homophobe to justify themselves and cast an aspersion on gays, setting a negative tone and associating gay sex with a horrible sexual crime, up front, without needing to using adjectives or descriptions.

It's a word which, in this context, comes with a whole agenda.

Which is precisely why it's used.

But this argument can also be used against the position of the homophobe and showing them as paranoid and radical for considering homosexuality on the same level as pedophilia.

modern Russia has made this accusation a literal part of their language. "Pederas'" is now their word for "homosexual person," which is often informally shortened to "pedik." They make no linguistic differentiation at all between a gay and a pederast

I don't think that's just a modern Russian thing. Other slavic languages use similar words. The French use the word pédé.
edit: and in both those cases not as an equivalent to the word gay, but as a slur.

[bguy]

While I'm flattered that you're taking a list I threw together in five minutes as a comprehensive list of every sexuality depicted in the comic, the basic numbers are both inaccurate and really not the poi- oh, whatever.

What exactly is the point if its not about whether or not the comic has shown an adequate number of non-heterosexuals? The number of non-heterosexual characters as a percentage of the cast, and how that percentage compares to the actual percentage of non-heterosexuals in society would seem to be highly relevent on that point.

And if you want to add more names to your list then please feel free, though out of fairness it seems like you should include Phil Rodriguez, and the two female paladins from the bonus strips in ANCFTPB, which will probably make the percentage of non-heterosexual characters come out even higher than what it was off of your snap list.

Yeah, that Giant sure did a bang up job representing LBGT minorities huh?

He's appears to be representing LBGT minorities at a rate over twice what their percentage of society is per the CDC, and his portrayal of individual LGBT characters has been sympathetic, so what exactly is the problem?

[BannedInSchool]

But this argument can also be used against the position of the homophobe and showing them as paranoid and radical for considering homosexuality on the same level as pedophilia.

And here it's being used as an analogy to explain just how offended they are to be writing nasty letters to publishers, but not as a reason anyone else should agree with them in being so offended as that.

[Bulldog Psion]

He's appears to be representing LBGT minorities at a rate over twice what their percentage of society is per the CDC, and his portrayal of individual LGBT characters has been sympathetic, so what exactly is the problem?

Well, I at least don't have a problem with that. If he doesn't add any more, I'll applaud his inclusiveness. If he adds more, I'll applaud his inclusiveness.

I have a problem with people who are offended by inclusion of any gays at all. I also don't think that there's any necessary maximum limit either; take "Shortpacked," say. I think that there are like two straight characters in the entire cast. I'll read that with no problem; I'll read a comic with the proportions reverse with no problem.

For me (and I realize that my personal opinion isn't worth anything to anyone but myself, really), I have only two criteria:

1. That a gay character is included at all.

2. That they are shown in the same positive light as other protagonists.

The whole point is to demonstrate that gays are, in fact, human, and that sexuality doesn't determine whether you are good person or not. Showing gays is important because it affirms that being gay is not something to be hidden, or unworthy of notice. It shows that gay people are people like everyone else.

Of course, I may be talking complete tosh, being a straight dude who sides with gays. Perhaps their perspective is different. But that's my perspective, anyway.

[Taet]

I am glad to the people who spoke up about feeling that this was not done in a polite way and I am glad to the Giant for speaking up and showing that it did not start in a polite way either. I thought that this letter was one sample out of many rude letter that he got himself. A threat that got sent to the publisher was worse.

In the Hunger Games novels, Katniss is described as having "olive skin" and "straight black hair" and an overall unclear ethnicity. The casting call specifically looked for a "Caucasian, between ages 15 and 20", thus excluding any non-white actress from even auditioning. Would you attribute that to stupidity?

It was very smart to not take any chance of casting someone Native American looking for a part with bow and arrows. That is a problem right now. Sports teams called Indians and Redskins are getting a lot of pressure to change.

It was the movie choice to make her look like plain and simple white folk and I think it worked well. I think there should have been more color in all the rest of the cast though. In the people and in the colors of their clothes too. The way they are all kind of frosted looking now is creepy.

[Pinnacle]

So let's cast that scene as a casting director. 50% or more of mail carriers are male. 63% of mail carriers are white, (assuming they have the same racial makeup as the population at large.) This means that there is better than 50% chance that any actor to play that mailman will be a white male.

Bad math
.5 x .63 = .315 < .5
31.5%, not better than 50%

Making that mail carrier any race or sexuality is inclusive. Making him a token to demonstrate 'inclusiveness' is demeaning.

That one character is a straight white male is not exclusive.
When all of the one characters tend to be the same thing, though...

It may lead, for example, to somebody referring to white people as "plain" people. White, male, and straight are seen as the default and anybody else needs an excuse to exist--but I have a secret to tell you: People who hit all three are actually a minority.

[brian 333]

Look at the sexualities that have been important enough to be included in OOTS. Roy, Durkon, Belkar, Haley, Elan, Vaarsuvius, Celia, Hilgya, Jenny, Therkla, Samantha, Inkyrius, Eugene, Sara, Violet, Ian Starshine, Haley's Mum, Tarquin, Elan's Mum, Tarquin's wives, Nale, Sabine, random thug in Greysky City planning to kill his wife, Pompey, Julia, gay Cliffport prison guard, straight Cliffport prison guard, Trigak, Miko, Dwarf who uses explosives, Bandana, chick who invited Elan up to her hotel room in Azure City, a certain goblin in Start of Darkness, his wife, Tsukiko, Geoff, Ivy, Dirt Farmer Husband, Dirt Farmer Wife, Soon Kim, Serini, Orrin Draketooth, Daigo, Kazumi, Thor, get the point yet? Gratuitous or not, it comes up. So it's not enough to say that OOTS just hasn't been looking at sexuality and that's why we haven't found any gay non-horrible demon characters until Bandana.

Regarding the mail carrier, it doesn't matter if that mail carrier is any race, gender or sexuality. But if in the entire media there's only straight white dudes, then there's a problem. Focusing specifically on the mail carrier is, as this forum is prone to doing, missing the forest for the trees.

And frankly representation is it's own benefit. You'll see on TV shows that people will enjoy partly because of a simple little bit of diversity. Glenn on The Walking Dead doesn't need to be Asian. There's nothing in his characterisation that demands he be descended from the continent of Asia. But he is, and that's good, and it makes the show more enjoyable for little Asian kids who watch TV and wonder why the real world has people of all colours and races but TV only seems to feature white people.

It may be that I seem to be on the wrong side of the argument here, but I have never advocated against inclusion when it matters. I do, however, have an issue with tokenism. I dislike the idea that people begin with a checklist, ("do we have an African, Asian, Female, Gay, and Indian? Okay, can we substitute a gay Native Australian for the African, or do we need both?") And that, it seems to me, is what is happening.

To use my previous mailman example, we could make him/her a transgendered homosexual and have the exact same scene. But now we must resort to stereotyping to generate the idea in the audience. And now we've offended gay and transgendered people because stereotypes so seldom reflect a real person. By attempting to be inclusive in an artificial way we've excluded the audience we sought to appease because we did it only to fill a quota, rather than as an aspect of characterization.

Now let's expand to a street scene. I recall a scene in a movie where the couple that was central to the movie walked past a park bench where two old men were sitting holding hands. Were they just friends? Were they a couple? I wouldn't have noticed had my sister not said, "Look!" It was just in the background of the scene, and development of those two old men were not important to the movie. In fact, had there been development of those two background characters it would have detracted from the movie, in my opinion.

Hollywood has appealed to straight white males since the first motion picture camera arrived because that was where the wealth was to be found. Hollywood chases money like a dog chases its tail. The world is changing, but Hollywood is still run by those who made their fortunes appeasing their wealthy sponsors. They will die off soon enough to be replaced by minds not formed during the whitewashed era of the 1950's.

So, create central characters who are not straight white males. The world is full of them. Celebrate good characters of all ethnicities and orientations and demonstrate to Hollywood that they too will receive a fan following, (and thus money.) Don't waste your angst on unimportant characters who could have been _. Their orientation doesn't matter; they are essentially scenery.

But don't resort to quotas and tokenism. That way leads to The Hollywood Shuffle

[factotum]

and the two female paladins from the bonus strips in ANCFTPB

Given they were only *pretending* to be gay in order to avoid having to have a meal with Miko, I'm not sure they should be included?

[Czhorat]

Now let's expand to a street scene. I recall a scene in a movie where the couple that was central to the movie walked past a park bench where two old men were sitting holding hands. Were they just friends? Were they a couple? I wouldn't have noticed had my sister not said, "Look!" It was just in the background of the scene, and development of those two old men were not important to the movie. In fact, had there been development of those two background characters it would have detracted from the movie, in my opinion.

[SNIP for brevity]

So, create central characters who are not straight white males. The world is full of them. Celebrate good characters of all ethnicities and orientations and demonstrate to Hollywood that they too will receive a fan following, (and thus money.) Don't waste your angst on unimportant characters who could have been _. Their orientation doesn't matter; they are essentially scenery.

There is underlying here an assumption that "straight" and "white" are defaults with any deviation requiring a special effort. Your example of the M/M couple in the background is a perfect example of this done reasonably well; one couple is likely not straight. It just is and is unremarked.

I understand that "quota" is a dirty word to some, but I'm guessing that Rich is a straight white man. There is nothing wrong with him reviewing his work, realizing that he's made nearly all of his characters straight, and moving to correct this because he feels that it sends the wrong message.

[ti'esar]

Given they were only *pretending* to be gay in order to avoid having to have a meal with Miko, I'm not sure they should be included?

They were pretending to be dating, but one of them muttered something like "Or, you know, we could just make out later" as they left, and a later bonus strip had them kissing, so they probably should.

Though still pretty much just one-off characters, obviously.

[brian 333]

There is underlying here an assumption that "straight" and "white" are defaults with any deviation requiring a special effort. Your example of the M/M couple in the background is a perfect example of this done reasonably well; one couple is likely not straight. It just is and is unremarked.

I understand that "quota" is a dirty word to some, but I'm guessing that Rich is a straight white man. There is nothing wrong with him reviewing his work, realizing that he's made nearly all of his characters straight, and moving to correct this because he feels that it sends the wrong message.

I bolded the important part of this. The rest of it I fully agree with.

My question to you is, "Why is that message an important aspect of this work?" Is it relevant at all? Or is it an attempt to pander to a certain audience?

OOtS is not about gender or sexual orientation, so why is that message even a part of the consideration for the story? It's like having a story about Dungeons and Dragons and then making it a point to discuss Farm Labor issues. We're adding 2+Blue here.

I like Bandana as a character and as a part of the plot. Rich has done a good job in her development. Her sexuality may not be a major plot issue, but it was relevant at the time of its exposition. I say, "Yay Team!" The more I get to know characters the more I learn to love or hate them, and details of characterization are one important way to make them less like paper dolls and more like people.

However, this is a story about a dungeon crawl gone awry, and how the characters act and react in the ever evolving story. To insist it be 'inclusive' and 'LGBT Friendly' is beside the point of the story. Bandana is cool because she is a character who happens to be gay, not because she was a gay included to meet a quota to satisfy an outside agenda.

[Gwynfrid]

My question to you is, "Why is that message an important aspect of this work?" Is it relevant at all?

That message is an important aspect of the Giant's work because he decided it is.

Much more detailed answers to that question, by the Giant himself, can be found here and here. Even more commentary on those matters is available in the Index of the Giant's Comments.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Given they were only *pretending* to be gay in order to avoid having to have a meal with Miko, I'm not sure they should be included?

At first they were only pretending. However, since they end up actually going out and we see then kissing later I think they can be included.

[declinator]

It was very smart to not take any chance of casting someone Native American looking for a part with bow and arrows. That is a problem right now. Sports teams called Indians and Redskins are getting a lot of pressure to change.

It was the movie choice to make her look like plain and simple white folk and I think it worked well. I think there should have been more color in all the rest of the cast though. In the people and in the colors of their clothes too. The way they are all kind of frosted looking now is creepy.

So the "plain and simple" standard is white, everything else is non-standard? And exclude Hispanics and other visible which could fit Suzanne Collins' description of Katniss, already at the call? Why make race of the actress a topic while the race of the character so obviously is not? Jennifer Lawrence did a wonderful job, no doubt about that, but does the result justify the means?

[Taet]

So the "plain and simple" standard is white, everything else is non-standard?

I had to say white separate from plain and simple.

And exclude Hispanics and other visible which could fit Suzanne Collins' description of Katniss, already at the call? Why make race of the actress a topic while the race of the character so obviously is not? Jennifer Lawrence did a wonderful job, no doubt about that, but does the result justify the means?

Yes, I think it does.

[Pinnacle]

Or is it an attempt to pander to a certain audience?

The existence of members of minority groups is pandering. Making everybody more like [X] is not.
Got it.

OOtS is not about gender or sexual orientation, so why is that message even a part of the consideration for the story?

If the story were about gender or sexual orientation, that would mean that each character's gender and sexual orientation is important and has a specific reason for existing. The characters in this work are unlikely to reflect reality.
In stories that are not about such, inclusion is the neutral position. Lack of it sends a message; its existence does not.

[SaintRidley]

In stories that are not about such, inclusion is the neutral position. Lack of it sends a message; its existence does not.

Though in the broader context of inclusion in our narrative entertainment, the existence of inclusion does send a message: that inclusion should be desired because it does not hurt, because it is neutral. Those who make inclusion a priority are swimming against a current that doesn't see inclusion as neutral, but negative. Inclusion very much sends a message - it only won't once there's nobody to send a message to about why inclusion should be the default.

[brian 333]

The existence of members of minority groups is pandering. Making everybody more like [X] is not.
Got it.

Incorrect analysis. I do not advocate the opposite of my position by any means; inclusion is desired when it is relevant to characterization or to the storyline.

If the story were about gender or sexual orientation, that would mean that each character's gender and sexual orientation is important and has a specific reason for existing. The characters in this work are unlikely to reflect reality.
In stories that are not about such, inclusion is the neutral position. Lack of it sends a message; its existence does not.

This is correct. However, inclusion should be a basic part of characterization and not something tossed in 'to be inclusive'. It is this 'tossing in' that I advocate against, while I advocate for diversity in characterization. And this is where I think Rich has done really well with his narrative.

V's ambiguous gender is both well handled and funny when it is the central point of a joke sequence. The Cliffport Cop's line was funny without being hurtful or demeaning to gay's, cops, or gay cops. Bandana's reveal wasn't a stereotype of the 'out of the closet' speech, but a simple exposition of a character trait within the narrative. These are good examples of how to be inclusive without resorting to stereotypes or other offensive means of inclusiveness.

Again, I highly recommend Robert Townsend's 'The Hollywood Shuffle'. He returned to that theme in his TV sitcom, 'The Parent 'Hood', when his son dressed as Stepin Fetchit for his Black History Month assignment, in full blackface. You'll have to find the episode, I can't say it as well as Townsend did through the character of his son, but it was a very touching tribute to a man who is commonly reviled today for allowing himself to become a 'token' in the cinema. (Robert Townsend is one of my heroes, by the way.)

Again, my point is not that inclusion of persons different from what is most commonly portrayed in media is somehow wrong, but that tokenism is wrong, hurtful, and accomplishes the opposite of the intended goals of those demanding token inclusion.

[oppyu]

What are your thoughts on, say, Lee from the Walking Dead video games? He's a college professor arrested for killing the dude sleeping with his wife, and nothing about his narrative role says he needs to be African-American. But he is. Is that tokenism, inclusion, good, bad or neutral?

EDIT: The poster below me is a very smart poster and I agree with everything they just said.

[Bulldog Psion]

Underneath every "is the inclusion of a gay character necessary?" is the assumption that their inclusion is unnecessary unless there is a special reason for them to be there.

If anything, I find it more offensive than overt homophobia, because it is the same thing but trying to put on a mask of sweet reasonableness.

The fact that it's still considered a semi-valid argument to say that "you can't include a gay character just because, there has to be reason" shows that there is a still a very good reason to include gay characters deliberately.

On the day when it is considered acceptable by practically everyone to include a gay character "just because" as a fact of their character, and not needing some nebulous, unspecified "special reason for them to be there," a mighty victory will have been achieved by justice, equality, and humanism.

[brian 333]

What are your thoughts on, say, Lee from the Walking Dead video games? He's a college professor arrested for killing the dude sleeping with his wife, and nothing about his narrative role says he needs to be African-American. But he is. Is that tokenism, inclusion, good, bad or neutral?

EDIT: The poster below me is a very smart poster and I agree with everything they just said.

I don't watch the show, so I have no idea who the character is. So far as the idea as presented here goes, it seems to me any male could play that role, unless he killed his wife only because he was black. As in, "That's not something a white guy would do..." (which we know to be a statistically inaccurate statement, by the way.)

So, in this case, casting a black man as that character makes sense. Casting him as a banker would also make sense. Even if the character was white in the book.

[Keltest]

-snip-

for the most part, I agree with this. What Rich is doing is healthy and organic for both the story and the characters, and leaves little if anything to criticize about the way various minorities are included and integrated into his story. I have faith that he will continue to handle the situation as well in the future. But there is a fine line between the organic integration Rich has succeeded at, and holding up a character to the audience and going "See? Im inclusive!!!" That would be tokenism, and more often that not smacks of fake sympathy.

[oppyu]

I don't watch the show, so I have no idea who the character is. So far as the idea as presented here goes, it seems to me any male could play that role, unless he killed his wife only because he was black. As in, "That's not something a white guy would do..." (which we know to be a statistically inaccurate statement, by the way.)

So, in this case, casting a black man as that character makes sense. Casting him as a banker would also make sense. Even if the character was white in the book.

Lee is an amazing character although I probably shouldn't have led with 'he killed the dude who slept with his wife' but your insults against him will still not be- Not the point.

Question B then, characters who just happen to be gay without it tying much into their characters. Happy Endings, there's a chubby (TV chubby, not real life chubby) manchild who mooches off his parents, watches sports and plays video games, and likes penis. Good, bad, neutral, tokenism, inclusion, etc?