2013-12-07: Short, Questionably Packed Content

Follow the adventures of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Fran and Naga in this all-new humorous entry to the growing Poeverse.
Post Reply
Nosy Neighbordroid
Mage/Priest War Veteran
Posts: 564
Joined: January 1st, 2011, 11:45 pm

2013-12-07: Short, Questionably Packed Content

Post by Nosy Neighbordroid »

lyze
Errant Scholar
Posts: 154
Joined: November 25th, 2009, 10:10 am
Contact:

Re: 2013-12-07: Short, Questionably Packed Content

Post by lyze »

Nice dude, good satire. I read at least one of the referred comics, maybe two if the suddenly penised reference is what I think it is. While I love those comics, one of them more than the other, I do see the recognize that trend of just trying to over-diversify a cast. I guess It's just the easiest way of making characters stand out against each other in a written/drawn format but seems like people take it so far that it becomes statsitcally insane.

As far as alt text Ted goes, my personal mockery of the trend is the albino gay half Ainu/half bushman with prosopagnosia who carries the gene that makes cilantro taste like dish soap.
User avatar
Imp-Chan
Not Yet Dead
Posts: 1407
Joined: August 10th, 2007, 11:03 am
Twitter @: ImpChan
Location: Seoul, South Korea
Contact:

Re: 2013-12-07: Short, Questionably Packed Content

Post by Imp-Chan »

I'm actually really glad to see minorities being represented widely in webcomics, when they're also being represented as simply people. When their minority status becomes A Thing, though, I feel that's a bit unfair to the characters and to the minorities they belong to. Though sometimes people feel that a certain aspect of their self actually is A Thing, and it's reasonable to reflect that in writing the character. For example to many trans individuals, when and whether to reveal that aspect of themselves is a huge deal, and it can be very empowering to seize control of it. A writer who writes the character that way isn't making a token of the character by doing so.

Overall I think webcomics, particularly those mentioned here, do a better job than most of being inclusive without forcing the issue. Maybe it's that webcomic creators are a pretty diverse group themselves.

^-^'
Because scary little devil girls have to stick together.
Image
BloodHenge
Mage/Priest War Veteran
Posts: 932
Joined: August 20th, 2007, 3:09 am
Contact:

Re: 2013-12-07: Short, Questionably Packed Content

Post by BloodHenge »

I think it may also have to do with how the internet compares with other media. Many makers of television and movies, for example, labor under the delusion that they can please everyone if they just try hard enough. Content providers for the internet have hard evidence that no matter what they do, someone is going to hate it (and by extension them), so they're less risk-averse, which gives their products room to be less generic and forgettable.
lyze
Errant Scholar
Posts: 154
Joined: November 25th, 2009, 10:10 am
Contact:

Re: 2013-12-07: Short, Questionably Packed Content

Post by lyze »

That's just it Imp-chan, it becomes this punch list of characteristics rather than developing a personality then deciding how their sexuality, race, religion, whatever, is part of that which bothers me. And then having the character declare in every available instant what their status is. Have you ever met someone who is gay that tells everyone they meet at every moment 'Hi, I'm gay'? I'd be very annoyed with a person that had to repeatedly bring up anything about themselves. "I like yogurt. I like yogurt. Hi, have we met? Did you know I like yogurt?" It's very unrealistic. I'm spanish, via cuban parents and was born in puerto rico. I never bring it up unless someone asks me where I'm from because it just isn't that important. I'm an american first, period. My parents feel the same and feel proud about their heritage but don't go around telling people 'we're cuban, we're cuban, we're cuban. I understand that in comics you often have to overemphasis and remind readers of what a characters about but with some it's like they're beating you over the head with it.

And then there's this thing about people's sexuality/gender and the internet. I don't mean characters, I mean actual people. Have we become so sex obsessed as a culture that it's what defines us as people? I don't know, maybe it's different if you're gay, trans, bi, whatever, but I've never felt the need to share with others what sorts of body parts I like and what I like to do with them/to them. It just always struck me as a personal matter that isn't polite to bring up in conversation with strangers. It seems like an unhealthy obsession like it's the only thing that defines you as a person. Can't you just be a person and be respected for that. I don't mean hide it and keep it to yourself, just stop focusing so hard on it.

P.S. This isn't directed at anyone in particular, just venting about how strange I find the whole declaration of only one aspect of self thing.
User avatar
Forrest
Finally, some love for the BJ!
Posts: 977
Joined: August 21st, 2007, 12:49 pm
Location: The Edge of the Earth
Contact:

Re: 2013-12-07: Short, Questionably Packed Content

Post by Forrest »

I agree completely Lyze. It strikes me as an expression of divisive in-grouping and out-grouping more than anything else, where the important thing being signalled is "I'm a member of this club!" rather than anything about the individual themselves. Like people whose religious affiliation has very little to do with any of their sincere beliefs, and is merely a group identifier. I find it frustrating that language itself is being reshaped to accommodate that mindset instead of trying to correct the mindset. For example, there are certain subcultures of men who are exclusively sexually interested in other men but are vehemently "NOT GAY", because they don't fit the stereotype those men hold of "gay" people. But rather than correct those stereotypes and informing those men "being gay just means you're exclusively interested in sex with people of your own sex; you can be gay and still be macho, masculine, strong, stoic, etc", we tip-toe around them and say "ok ok, you're not gay, you're just Men who Have Sex with Men, but that's totally not gay, sure."

I myself (and I mention this here only because it's an example on this topic) am of an obscure orientation and "gender identity" (I dislike that terminology) myself: I am pansexual and pangendered, meaning I'm interested in people of any sex and interested in being a person of any sex. I'm not in the closet about that at all; if it comes up somehow, I'm happy to let anyone find out about it. But most people, as far as I can tell, assume I am a straight cisman, because it's not a topic that comes up in casual conversation frequently, and I'm not going to shove it in anyone's face. If it does somehow come up it's usually a Bi The Way moment, more or less.

In my first term at university, during the thing where all the campus clubs try to recruit new members, someone from the LGBTIQQAU booth shouted at me "HEY! Are you gay!?", obviously as an attention-getter. I looked back to see who was shouting that, saw the guy was at that booth, and just did a "so-so" gesture with my hand and went to walk off, but then he shouts "Kinda gay? Sorta gay? Come on over!" With a sigh I came over to the booth, he asks me if I'm bi or something and I told him, and then of course he wants me to join his club. I told him I'm not really much of a social person and I probably wouldn't ever come to meetings or rallies or anything so there wasn't much of a point. He emphasized that I didn't have to actually do anything as a member but tried to get me to sign up anyway just to "show support". I gave a halfhearted "woo us" and signed the roster and never heard from them again.

inb4"privilege":
Spoiler: show
Yes, I know that people in marginalized groups can't always afford to be so nonchalant about their being in that group, because mainstream society makes a big deal out of the fact that they are, so people like me who can blend in with the non-marginalized groups easily are enjoying a privilege that others are denied. The problem there is that others are denied it, though, not that some enjoy it; privilege is not a problem, the selective absence of it is. Everyone should be equally privileged. Many white people make a big deal about the fact that black people are black and won't let them just be people instead of "black people", so black people in response own that and make a big deal themselves out of being "black people", instead of just being people. Then when white people who don't make a big deal out of the fact that black people are black, and dislike it that white people do so, question why black people are making a big deal out of it themselves, they get called on their "privilege" of not having to be aware of their race. But what would happen if those white people suddenly owned the big deal now being made of the fact that they're white, and went "yeah I'm white and I'm proud of it, wouldn't have it any other way" like black people do about being black? Doesn't seem such a great response now does it? So how about we focus on empowering the marginalized group (black people) to enjoy the same ability to be just people without qualification that the non-marginalized group (white people) do, instead of attacking the non-marginalized group for having something that everyone should have?
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Post Reply