Importance of white representation in fiction

[Yeekim]

It isn't? So perpetuating the dominance of one race for "aesthetic preference" doesn't cause harm?

I've seen no-one argue they only want to see actors of one particular race.
Only that characters fit the source material and/or setting.
That works both ways.

 

[aelf]

I've seen no-one argue they only want to see actors of one particular race.
Only that characters fit the source material and/or setting.

If that argument winds up meaning everyone on screen is white and a reversal of the trend for greater diversity, then isn't it practically the same thing?

That works both ways.

What does that mean?

 

[Senethro]

What if....

What if we employed non-white actors in "white" roles, but just edited them to be white in post?

Would this not be the most just solution? We are able to get the best actors for each role - maximum meritocracy. We employ people from all groups of society - maximum equality. We then scour all their presence from the fiction - maximum..... ummmm.............. uhhhhhh...... "aesthetic"????

 

[PhroX]

Just something that came to mind earlier. I'll use Henry V as an example as I mentionned it earlier in this thread. The title character of said play is, as the name would suggest a king. But both times I've seen the play, he was played by a commoner. And chances are, the same applies to the perfomances that anyone else here has seen. At best, it might have been a version with a life peer in the title role. But not actual royalty. You've got an actor playing a role which he is lacking one of if not the most defining characteristics of. And yet, I'd be suprised if many people would consider that a problem.

So why is having someone of the "wrong" class play King Henry acceptable but not the "wrong" race?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Fine, and to take your metaphor literally... if I were to use squirrels in a story and used a type of squirrel not native to the region where my story takes place, someone very familiar with squirrel habitats would be justified in saying, "You made a mistake."

But if you're taking my metaphor literally, (at least in the conventional use of the term "literally"), then Middle Earth for example, since that was what we were discussing, literally doesn't exist. Its made up, make-believe, pretend, so there is literally no actual real "native to the region" anything... because Middle Earth doesn't exist in reality.

I agree that someone who is very familiar with the LotR trilogy and all the surrounding lore might say "that's not correct" about, for example a black person playing one of the hobbits, and I would understand why they might say that. I also think that "correct" in that context can be technical or colloquial. If there was a depiction of The Shire with some hobbits, even main/featured characters being played by black or Asian or Hispanic or actors, many people who are familiar with LotR would not even notice and/or care, and many people would notice but be perfectly fine with it. My position is that whether a person was put off, irritated or similar, and to what degree, with an Asian hobbit, for example, is entirely personal to that particular person, rather than being any reflection of objective "correctness".

Let me offer an example to hopefully add some different context. If an artist depicted god as a red haired woman with freckles and green eyes, sitting on an obsidian throne on the Moon, and someone complained to you that that was not a correct depiction of god... I think I can guess what your reaction to that would be and why. Does that make sense?

Kinda like what makes me have the reaction when I see depictions of Christmas art or stories that show penguins and polar bears cohabiting. Their natural habitats are literally at opposite ends of the planet, since most Christmas-themed penguins are Emperors, who are an Antarctic species.

Now this is a perfect example of one of the distinctions I was drawing. Polar bears and penguins are real. Middle Earth is not. So it makes more sense to me for a person to be put off by a depiction of polar bears and/or penguins that is not scientifically accurate. On the other hand, I can also understand that artistically, since they are both winter/snow creatures and Christmas is also associated with winter/snow, that artists might decide it would be cute to depict them together. It's certainly technically/scientifically wrong, but depending on the context, the "wrongness" might be trivial.

 

[Yeekim]

If that argument winds up meaning everyone on screen is white and a reversal of the trend for greater diversity, then isn't it practically the same thing?

There's a ban on creating original fictional universes that are racially diverse?

 

[Yeekim]

agree that someone who is very familiar with the LotR trilogy and all the surrounding lore might say "that's not correct" about, for example a black person playing one of the hobbits, and I would understand why they might say that. I also think that "correct" in that context is colloquial. If there was a depiction of The Shire with some hobbits, even main/featured characters being played by black or Asian or Hispanic or actors, many people who are familiar with LotR would not even notice and/or care, and many people would notice but be perfectly fine with it. My position is that whether a person was put off, irritated or similar, and to what degree, with an Asian hobbit is entirely personal to that particular person, rather than being any reflection of objective "correctness".

"If you change Middle Earth to Middle East and place the Shire in Syria, someone not familiar with the story would not notice. Therefore, this is OK".
If one wishes to create such a story, they're welcome, of course. Might be really good. Just don't insist it's Tolkien's.

 

[Sommerswerd]

"If you change Middle Earth to Middle East and place the Shire in Syria, someone not familiar with the story would not notice. Therefore, this is OK".

Two points on that:

1. Someone who is familiar with the story would notice and still think it was OK. Maybe not you, but that's personal to you, not a mandate on anything, least of all what is permissible and/or enjoyable in storytelling.
2. Syria is real. The Shire is not. The Middle East is real. Middle Earth is not. So your analogy completely misses the point.

 

[Farm Boy]

I find I get a ton of mileage out of the words: "based on"

Then again, comic books kinda just leave that off.

 

[Yeekim]

Two points on that:

1. Someone who is familiar with the story would notice and still think it was OK. Maybe not you, but that's personal to you, not a mandate on anything, least of all what is permissible and/or enjoyable in storytelling.
2. Syria is real. The Shire is not. The Middle East is real. Middle Earth is not. So your analogy completely misses the point.

Well, we live in a free world. Anything is permissible. As for enjoyable?
If one is adapting a particular story to the screen, fans of that story probably are one's target audience. Them being fans, it is safe to bet they like that story already as is. That's what they expect to see. Chances of them appreciating changes are there... but they aren't good.

 

[bernie14]

Just something that came to mind earlier. I'll use Henry V as an example as I mentionned it earlier in this thread. The title character of said play is, as the name would suggest a king. But both times I've seen the play, he was played by a commoner. And chances are, the same applies to the perfomances that anyone else here has seen. At best, it might have been a version with a life peer in the title role. But not actual royalty. You've got an actor playing a role which he is lacking one of if not the most defining characteristics of. And yet, I'd be suprised if many people would consider that a problem.

So why is having someone of the "wrong" class play King Henry acceptable but not the "wrong" race?

I thought the opposite...why do rich hollywood actors play poor suffering people? or do you have to understand Einstein's theories to play him in a movie?.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Well, we live in a free world. Anything is permissible. As for enjoyable?
If one is adapting a particular story to the screen, fans of that story probably are one's target audience. Them being fans, it is safe to bet they like that story already as is. That's what they expect to see. Chances of them appreciating changes are there... but they aren't good.

So let the market decide.
I found the introduction of deer riding elves and boar riding dwarves into "The Hobbit" much more of a departure from Tolkien than the introduction of a major female character but oddly most of the stay true to Tolkien nerds seemed more annoyed by Tauriel.

 

[aelf]

There's a ban on creating original fictional universes that are racially diverse?

You can keep saying that, but original works that reach those heights are not easy to come by. And the industry, an already unequal playing field to begin with, doesn't always take big risks with original stuff. So, in the end, if pushing your POV successfully means we end up with more white dominance, then you are creating harm.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I cut your quote for brevity, but I get what you're saying. But! I feel like you can't really compare squirrels to humans, or hobbits. It's just not a good analogy, if only due to lifespans & completely different pressures of natural selection. Squirrels live, at most, 20 years, tops (had to Google that myself). Also, you're getting into evolutionary pressures about how natural selection might favor certain random mutations over others over a *super long*, almost unfathomable to us, period of time. Just a bad analogy, IMO, no offense.

I don't understand what you think the average lifespan of humans vis-a-vis squirrels has to do with this particular issue but the fact that you didn't even know it and had to look it up yourself kind of underscores this. My point is that animals of the same species often come in different appearances, despite living in the same place, squirrels being just one of many examples. So when I heard your point about the hobbits all having to look the same, because they came from the same area, the first thing I thought about was how squirrels who live in the same area often look very different from each other.

But again, ultimately... Middle Earth is not real, so the real world rules about lifespan and evolution and so on, aren't anywhere near as relevant, and I for one certainly don't consider them sacrosanct. I mean... Smaug, Wizards, Uruk-hai, orcs, glowing swords, magical rings, ghost armies, etc.,... but we have to stick to the "evolutionary rules" when appreciating a made up story? Why? Just to make sure the hobbits are all white? Why? Its such a bizarrely arbitrary bit of minutia to get hung up on. The "evolutionary rules" of orcs and dragons and hobbits... living in an imaginary place? We are perfectly fine with the notion that a giant flying lizard can generate and project an unlimited stream of fire out of its mouth from inside its chest, or that a giant all-seeing eyeball can indefinitely suspend itself over the top of a giant stone tower... but god forbid a hobbit be black? That's the straw that suspends our disbelief? Not the giant ring that magically shrinks to fit the owner, or the army of the undead, or the herd of magical water horses? The Asian elf is the hill we want to die on? Why? Because its "not scientifically accurate"? What science? Its just individual personal preference for individual personal reasons, based on individual personal sensibilities.

I've said earlier in the thread, if people want to add diversity to an existing story, that's all well & good, but... it's clearly an "outside the story" reason, i.e. to satisfy modern sensibilities. As opposed to an in-story reason.

EDIT: I don't mean to say that's bad, by any means, just acknowledging it.

I think that referring to it as "out of story" for "modern sensibilities" can also just be a subconscious way of devaluing or delegitimizing the depiction/change. Its almost like saying that "the real" hobbits, for example, are white and these black hobbits are fake, less valuable, less worthy "out of story" hobbits being inserted for "modern sensibilities". But I do think that mentioning "modern sensibilities" also acknowledges the role that individual sensibilities play in this sort of thing, and it raises another thing to think about. If for example, Asian hobbits require "modern" sensibilities, then what kind of sensibilities would demand the hobbits are white? Obsolete sensibilities? Backward sensibilities? Can you see my point? Maybe describing it in terms of "modern" sensibilities is a little loaded. That's one reason I think that I prefer to look at it in terms of just individual sensibilities, rather than trying to make whatever reflects my personal sensibilities the correct one. It's challenging, because we all tend to want to think that we are "correct" in our thinking/perspective.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Emzie said: Personal aesthetic preferences can be neither right nor wrong.
and I added to her remarks: ...Until they lead to bad actions, cruelty, or oppression.

Indeed. If someone's preference is for all white actors in a show that does not need it and the person is loud about it, then that should be called out.

You added that speaking out loudly about one's preference should be called out. which is not what I said. I said: bad actions, cruelty, or oppression. You assert that speaking one's mind is a bad action that leads to cruelty and oppression. I did not say that. so I responded with...

That is not what I said.

It isn't? So perpetuating the dominance of one race for "aesthetic preference" doesn't cause harm?

You have now again moved the goal posts to "perpetuating the dominance of one race". If a person has a preference for black or Asian actors is that perpetuating the dominance of one race? Or are you limiting your thinking to white people? Individual preferences for actors (male, female, white, brown, Asian, blonde, or redheaded) does nothing to impact cultural values. Now if one actively preaches against those not to my liking, then I've moved into the realm of bad actions.

Would a white person dating and then marrying another white person be perpetuating the dominance of white people over others? It is likely that one of their goals is to create more white people. Such individual "aesthetic preference" certainly would overshadow any concern over movie characterizations. How about music? Does not liking rap mean one hates black people and are oppressing them?

Personal aesthetic preferences are just that: personal. It only becomes significant when one tries convince others to join you in order to do harm.

 

[Birdjaguar]

You can keep saying that, but original works that reach those heights are not easy to come by. And the industry, an already unequal playing field to begin with, doesn't always take big risks with original stuff. So, in the end, if pushing your POV successfully means we end up with more white dominance, then you are creating harm.

Are you acknowledging that the established core of old white created "stories" are superior to what is being created today by a more diverse pool of creators?

The demand for content, across all media, today is far greater than ever before. There is far more access to media by the less powerful than ever before. More "woke" content is being made available than ever before. Time will tell if any of the new stuff has staying power.

 

[uppi]

While I agree with this, I think the point some people are raising, including myself, is that if you want to cast Frodo as black, or Asian, or Indian, or whatever, you need to cast the whole Shire as that race. What you can't do, & still maintain story integrity, is to have a remote area like The Shire where travel more than a few dozen miles away is nearly unheard of & different races (be they mythical or like our world) are an unusual spectacle to be remarked upon by the inhabitants, is to have that area be an entirely integrated, fully diverse melting pot.

Hobbits in The Shire are all played by Pacific Islanders or Hispanics is OK*. Hobbits in the Shire are a modern mix of races like you would see in a Los Angeles (for example) is not OK*, because it breaks the structure of the world as it has been built.

* "OK" in this case means the story structure remains consistent; I'm not trying to make any more judgment than that

You are making an awful lot of unspoken assumptions about the biology of a fantastic race to come to that conclusion.

 

[Yeekim]

So let the market decide.
I found the introduction of deer riding elves and boar riding dwarves into "The Hobbit" much more of a departure from Tolkien than the introduction of a major female character but oddly most of the stay true to Tolkien nerds seemed more annoyed by Tauriel.

Not a fan of any of those changes myself. (Actually, elk and boar weren't the worst - those mountain goats and rabbits really made me roll my eyes).
But as you said yourself, Tauriel is a major character with an entire side arc, stretching an already hopelessly overstretched story by another half an hour.
Lot more visible than some animals we only see for seconds.

 

[aelf]

You have now again moved the goal posts to "perpetuating the dominance of one race". If a person has a preference for black or Asian actors is that perpetuating the dominance of one race? Or are you limiting your thinking to white people? Individual preferences for actors (male, female, white, brown, Asian, blonde, or redheaded) does nothing to impact cultural values. Now if one actively preaches against those not to my liking, then I've moved into the realm of bad actions.

...

Personal aesthetic preferences are just that: personal. It only becomes significant when one tries convince others to join you in order to do harm.

This is not moving the goal posts. From the beginning, my thinking is that more representation is good and trying to reduce it for whatever reason, personal aesthetic preferences included, is bad.

You might think that speaking loudly about something that can, if realized, reduce diversity cannot constitute trying to convince others to join you. But I'd say that insofar as they are directed towards the people who create those works, they are intended to convince in a manner that could realize that bad outcome.

Are you acknowledging that the established core of old white created "stories" are superior to what is being created today by a more diverse pool of creators?

The demand for content, across all media, today is far greater than ever before. There is far more access to media by the less powerful than ever before. More "woke" content is being made available than ever before. Time will tell if any of the new stuff has staying power.

Superior, or has it simply had more time and resources to develop? Are you one of those who would deny that past dominance and monopoly over resources creates an outcomes gap that takes time to bridge (i.e., a position against affirmative action)?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Well, we live in a free world. Anything is permissible. As for enjoyable?

That first claim is debatable, especially if by "we", you mean everyone on the planet. The second claim is certainly technically false, but I get what you are saying. The third sentence is more in line with what I am focusing on, and my position has been that different people can and do enjoy different versions/depictions/adaptations of stories, depending on their individual sensibilities. One person can enjoy and/or prefer a depiction of a fictional character which is different from the original or most common depiction. Another person might prefer strict as possible adherence to the original, or even what they personally imagined to be the original. Neither preference is necessarily "correct" in an objective sense. However, we all naturally like to think of our own view as being the correct one, so we will sometimes skew towards describing differing versions in unfavorable and/or devaluing terms.

If one is adapting a particular story to the screen, fans of that story probably are one's target audience.

I don't think that is always the case. Black Panther was a pretty good recent example of this. Anecdotally, most of the people I knew who went to see the movie had never heard of the character before he was introduced in the MCU. I will admit that I haven't researched it, but I'd wager that most of the people who saw the movie were not already faithful, versed "fans" of the comic book character and had probably never laid eyes on a Black Panther comic book.

Them being fans, it is safe to bet they like that story already as is. That's what they expect to see. Chances of them appreciating changes are there... but they aren't good.

Meh, again, I think you are projecting your own personal individual preferences onto the public at large. I agree that some people will view things that way, but not all, or necessarily even most. For example, I would consider myself a Superman fan. I loved the Christopher Reeve version of Superman. I grew up with it, had it on VHS, and watched it literally hundreds of times. Man of Steel made tons of changes, to iconic stuff, the story details, the music, the characters, including Superman himself. I was perfectly fine with all of it. I loved Man of Steel. I thought it was a fantastic update. Some people didn't like it. I'm sure there are folks who grew up with George Reeves as their version of Superman didn't care for the Christopher Reeve version. People have differing sensibilities. My point again, is that especially when it comes to made up, fictional stuff, it really boils down to individual personal preference, rather than objective "correctness".