Straight White Males as default: How it's wrong.

[Antares XII]

Define "shit book". Aha, see? Different people have different definitions. One person might say "I don't like how this book is written, it is shit and should not have been written and should no longer be published" while another might say "I do like how this book is written, it isn't shit and should have been written and should continue to be published". I myself think Game of Thrones is shit. My cousin thinks otherwise.

Why stifle creative license? Why not expand it instead? You do realise that if these books are as shit as you claim them to be, then your vastly superior books should outsell them and cause them to lose popularity, don't you? And if they don't, then it's because of one of three reasons: a), they aren't as shit as you make them out to be, b), your ideas for books aren't as great as you make them out to be, or c), the problem isn't the books or the writers, but something else entirely - the people reading the books.

Some of the books I like focus on SWMs. But that is not the reason I like those books. I like them because they were written well in my opinion. They captured my interest and held it. I can't say that I am enthused by the idea of taking some of the books I like off of the shelf simply because they don't portray a certain ratio or variety of groups or individuals. I can't say I am enthused by that idea in the slightest. :I

I don't think anyones suggested taking books off the shelves. For that matter I've never suggested I'm an especially talented writer. The've suggested authors improve. Its an incredibly poor author whose response to criticism is "fuck it, good enough." "I'd like to see you do better." or "you just don't get it." If Authors write books they should be prepared to be criticised, learn from it and improve. if they don't like being criticised, they can stop writing, move to the wilderness and avoid all human contact.

When you say "people who write shit books could stop", you are saying that people who write books that you think are shit could stop writing them. Which means no new books on the shelves. Which I see as taking them off - that's one, or more, books that will never be written that someone would have enjoyed. Granted, you might not think any of the books I like are shit. But you might think a book someone else likes is shit, and that's not fair to them.

I'm not saying said authors can't improve. There is always room for improvement. But they shouldn't feel they have to change their writing style on account of certain people (who don't even care for their books, apparently) telling them what they can and cannot, or should and should not, write. If you really don't care for said books or authors, then simply don't read or buy their books. Don't support them. No one is forcing you to do so.

[Olivaero]

Why must every single book confront those issues? they are issues that frequently beset modern society and when writing escapist fantasy you generally want to get your readers away from those type of issues they are often touched upon and developed in Dark fantasy which is not meant to be escapist and deals with things somewhat harshly, see game of thrones and the like. But when the idea of the book is to escape the real world including issues which are prevalent there drags the readers back and away from the more whimsical setting you may be trying to write. you see it as bigoted because if some one went around in the real world claiming those issues do not exist they would in fact be a bigot but writing a world without them in is not the same as not acknowledging they exist.

I respectfully disagree and don't see why a more whimsical setting can't have as many gay elves as it likes. Why would it be AN ISSUE?
Is it because bigotted readers are going to go "OH NO HOMOSEXUALITY IN MY ESCAPIST FANTASY!"?
Because if it is....

For fucks sake. Why must everything always confront homosexuality all the time? There are many more things to write a book about. It's an issue because it is an issue in real life, across the world whether you or I would like it to be or not. Ignoring that it is an issue is being ignorant of the truth. You can set up a fantasy world so it's not an issue it may harm the suspense of disbelief but you can. But why not just have it not come up? It's a lot easier than building a society where it's not an issue and if you don't want to confront it then those are pretty much your two choices.

[Dakini]

Gimli and Legolas are only gay if you read that into the books. They're just supposed to be friends.
Frodo doesn't show any romantic interests at all. That doesn't make him gay (it makes him a hobbit on a mission).

"I'm not asexual, I'm a hobbit on a mission"

Asexual isn't homosexual... but generally the ring was troubling him, of course he didn't have time to stop and think about romance.

[Nimilia]

The good wizards support the civilian (muggle) government, of which the ministry of magic is only a part. Hence, they're not a mageocracy. (Good) Wizards have magical powers, but don't use those to disccriminate or rule over muggles.

Dumbledore's sexuality was a prime motivator for the Grindelwald plotline. The furor existed only outside the books (as in, the aforementioned ruffled feathers). In the books, it's all subtext, but shows Rowling really considered these issues.

Snape became a death eater in part because of being bullied by Harry's father, challenging the image we had of him up until that point. This is concurrent with Rowling's anti-bigotry theme.

No the Good wizards tell the muggle government whats going on, occasionally like once a year. The furor existed very much within the book as well that was why the account of Dumbledore's life was so scandalous. Whilst the books may have held some kernel of anti bigotry it was still a world cut into two halves, the muggles and the wizards. The wizards have the superior government and hold all the cards even though there is fewer of them. They are Born as wizards and you either are a wizard or you aren't, leaving muggles once again hanging off coat tails. This paternal and nature over nurture attitude is a racist one. Not as harmful to the muggles as voldemorts genocide ethos but keeping the muggles separate from wizard society has racial overtone at the very least. not wanting to kill them all =/= holding them as equals.

Which probably wouldn't work as they actually ARE individually far more powerful than muggles.
The arrangement is meant for their protection which is probably as fair as it is going to get in that fantasy universe. The actual issue of ACTIVE racism, where people are being discriminated against is the disctinction between 'muggle-born' and 'true' wizards, who are essentially equal in power.

Also, the Ministry of Magic isn't shown to be corrupt and overly bureaucratic at nearly every turn for no reason. But that's a whole other point.


I don't think you can deny anti-bigotry is a big theme in Harry Potter, whether you consider it well-executed or not.

[The UK in Exile]

I don't think anyones suggested taking books off the shelves. For that matter I've never suggested I'm an especially talented writer. The've suggested authors improve. Its an incredibly poor author whose response to criticism is "fuck it, good enough." "I'd like to see you do better." or "you just don't get it." If Authors write books they should be prepared to be criticised, learn from it and improve. if they don't like being criticised, they can stop writing, move to the wilderness and avoid all human contact.

When you say "people who write shit books could stop", you are saying that people who write books that you think are shit could stop writing them. Which means no new books on the shelves. Which I see as taking them off - that's one, or more, books that will never be written that someone would have enjoyed. Granted, you might not think any of the books I like are shit. But you might think a book someone else likes is shit, and that's not fair to them.

I'm not saying said authors can't improve. There is always room for improvement. But they shouldn't feel they have to change their writing style on account of certain people (who don't even care for their books, apparently) telling them what they can and cannot, or should and should not, write. If you really don't care for said books or authors, then simply don't read or buy their books. Don't support them. No one is forcing you to do so.

people who like shit books should like better books, they're just setting a bad example to people who write shit books. which ruins it for the rest of us. they can be guided in this by being told whats good and what isn't. this will give terrible writers an incentive to improve.

[Nimilia]

I respectfully disagree and don't see why a more whimsical setting can't have as many gay elves as it likes. Why would it be AN ISSUE?
Is it because bigotted readers are going to go "OH NO HOMOSEXUALITY IN MY ESCAPIST FANTASY!"?
Because if it is....

For fucks sake. Why must everything always confront homosexuality all the time? There are many more things to write a book about. It's an issue because it is an issue in real life, across the world whether you or I would like it to be or not. Ignoring that it is an issue is being ignorant of the truth. You can set up a fantasy world so it's not an issue it may harm the suspense of disbelief but you can. But why not just have it not come up? It's a lot easier than building a society where it's not an issue and if you don't want to confront it then those are pretty much your two choices.

In my country and an increasing part of the western world being gay isn't really an issue at all in large parts of society.
But it BECOMES an issue for me and many others if the author wilfully ignores the reality of the existence of gay, coloured and/or female people. Not because he's trying to make a point by excluding them, but because his 'escapist' world is apparently better off without them. That, to me, is simply bigoted.

[Purpelia]

In my country and an increasing part of the western world being gay isn't really an issue at all in large parts of society.
But it BECOMES an issue for me and many others if the author wilfully ignores the reality of the existence of gay, coloured and/or female people. Not because he's trying to make a point by excluding them, but because his 'escapist' world is apparently better off without them. That, to me, is simply bigoted.

Or maybe just maybe his world is better off without any distractions. Maybe an author does not want to waste time and pages to sidetrack and throw in various real world issues and things that do nothing but take up space just so that he can acknowledge their existence. For example I write SF all the time. (most my RPG's are what you would call FT). And in no places do I ever confront the issue of agriculture in any way, shape or form. Does that mean my people apparently don't farm any more? Or is it just that having a lengthy talk about crop cultivation would really spoil that space battle I have going.

It's the same thing with homosexuals or Asians or even being a white male. If a character does not need one of those things to be his defining trait than you might as well not mention it at all. After all, how would you feel if every D&D game your DM made a point of mentioning the token homosexual peasant in the village you just liberated/burned?

[Dakini]

In my country and an increasing part of the western world being gay isn't really an issue at all in large parts of society.
But it BECOMES an issue for me and many others if the author wilfully ignores the reality of the existence of gay, coloured and/or female people. Not because he's trying to make a point by excluding them, but because his 'escapist' world is apparently better off without them. That, to me, is simply bigoted.

Or maybe just maybe his world is better off without any distractions. Maybe an author does not want to waste time and pages to sidetrack and throw in various real world issues and things that do nothing but take up space just so that he can acknowledge their existence. For example I write SF all the time. (most my RPG's are what you would call FT). And in no places do I ever confront the issue of agriculture in any way, shape or form. Does that mean my people apparently don't farm any more? Or is it just that having a lengthy talk about crop cultivation would really spoil that space battle I have going.

Therefore all the heroes love interests must be opposite gendered.

[Gallup]

I don't see much wrong with it.

[The UK in Exile]

In my country and an increasing part of the western world being gay isn't really an issue at all in large parts of society.
But it BECOMES an issue for me and many others if the author wilfully ignores the reality of the existence of gay, coloured and/or female people. Not because he's trying to make a point by excluding them, but because his 'escapist' world is apparently better off without them. That, to me, is simply bigoted.

Or maybe just maybe his world is better off without any distractions. Maybe an author does not want to waste time and pages to sidetrack and throw in various real world issues and things that do nothing but take up space just so that he can acknowledge their existence. For example I write SF all the time. (most my RPG's are what you would call FT). And in no places do I ever confront the issue of agriculture in any way, shape or form. Does that mean my people apparently don't farm any more? Or is it just that having a lengthy talk about crop cultivation would really spoil that space battle I have going.

true but it depends how you handle issues such as sexuality, which exist without neccesarily needing to outright stated, and gender.

with sexuality characters might be gay even if most characters sexuality is never touched on. its kind of hard to get away with uniformly one gender though.

[Purpelia]

Therefore all the heroes love interests must be opposite gendered.

That's something different. That is targeted fan appeal toward males.

But if it has you feeling any better one of my character had a fly-person as a love interest.

[Fascist Worcestershire]

No they weren't

Were.

Tolkien was a devout Catholic so no they aren't

This is the stupidest argument ever.

According to Catholicism, homosexuality is wrong. Hence, there are no descriptions of homosexuality in Tolkien's books.
According to Catholicism, murder is wrong. Hence, there are no descriptions of murder in Tolkien's books.
According to Catholicism, witchcraft is wrong. Hence, there are no descriptions of witchcraft in Tolkien's books.
According to Catholicism, idolatry and paganism are wrong. Hence, there are no descriptions of idolatry and paganism in Tolkien's books.
According to Catholicism, suicide is wrong. Hence, there are no descriptions of suicide in Tolkien's books.

I suppose you've never read Tolkien.

By the way, according to Catholicism, homosexuality isn't wrong.

and also does every strong friendship to you have gay undertones?

No. That's exactly why I can tell the difference between friendship and romance.

You are deluding yourself if you think they are and I finished reading return of the King again just last week so I have read Tolkien's books even the Silmarillion honestly I don't think you can tell the difference between really good friends and a Gay undertones if you think Sam and Frodo were gay.

[Dakini]

It's the same thing with homosexuals or Asians or even being a white male. If a character does not need one of those things to be his defining trait than you might as well not mention it at all. After all, how would you feel if every D&D game your DM made a point of mentioning the token homosexual peasant in the village you just liberated/burned?

How are your characters being straight white males any less distracting than your characters being a representative of people you'd expect to see in day-to-day life?

[SoManyKittens]

"I'm not asexual, I'm a hobbit on a mission"

Asexual isn't homosexual... but generally the ring was troubling him, of course he didn't have time to stop and think about romance.

Vazdania is asexual and hates homosexuality. And Frodo is a hobbit, guys.

[Nimilia]

In my country and an increasing part of the western world being gay isn't really an issue at all in large parts of society.
But it BECOMES an issue for me and many others if the author wilfully ignores the reality of the existence of gay, coloured and/or female people. Not because he's trying to make a point by excluding them, but because his 'escapist' world is apparently better off without them. That, to me, is simply bigoted.

Or maybe just maybe his world is better off without any distractions. Maybe an author does not want to waste time and pages to sidetrack and throw in various real world issues and things that do nothing but take up space just so that he can acknowledge their existence. For example I write SF all the time. (most my RPG's are what you would call FT). And in no places do I ever confront the issue of agriculture in any way, shape or form. Does that mean my people apparently don't farm any more? Or is it just that having a lengthy talk about crop cultivation would really spoil that space battle I have going.

It's the same thing with homosexuals or Asians or even being a white male. If a character does not need one of those things to be his defining trait than you might as well not mention it at all. After all, how would you feel if every D&D game your DM made a point of mentioning the token homosexual peasant in the village you just liberated/burned?

Distractions such as WHAT GENDER people are? We're not talking about people not mentioning sexuality, race or gender here! We're talking about that when it does come up it is nearly always white, straight and male.

[Dakini]

Therefore all the heroes love interests must be opposite gendered.

That's something different. That is targeted fan appeal toward males.

But if it has you feeling any better one of my character had a fly-person as a love interest.

I'm not sure how that's supposed to make me feel better?

[Nimilia]

Therefore all the heroes love interests must be opposite gendered.

That's something different. That is targeted fan appeal toward males.

YES! STRAIGHT WHITE ONES!

Do you begin to see why we think it smacks of terrible writing?

[Antares XII]

When you say "people who write shit books could stop", you are saying that people who write books that you think are shit could stop writing them. Which means no new books on the shelves. Which I see as taking them off - that's one, or more, books that will never be written that someone would have enjoyed. Granted, you might not think any of the books I like are shit. But you might think a book someone else likes is shit, and that's not fair to them.

I'm not saying said authors can't improve. There is always room for improvement. But they shouldn't feel they have to change their writing style on account of certain people (who don't even care for their books, apparently) telling them what they can and cannot, or should and should not, write. If you really don't care for said books or authors, then simply don't read or buy their books. Don't support them. No one is forcing you to do so.

people who like shit books should like better books, they're just setting a bad example to people who write shit books. which ruins it for the rest of us. they can be guided in this by being told whats good and what isn't. this will give terrible writers an incentive to improve.

I cannot in good conscience agree with that mindset. I think it is a terrible idea to tell people what to read and what to write based off of personal opinion. You are welcome to hold whatever ideas and opinions you like, but I won't necessarily agree with them, even though I recognise your right to them.

[Purpelia]

It's the same thing with homosexuals or Asians or even being a white male. If a character does not need one of those things to be his defining trait than you might as well not mention it at all. After all, how would you feel if every D&D game your DM made a point of mentioning the token homosexual peasant in the village you just liberated/burned?

How are your characters being straight white males any less distracting than your characters being a representative of people you'd expect to see in day-to-day life?

Because most of the times they are not. They are just characters. From all the books mentioned here be they LOTR or HP or any others not mentioned I don't recall the author ever introducing the characters as "white". Skin color usually only comes into play when it's important. We just assume the author was talking about white males. But that's us.

That's something different. That is targeted fan appeal toward males.

But if it has you feeling any better one of my character had a fly-person as a love interest.

I'm not sure how that's supposed to make me feel better?

Well you tell me.

Link

[Risottia]

Were.


This is the stupidest argument ever.

According to Catholicism, homosexuality is wrong. Hence, there are no descriptions of homosexuality in Tolkien's books.
According to Catholicism, murder is wrong. Hence, there are no descriptions of murder in Tolkien's books.
According to Catholicism, witchcraft is wrong. Hence, there are no descriptions of witchcraft in Tolkien's books.
According to Catholicism, idolatry and paganism are wrong. Hence, there are no descriptions of idolatry and paganism in Tolkien's books.
According to Catholicism, suicide is wrong. Hence, there are no descriptions of suicide in Tolkien's books.

I suppose you've never read Tolkien.

By the way, according to Catholicism, homosexuality isn't wrong.


No. That's exactly why I can tell the difference between friendship and romance.

You are deluding yourself if you think they are and I finished reading return of the King again just last week so I have read Tolkien's books even the Silmarillion honestly I don't think you can tell the difference between really good friends and a Gay undertones if you think Sam and Frodo were gay.

So: your argument to deny there's quite a lot of hints at homosexual romance (which was quite commonplace in Britain in that age; just, not DISCUSSED OPENLY, as any other kind of sexuality, actually) was utter bollocks.

"Even" the Silmarillion? As if it were a big deal. Come back when you've read the rest of the stuff.

[Ethel mermania]

so the concept here is; Martiin is racist because there are no black heriditary lords in the north?

The concept here is a historical setting is not nessecarily a justification for having only straight white men as characters and it makes even less sense to claim that historical context is important when the story is about a fantasy world with dragons.

so the answer is "yes".

awesome.

[The UK in Exile]

The concept here is a historical setting is not nessecarily a justification for having only straight white men as characters and it makes even less sense to claim that historical context is important when the story is about a fantasy world with dragons.

so the answer is "yes".

awesome.

they're not even close to the same.

[The Blaatschapen]

"I'm not asexual, I'm a hobbit on a mission"

Asexual isn't homosexual... but generally the ring was troubling him, of course he didn't have time to stop and think about romance.

I was referring to your not showing any romantic interests at all. Hence the asexual comment.

[Nimilia]

The concept here is a historical setting is not nessecarily a justification for having only straight white men as characters and it makes even less sense to claim that historical context is important when the story is about a fantasy world with dragons.

so the answer is "yes".

awesome.

Now I just think you're being intellectually dishonest, so I won't honor that with a reply.

[Fascist Worcestershire]

You are deluding yourself if you think they are and I finished reading return of the King again just last week so I have read Tolkien's books even the Silmarillion honestly I don't think you can tell the difference between really good friends and a Gay undertones if you think Sam and Frodo were gay.

So: your argument to deny there's quite a lot of hints at homosexual romance (which was quite commonplace in Britain in that age; just, not DISCUSSED OPENLY, as any other kind of sexuality, actually) was utter bollocks.

"Even" the Silmarillion? As if it were a big deal. Come back when you've read the rest of the stuff.

Your sources for it being quite commonplace are where?
And your argument that they are Gay is?