Politics in Media - The Good, the Bad, and the Preachy

Edit:

Nevermind, I think it's better to move on.

Edited by raziel365 on Jun 8th 2023 at 7:48:08 AM

Edit: This post is now unnecessary.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jun 8th 2023 at 7:48:41 AM

So, I'm not sure if this counts but, when it comes to writing dark works, does it always have to include a handful of trials and tribulations for the characters, but does it have to be always that case when it comes to minority groups and such even if the work itself still ends up having an optimistic ending?

...I don't understand the concept of a dark work that doesn't contain struggles for the main characters.

Well, that's in response when it came to writing certain characters.

I legitimately don't understand your question. It sounds like you're asking if minority characters in a dark work should have struggles and I genuinely don't understand how a work is supposed to be "dark" if there's characters who just sail through the story without encountering any significant obstacles.

I'm asking if there's a way to handle it with care and such.

Just be mindful of the pitfall LGBTQ+ tropes that are either bad or easy to misfire with (Bury Your Gays, Gayngst, Trans Tribulations, etc.) and for anything not under that umbrella treat them the same as any other character, I'd say.

Bury Your Gays is probably the big one. A work where Anyone Can Die? Sure. A work where Anyone Can Die but the sole queer character with a prominent role and a lot of popularity bites it? That'd a bit more of a problem.

I can see it working for the antagonists to not have trials and tribulations associated with standard dark or dystopian pieces. Usually dark works are about some sort of social, systemic, or physical unfairness with the world that must be met with harsh choices or actions, that while sometimes may lead to improvements, are at best bittersweet, but usually just less painful. Having an antagonist who coasts on unfair advantages, privileges and exploitation can lend credence to that unfairness. Wonder if such a piece would work for minorities if they're incredibly isolated and insulated for some reason or if they're an antagonistic pick me, using their connections to elevate and insulate themselves, by basically throwing the rest of their community under the bus, because their well-being is paramount compared to that of their community

Edited by HeyMikey on Jun 8th 2023 at 8:16:51 AM

Edit: Blanking in response to moderator's request.

Edited by fredhot16 on Jun 8th 2023 at 9:31:56 AM

~Tropers/fredhot16 Actually, a mod asked the conversation to move to another topic.

Uhm, a mod said this convo had to be dropped of sorts, man.

@shiny Ah. Um, well, if anybody wants to tell me if there's somewhere else to put that post, as I do think I made one or two good points (and I was writing that since half-past nine and posting it at 11 so I spent a fair bit of time on it), I'd be glad to.

For now, I'll just blank the thing for the moment.

Done and done, my past three hours thanks you for allowing them to live in another thread.

Edited by fredhot16 on Jun 8th 2023 at 9:47:17 AM

Besides, there's another interesting topic to talk about based on a question I've made.

They recommend the Religion thread.

I don't really have any good rule as to how to write about dark things happening to a member of a marginalized group other than just write it well.

Now, for bit more practical advice, it's good to look up what are some common complaints people of that background have with their current representation in media, and what are some common stereotypes, so you know how to avoid them.

But of course, just turning a dichtomy on its head isn't really challenging the dichtomy. The inverse of Bury Your Gays lead to now many queer people complaining how now most gay media has to be so family friendly and wholesome there's very little for those who enjoy more darker stories.

Would a horror story where the characters happen to be queer but that fact is of no relation to the horror count as a subversion of that? My understanding was that a lot of queer audiences specifically want is less of a fixation on queerphobia because we get enough of that in real life :V

But that's the thing. One core problem with Bury Your Gays that often the death was also very incidental. It was less that a bunch of movies had a Homophobic Hate Crime at the end, but that gay characters would just end up dead to add sadness to the plot for a variety of reasons, and it was so much more prevelant than gay characters that lived on. That, and it being a carryover from the era where that was actually legally mandated (many gay romance pulp novels avoided obscenity charges by being "cautionary tales")

[ed.] a prime example of how incidental Bury Your Gays works, think Lexa from The 100 or Tara from Buffy. Lexa specifically died almost immediately after having her first romantic scene with another woman.

Edited by JethroQWalrustitty on Jun 9th 2023 at 2:05:09 PM

It also comes down to the sheer quantity of gay characters vs straight ones. When a straight character dies, it's not a big deal, because there are millions upon billions upon trillions of other stories where the straights live.

Gay characters on the other hand? Not so much.

It’s also a thing that a lot of writers seemingly have no idea how to write an established relationship. So straight characters tends to get these insufferable off again on again relationships or it’s like what Agents of SHIELD did with Fitzsimmons where once they were established they got maybe 15 minutes of screen time together across like four seasons and each season came up with excuses to make sure they couldn’t be together. But with straight couples, media things tend to make sure they’re together in the ending.

With gay characters, they tend to straight up kill one person in the relationship off. Like, it’s so prevalent that it’s obvious a lot of writers actually think that’s what you’re supposed to do and a lot of the more tone-deaf ones will cite things like the aids crisis to justify it. Like they think that tragedy is an inherent part of queerness and that gay people can’t ever get happiness because the universe will just pummel them when they’re down. Nevermind that the only reason the aids crisis got so bad was because the people in charge straight up refused to do anything about it.

That sounds like a message reeking of either laziness or malice. (The one about buying your gays, not yours.)

I'm not overly familiar with the trope, honestly, but my understanding is that it's a bit like the black guy getting killed off first.

Basically you are willing (or have to) have a minority character, but your biases still make you consider them to be expendable or you might even deliberately want to minimize their screen time.

The writer doesn't necessarily outright want the death to be catharsis, it's often a kick the dog thing. But it happening so often to minority characters starts to paint a picture.

Isn't the black guy dying first more of a Dead Unicorn Trope?

I don't think so, or at least it doesn't say here as far as I can tell.

It's an Unbuilt Trope more than anything. The original Night of the Living Dead (1968) had a black man, Ben, as the Only Sane Man trying to organize everyone so they could survive the horde until sunrise. Despite his mere existence causing infighting among the (entirely white) rest of the group, he ends up being the sole survivor... but then the military either mistakes him for one of the ghouls, or doesn't care enough to make a distinction, and guns him down callously.

Dawn of the Dead (1978) would go on to be more explicit in its themes of racial tensions and, almost prophetically, seemed to predict zombie apocalypses being the ultimate power fantasy for bigots to live out their racist dreams.

Edited by NesClassic on Jun 9th 2023 at 12:42:45 PM