#media representation
Indulge me, friends, because I’m curious. What’s the first piece of queer fiction* you ever consumed? Mine was Mistress of Dragons, a lesbian fantasy novel I definitely should not have read at age 10 that I checked out of the library because it had a dragon on the cover
*by this I mean it has canonically (in text, not word of god) queer characters (who aren’t a walking gay best friend stereotype) who impact the plot, NOT just subtext or characters with less than a handful of lines
I’malmost sure it was @dduane’sThe Door Into Sunset, which is the third in a series but I didn’t know that when I first got it out of the library. There’s a chance it was Robert Heinlein’s Friday but I think I didn’t read that until later.
(To my mind, the former has aged considerably better.)
Anyone got any suggestions for a lighthearted movie where Disabled people aren’t props? Does this even exist is this wishful thinking on my part. Cause I’m so sick of seeing people like me be nothing more then plot points ways to move a story a long. I was watching Work It the other day and I was really looking forward to it cause Sabrina Carpenter but that’s besides the point and the thing is I was really enjoying it spoilers if you haven’t seen it until the scene where these two men are dancing and they’re both using forearm crutches and in the shot you see someone’s wheelchair. And this heavy weight just settled in my chest cause I knew these three actors where just here to fill a quota. And I knew the dancers weren’t here because it’s a fun dance movie and there showing of all kinds of dance they were their to inspire the love interest you could see it in his face the message was clear if these disabled people can dance I can dance with a screwed up knee. And I’m honestly so sick of disability being nothing more than a plot point for lazying writing and I know it’s a lot to ask cause the rest of the world hasn’t caught up but me and every other disabled person is a whole and complete person and are stories are worth telling too.
Hallo ace and aro friends! In case you were unaware, volume one of “I Want to Be a Wall” comes out in English today! It is super cute and I highly recommend checking it out! You can find more details and a link to the English-language publisher’s website in my review(^^)/
There’s also a large grey area between an Offensive Stereotype and “thing that can be misconstrued as a stereotype if one uses a particularly reductive lens of interpretation that the text itself is not endorsing”, and while I believe that creators should hold some level of responsibility to look out for potential unfortunate optics on their work, intentional or not, I also do think that placing the entire onus of trying to anticipate every single bad angle someone somewhere might take when reading the text upon the shoulders of the writers – instead of giving in that there should be also a level of responsibility on the part of the audience not to project whatever biases they might carry onto the text – is the kind of thing that will only end up reducing the range of stories that can be told about marginalized people.
A japanese-american Beth Harmon would be pidgeonholed as another nerdy asian stock character. Baby Driver with a black lead would be accused of perpetuating stereotypes about black youth and crime. Phantom Of The Opera with a female Phantom would be accused of playing into the predatory lesbian stereotype. Romeo & Juliet with a gay couple would be accused of pulling the bury your gays trope – and no, you can’t just rewrite it into having a happy ending, the final tragedy of the tale is the rock onto which the entire central thesis statement of the play stands on. Remove that one element and you change the whole point of the story from a “look at what senseless hatred does to our youth” cautionary tale to a “love conquers all” inspiration piece, and it may not be the story the author wants to tell.
Sometimes, in order for a given story to function (and keep in mind, by function I don’t mean just logistically, but also thematically) it is necessary that your protagonist has specific personality traits that will play out in significant ways in the story. Or that they come from a specific background that will be an important element to the narrative. Or that they go through a particular experience that will consist on crucial plot point. All those narrative tools and building blocks are considered to be completely harmless and neutral when telling stories about straight/white people but, when applied to marginalized characters, it can be difficult to navigate them as, depending on the type of story you might want to tell, you may be steering dangerously close to falling into Unfortunate Implications™. And trying to find alternatives as to avoid falling into potentially iffy subtext is not always easy, as, depending on how central the “problematic” element to your plot, it could alter the very foundation of the story you’re trying to tell beyond recognition. See the point above about Romeo & Juliet.
Like, I once saw a woman
a gringa obviouslyaccuse the movie Knives Out of racism because the one latina character in the otherwise consistently white and wealthy cast is the nurse, when everyone who watched the movie with their eyes and not their ass can see that the entire tension of the plot hinges upon not only the power imbalance between Martha and the Thrombeys, but also on her isolation as the one latina immigrant navigating a world of white rich people. I’ve seen people paint Rosa Diaz as an example of the Hothead Latina stereotype, when Rosa was originally written as a white woman (named Megan) and only turned latina later when Stephanie Beatriz was cast – and it’s not like they could write out Rosa’s anger issues to avoid bad optics when it is such a defining trait of her character. I’ve seen people say Mulholland Drive is a lesbophobic movie when its story couldn’t even exist in first place if the fatally toxic lesbian relationship that moves the plot was healthy, or if it was straight.That’s not to say we can’t ever question the larger patterns in stories about certain demographics, or not draw lines between artistic liberty and social responsibility, and much less that I know where such lines should be drawn. I made this post precisely to raise a discussion, not to silence people. But one thing I think it’s important to keep in mind in such discussions is that stereotypes, after all, are all about oversimplification. It is more productive, I believe, to evaluate the quality of the representation in any given piece of fiction by looking first into how much its minority characters are a) deep, complex, well-rounded, b) treated with care by the narrative, with plenty of focus and insight into their inner life, and c) a character in their own right that can carry their own storyline and doesn’t just exist to prop up other character’s stories. And only then, yes, look into their particular characterization, but without ever overlooking aspects such as the context and how nuanced such characterization is handled. Much like we’ve moved on from the simplistic mindset that a good female character is necessarily one that punches good otherwise she’s useless, I really do believe that it is time for us to move on from the the idea that there’s a one-size-fits-all model of good representation and start looking into the core of representation issues (meaning: how painfully flat it is, not to mention scarce) rather than the window dressing.
I know I am starting to sound like a broken record here, but it feels that being a latina author writing about latine characters is a losing game, when there’s extra pressure on minority authors to avoid ~problematic~ optics in their work on the basis of the “you should know better” argument. And this “lower common denominator” approach to representation, that bars people from exploring otherwise interesting and meaningful concepts in stories because the most narrow minded people in the audience will get their biases confirmed, in many ways, sounds like a new form of respectability politics. Why, if it was gringos that created and imposed those stereotypes onto my ethnicity, why it should be my responsibility as a latina creator to dispel such stereotypes by curbing my artistic expression? Instead of asking of them to take responsibility for the lenses and biases they bring onto the text? Why is it too much to ask from people to wrap their minds about the ridiculously basic concept that no story they consume about a marginalized person should be taken as a blanket representation of their entire community?
It’s ridiculous. Gringos at some point came up with the idea that latinos are all naturally inclined to crime, so now I, a latina who loves heist movies, can’t write a latino character who’s a cool car thief. Gentiles created antisemitic propaganda claiming that the jews are all blood drinking monsters, so now jewish authors who love vampires can’t write jewish vampires. Straights made up the idea that lesbian relationships tend to be unhealthy, so now sapphics who are into Brontë-ish gothic romance don’t get to read this type of story with lesbian protagonists. I want to scream.
And at the end of the day it all boils down to how people see marginalized characters as Representation™ first and narrative tools created to tell good stories later, if at all. White/straight characters get to be evaluated on how entertaining and tridimensional they are, whereas minority characters get to be evaluated on how well they’d fit into an after school special. Fuck this shit.
Speaking of Everything Everywhere All At Once: I always think of how the Alpha!Wangs were under the impression that Jobu Tupaki had set out to destroy the whole multiverse, when she was really looking for an Evelyn who could understand her
Which is a lot like how some immigrant families catastrophize the moment their children become their own people. Some of us are made to feel that we will ruin EVERYTHING if we aren’t straight/don’t choose a “secure” career/don’t anything that’s supposed to align with our parents ideals. Many of us maintain relationships with our parents founded on unsaid and uncomfortable misunderstandings- and we yearn so badly for a situation where we don’t have to reach out across the gap.
So it means EVERYTHING that it is Evelyn that fights to connect with her daughter, rather than Joy having to clamor for her mother’s approval.
watching ke huy quan’s performance in everything everywhere all at once just made me really sad, and, moreover, angrythat we missed out on twenty years of great performances from him because the racism of the industry tricks people of color into believing there’s not a space for them.
“I am your daughter. Your daughter is me. Every single version of Joy is Jobu Tupaki. You can’t separate us.”
I got to thinking about the heavy implications behind this assertion.
i’m not sure if anyone has pointed this out before, but the laundry and taxes line in eeaao actually translates more accurately to “if there is a next life, i would still choose to do taxes and open a laundromat with you” (instead of just “i would’ve really liked”), and the distinction is so important because it emphasises the gravity of the each minuscule choice we make, and how it is the significance of these choices that makes our seemingly insignificant lives have meaning. choosing to do laundry and taxes with her conveys a sense of certainty and assuredness that he would still actively make that decision in another life, as opposed to “i would’ve liked” which implies that he is merely a product of his circumstances with no agency over them instead of a result of his individual autonomy. it also reinforces waymond’s own philosophies about optimism as a choice we must constantly make and hold steadfast to despite despite despite. the act of choosing begets sacrifice, but choosing love, choosing kindness, choosing to believe that the darkness is transient and surmountable is the most important thing we could do in a world where succumbing to despair and hopelessness is so easy, and i think the way this film navigates this subject of choice is so beautiful
Do you know what children’s show was great at handling disabilities?
I mean, really, really, great!
Followers: *Unanimously sigh* Avatar?
No, no! Well, yes. But I talk about Avatar all the time! Tonight, I want to focus on another show that was amazing in every sense of the word. A show that was downright hilarious but also had some really deep moments that came out of nowhere and felt like a punch to the stomach. A show about a bunch of abandoned kids who were taken into a foster home. Only these kids were imaginary!
For some reason, I’ve been having a lot of feels about Foster’s Home For Imaginary Friends. I used to love the show when I was younger. My dad, brother, and I would watch it all the time. I used to have a few shirts and everything. In fact, I don’t care that I’m almost twenty one and a junior in college. I might see if I can find a FHFIF shirt online.
But anyway, FHFIF was great. Talk about a diverse set of characters!
And actually, now that I think back to it, a lot of the characters had disabilities, whether implied or stated outright.
Think about it!
Coco technically has a speech impediment. And it’s pointed out continuously throughout the show, though the friends always understand her and never treat her differently for it. (Unless there’s a pun needed about what to drink!)
Goo was implied to have ADHD. (And was it me, or did anyone else see her as being on the spectrum as well). And the show really got creative. They showed that because of her disability, she frequently imagines new friends. This starts off as being annoying at first but the show does what it was great at and punches us with a fistful of feels as Mac finally snaps at her. Goo starts crying and reveals that one of the reasons why she makes so many friends isn’t just because she can’t focus; it’s because she doesn’t have any real friends. Mac genuinely apologizes and the two maintain a friendship throughout the entire show.
Cheese…Dear Lord and any other higher entity that exists in this infinate universe, I loved Cheese! He was my favorite character in the show and is easily on the list of my top ten characters of all time. Cheese was hilarious! He stole every single scene that he was in. And it was very obvious that he had an intellectual disability but to be honest, I never found a single joke offensive. And looking back, I still don’t! Maybe I’m just biased because the show is so nostalgic to me, but even as a kid, I was very passionate about characters with disabilities and I still loved Cheese. My brother, dad, and I still quote Cheese. In fact, if I do get a shirt, it’ll probably have Cheese on it.
And finally, there’s Wilt - the character with the obvious disability. For those who don’t know, Wilt was injured in a basketball game and ended up having one eye and an amputated arm. And the best part was that they tackled his disability in his very first scene in the movie. Mac and Bloo are staring at him in awe and Wilt becomes self-conscious but cheerfully and politely agrees that they probably don’t want a tour guide with his disabilities. Their response is to amazedly whisper that he’s tall - that was the only thing that they were focused on. Wilt immediately smiles and from that moment on, the three are good friends.
I can go on and on because I’m sure that there are others. Unfortunately, I’m really sick and don’t feel like typing anymore. But anyway, the point of this post was to say that Foster’s Home For Imaginary Friends was awesome, especially when it came to disability representation!
ok, so it’s been a few days since i’ve watched captain jack harkness (aka the episode where jack and tosh get sent to the 1940s) and it just feels completely false to me that tosh doesn’t feel any anger at being placed in a situation that she has stated to be personally traumatic for her. after tosh expresses her fears about being stuck in a time period close to the pearl harbour attacks, the discussion immediately shifts towards discussing jack’s experiences in the 1940s! and when tosh ends up facing the samepersecution as her grandfather, we don’t get her reaction or any scene where she actually talks about how she feels, nothing! how can you have a character, particularly a british japanese woman facing anti-asian racism during ww2 andnotfocus on her reaction to a moment you have previously established as frightening for her?
yes, you could argue that tosh’s way of ‘processing’ is by immediately trying to solve problems and getting to work. sure! but i can’t help but draw parallels to ianto, who is similarly defined by his work and service to others in the earlier episodes, but his anger and frustrations are still given fair treatment, particularly in the cyberwoman episode. also, this is more of a note on torchwood/doctor who as a whole, but if you’re engaging with narratives of oppression and not actuallycentring the experiences of the characters from the oppressed group, particularly their justified anger, then who is this story for? to push a saviour narrative about how altruistic the white leads are? or using racism as ‘set dressing’ while the episode ultimately focuses on the pain of the white lead? (as many people have already mentioned, the family of blood is an egregious example of this with how it treats martha).
again, i’m only midway through season 2 and i’m hoping that the show ends by delving into tosh’s psyche in a more interesting and meaningful way. they almost got there with greeks bearing gifts and i can see what they were trying to achieve in to the last man. but also, what is it with all of tosh’s extremely few standalone episodes heavily featuring a storyline where she needs to emotionally/physically service the needs of a white guest character? usually achieved by manipulating tosh and taking away her agency? mary in greeks, tommy in last man and in an extremelygross way with adam. and they never address it again!
listen, i love tosh. i think naoko mori gives a fantastic performance and i think her empathy, capability in tough situations, and predilection for defining herself by her achievements are all really interesting traits. but at times the writing for her character feels dangerously reminiscent to say, someone like glenn in the walking dead, who was also the sole asian lead actor in a predominantly white genre show. steven yeun puts it best in this interview, that there’s just frustration at being consistently reverted to “dependable, supportive, benign” asian sidekick for the white leads.
Encanto Meta: Mirabel’s True Gift
SPOILERS for the movie under the cut.
it seems like people agree that mirabel didn’t get powers and that this was a good thing because she was in a key position to break her family out of the increasingly toxic downward spiral of stress caused by their exceptionalism and abuela’s overbearing expectations of her family
but the thing is, i don’t think that’s exactly it.
The BBC has today announced Ncuti Gatwa is the new Doctor set to take charge of the TARDIS.
Star of stage and screen, Ncuti is best known for his critically acclaimed performance in Sex Education as the iconic Eric Effiong, for which he was awarded Best Actor Award at the Scottish BAFTA’s in 2020 as well as numerous nominations including Best Male Performance in a comedy programme at this year’s BAFTA’s.
Speaking of his new role, Ncuti said: “There aren’t quite the words to describe how I’m feeling. A mix of deeply honoured, beyond excited and of course a little bit scared. This role and show means so much to so many around the world, including myself, and each one of my incredibly talented predecessors has handled that unique responsibility and privilege with the utmost care. I will endeavour my upmost to do the same. Russell T Davies is almost as iconic as the Doctor himself and being able to work with him is a dream come true. His writing is dynamic, exciting, incredibly intelligent and fizzing with danger. An actor’s metaphorical playground. The entire team have been so welcoming and truly give their hearts to the show. And so as much as it’s daunting, I’m aware I’m joining a really supportive family. Unlike the Doctor, I may only have one heart but I am giving it all to this show.”
Russell T Davies, Showrunner adds: “The future is here and it’s Ncuti! Sometimes talent walks through the door and it’s so bright and bold and brilliant, I just stand back in awe and thank my lucky stars. Ncuti dazzled us, seized hold of the Doctor and owned those TARDIS keys in seconds. It’s an honour to work with him, and a hoot, I can’t wait to get started. I’m sure you’re dying to know more, but we’re rationing ourselves for now, with the wonderful Jodie’s epic finale yet to come. But I promise you, 2023 will be spectacular!”
tired of the constant headbeating lesson & moral in stories and animated series aimed for younger audiences that we are all beautiful on the inside and everyone is good. want a show where someone is irredeemably bad, not bc of some deep set trauma or sad stuff but just because they’re a genuinely horrible human being LOL they exist!