LGBTQ characters are often written two dimensionally because the writers mistakenly believe that a character's queerness is inherently compelling enough to make up for shortcomings elsewhere in their characterisation. Audiences consequently dislike these characters and push back, not out of bigotry but out of distaste for the poor writing of these characters. Authors of these characters lack empathy because they are unable to empathize with audiences that push back on these characters. These authors fail to understand the failures of their character writing and instead place the blame on social forces like racism, sexism and transphobia.
I mostly disagree with this take, I am simply trying to clarify what I believe OOP was trying to convey. The only part I partially agree with is the first sentence, but that is typically in the case of straight/cis/white/male authors writing queer/trans/POC/female characters and failing due to a lack of understanding in regards to the characters they're writing. It's also something that you see from many amateur writers but that's simply because their writing has not developed yet. Neither case is the type of character the bigots usually point to though.
It's definitely interesting to flip it around and ask why, then, isn't the pushback on flat straight characters focused on their straightness?
Imagine a bad Uncharted game came out and this version of Nathan Drake was flat and uncompelling. Then critics came out of the woodworks claiming that if the writers/developers had only not assumed his straightness would be so compelling, they could have written him as a more multidimensional character.
Edit: Also, they're usually complaining before the game even comes out, so before the writing is even available.
Not to give the post any benefit of the doubt, but I do think straight characters who's whole personality revolves around flirting or pursuing the opposite sex are generally not well received?
I honestly can't think of one off the top of my head? The only ones that come to mind are Stirling Archer and Barny Stinson but both characters were pretty well received at the peak of their series' popularity
I wouldn't exactly call one of the most iconic characters in fiction and one of the longest running film franchises "not well received". Although there's a significant and vocal minority of people that detract the character and his writing for the overt misogyny (and at times racism) of the character and his stories, he is still well received by wide audiences and admired/emulated by many men today.
I agree this is what they think they mean, but the argument falls apart when they ignore that writing is just generally bad now across the board and hyper focus on just the ones with women or LGBTQ+ etc.
Two dimensional characters who look like (an idealized version of) me make it easy to insert myself into their lack of characterization. Two dimensional characters that look like people who I don't like are just badly written, why would I ever want to imagine myself in their position?
It reminds me of how people have explained the popularity of Donald Trump's word salad. It is acceptable that he isn't saying anything because he says just enough to let his adherents insert their own ideas and opinions in the gaps
Writing was always mostly bad across the board, as well as music, plays, paintings, etc etc etc. This isn't new. That there is so much of it available instantly online is the only part that is new(ish).
Most people who claim to be authors/screenwriters/etc don't have the skills to write three dimensional characters, of any stripe, including their own demographic. Empathy or lack thereof cannot be assumed, because they don't have the skills to write themselves out of a prison made of wet toilet paper.
This is a huge part of why there are so many threads on r/fantasy and r/scifi (and r/metalcore and r/flashlights and r/ergomechkeyboards) asking for recommendations. This is putting aside everything to do with OOP's nonsensical statement - 90% of everything is garbage, most people would like to avoid the garbage, and some people come to reddit to look for ways to avoid that garbage. OOP might even have a legitimate complaint about whatever he was reading - without knowing the source material, it's very possible he was reading something with two dimensional characters or other bad writing, and that he has foolishly misplaced the blame for the poor writing and characterization.
That said, OOP's first mistaken assumption is that all writers want to write for mass audiences. There have been an increasing number of writers that are writing for their fans, or people like them, or some other particular group. I don't see it as a different thing when a writer targets a YA audience, or white women, vs when a writer targets gay men, or whatever.
While it would do all of us some good to read stories that aren't written for us, and attempt to empathize with the characters and/or story, a lot of e.g. gay/trans/lesbian authors (among others, but those are who the OOP was talking about) aren't interested in courting the broader public.
writing is just generally bad now across the board
This is probably just survivorship bias. You don't remember the garbage of yesteryear. It remains to be seen what works of today will be regarded as good 10, 20, 50 years hence.
I get what you mean, but I would say the standard of writing is generally lower in mass media even if there are still amazing shows and amazing writing on display.
Everything has become samey and some very bad writers (Abrams, Lindelof, Goyer) have all failed upwards and influenced the writing of those that came after in a way that is not good imo.
This is definitely survivorship bias! If you can find a secondhand bookstore, go in and look for older paperbacks written by authors you've never heard of. See how bad their writing is. See how many of them wrote multiple books.
Now, copy editing has become much worse lately, because publishers don't want to pay humans to do it.
Not to mention mention we live in an era with so much more media: TV, film, podcast, theater, novels, essays, and so much more. There's so many people doing creative work, and a lot of it will be crap.
I think your spot on in your interpretation. I also tend to think their is merit in the argument, just not as much as the op intended. Some writers make orientation or gender identity central to the character to the detriment of really developing them. Others are bang on and create richer, realer, and more rewarding narratives because of it.
Bad writers use gender and orientation as a crutch. Good writers make compelling characters - with identity taking a back seat to essence.
Yeah, it’s not like tokenism, Flanderization, etc. aren’t things that happen to “woke” characters… it’s just that people like OOP conflate cause and effect. Bad writers write bad characters, not because of whatever trait(s) they’ve assigned those characters, but because they’re bad writers. All that’s changed is that bad writers are now more likely to write characters from backgrounds they and/or the reader aren’t familiar with, which makes it harder to fill in the blanks and try to see depth in the character.
Honestly, it's not even just straight writers that fail to write compelling diverse characters. HUMANS fail to write diverse characters, in the majority. And often even if a character IS compelling to start...they get flanderized almost immediately.
My best example is Captain Jack Harkness on Doctor Who/Torchwood. He's initially created as "Omni-sexual". This was pivoted almost immediately into 99.9% gay male relationships exclusively. That entire series was almost exclusively "ok..but the twist is..they're gay in this episode."
Doctor Who in particular has had this issue multiple times even.
"Hi, I'm the Doctor's companion Bill. I'm gay!" Was practically a verbatim quote.
351
u/DarthArtero 6d ago
I read that three times and I still have no idea what they're trying to say.
Are they saying that writers who use LGBTQ+ characters lack empathy? That's the part I can't wrap my brain around.
The same writers also actively refuse to understand racist transphobic incel chuds??