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.
64
u/Bake_My_Beans 6d ago
Translation:
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.