• Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    And now you’re missing the forest for the trees. I could say exactly the same for any homosexual relationship in media… But it wouldn’t be the same, because someone’s gender/sex is also an important defining trait.

    The dynamic between two men, two women, or a man and woman in a relationship, or the pursuit of one, will be different simply because of the different sexes involved.

    I’ve given you examples to prove my point, give me examples where heterosexual character’s “just exist”, where their relationships have no effect on their story. You’ll struggle, because when a character’s relationships are pointed out, it almost always has some effect on the story.

    Because when you define anything about a character, the audience rightfully expects the character to be shown expressing that defined trait, or for that trait to have some kind of impact on them.

    It’s not just being LGBT that has to have some justification to it. It’s any explicitly defined trait a character has.

    So if you point out that a character is LGBT, the audience will expect for that to bleed through in how the character acts, or for it to have an impact on the story - and it’s not like that doesn’t apply to straight people.

    Without elaborating on that trait, it feels shoehorned in simply because it would’ve changed nothing if you simply never defined that trait in the first place. The trait was tacked onto the character, not made a part of them.

    The arguement you just made about heterosexual relationships, while wrong in that specific instance, uses exactly the same logic that you’re fighting when I say it to justify the view that creating unelaborated, throwaway character traits is shoehorning.

    • Ech@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Considering I’m talking explicitly about relationships that aren’t pointed out or are a key plot point, I’d say you’re the one “missing the forest”. Hetero-normative characters are just that - the norm. They aren’t pointed out because everyone will assume it already, and none of them apparently need intricate explanations to you to just be straight. But if a character is just gay, it’s all of a sudden something that needs to be justified? Get out of here.

      • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Firstly, I find it hard to believe you could even provide me an example where a character is in a relationship without that relationship ever being pointed out.

        Secondly, I didn’t say the relationship had to be a key plot point. In my examples they are, because those were the easiest for me to remember, but they don’t have to be.

        The core of what I actually said is it’s shoehorning if you give a character a trait but never use it, or make that trait their only reason to exist in the story. It stinks of being added for marketing, and is bad story-telling.

        That’s why my first example was a shoehorned in retcon that absolutely only exists because marketing, cause explain why else JKR never once touched upon it until that point.


        As to hetero-normative people assuming a character’s sexuality. You are right, but that’s the same with literally any normative trait - race, relgion, gender, etc… If you don’t name it, people will assume it.

        You get around that by defining that trait, and when you do define that trait, people will expect that your character affirms that trait in how they act.

        You act like people want an essay for why an LGBT character is LGBT, when what most people want is just for the character to actually be seen acting like they are, and not for that to be the only reason they exist in the story.

        I could say I’m the President of the United States, but if you never see me acting like it, I might as well have made it up - that’s the crux of it.