Fan service and its appropriateness

[Rui]

Well, it took me a couple of days to work out how to respond to that. You’re awfully good at this debating lark @Rui (look at that like count and then look at my none). I agree entirely in fact with the opinion that it is execution rather than content which is the thing to criticise in media, and no-one but the most defensive and hypersensitive would protest anyone's right the criticise poor quality writing or art (Do I have a problem with Tell Me Why for including a transgender character and themes? No. Do I have a problem with its horrible control system and characters who default to behaving like complete pricks whenever the player is not in control of them despite the player's choices? Yes). That's different from criticising media simply for including potentially offensive material, because it's hopefully constructive and if creators take it on board it will improve their work rather than neuter it.

I think the main reason I find it hard to respond to some of your points is because I don't believe I am one of these people with double-standards (although anyone can feel free to call me out on that if they think I have been guilty of this) so I’m not going to argue their corner. Those who criticise media simply for including content they don’t like, whether it's sexualisation, violence or the presence of non-white or LGBT people, are all very similarly inclined in my opinion and I dislike that attitude in general. I’m NOT going to get upset over people including things I don’t like because I think it’s everyone’s right to create whatever they want, no matter their beliefs or political inclinations. And they already do! I don't think there any barriers in the way of people creating those well executed shows you (or I) enjoy so I can't really see the problem. I'm so out of touch I had to DuckDuckGo Lil Nas X and despite all the crying it doesn't look like anyone prevented him from making his controversial video, and that's good. Just like I think it's good that despite all the wailing no-one is preventing anyone from making rapey anime.

As to just producing what sells or telling your audience what they want to hear, that's less of a problem with art than it is with consumer capitalism, I think. Because profit is not just what leads to Japan churning out plot-less fanservice for straight men, but also what leads to Hollywood churning out scenes for a progressive audience that feel like PSAs for children which would probably be more honest if they were narrated by Mr. Mackey from South Park. Prejudice is bad, m'kay? I'm fairly confident you and I had a discussion before wherein we both expressed the opinion that such things weren't likely to change anyone's mind, so is there any difference between the two? They're both just preaching to the choir so they clap and keep buying their stuff. And whenever these corporations "apologise" and promise to take action or do better it's not because they care, it's just because their market research tells them they will profit more from doing so than not. And the times they don't and instead double down, it's for the exact same reasons.

You must be a good debater too, @ayase , because we've both been vehemently disagreeing on all kinds of things for as long as we've been posting here yet I enjoy reading every word of your posts. I'm actually rather envious that you can stick to your guns with regards to absolute freedom with such determination. I'm a product of my experiences and far more of a pessimist than an idealist.

You certainly don't come across as having a double standard but from my perspective some of the people whose corner you fight on principle do; the worst for me are the folks with powerful reaches who try to weaponise 'free speech' so that they can punch down at oppressed groups, only to completely lose it when someone tries to disempower them using the same argument. It goes all the way from the top of our society to the bottom. I used to play a certain online game with a very toxic community and the folks getting hysterical about 'free speech' were always the ones disputing bans for verbally abusing other people, claiming that doing so was their right. Being the kind of person I am (a troll, apparently), I usually tried to engage them verbally in the in-game lobby when they kicked off at others to find out why they felt it so necessary to scream ethnic slurs into the void and suddenly they no longer wanted everyone to have free speech at all. Just them. I've become quite cynical about how ready some agendas are to use the idea of free speech to piggyback off the hard work of those who simply believe in a better world.

A lot of the backlash against 'cancel culture' feels like fear-mongering peddled by people with an agenda, just like the backlashes against consent and feminism and trans people who are just trying to use bathrooms like human beings. I don't think people actually are being 'cancelled' meaningfully when the Internet has made it so easy to find a new platform even without the support of the press; to me it feels more like a group of marketing experts have just taken to screaming out the language of oppression in a desperate attempt to appear like the victims. I don't mean to bring politics into an anime thread but it felt like the entire run up to the last election went like this:

Muslim groups: We're not happy about how we're being demonised.
Conservatives: Yeah, but Labour is antisemitic!
Advocacy groups: We need to talk about these human rights abuses.
Conservatives: Yeah, but Labour is antisemitic!

And any time there was a scandal or reason to question the status quo, someone just bellowed the same catchphrase until it became a reflex. No matter how little it related to the situation at hand or how irrelevant the other party was to the actual problem. It felt like a parody of rational debate where one side just fixated on a single word and screamed about it until nobody actually knew what was going on any more. The same stuff played out in the US too:

Media: Gun crime is kind of a problem.
Republicans: Yeah, but that's fake news.
Literally everyone: Coronavirus is killing us all.
Republicans: Yeah, but that's fake news.

Time and again, the takeaway seemed to be more that 'you can't trust the media' (which is genuinely true and a good life lesson, hence it being so easy to absorb) rather than 'hey, they were deflecting from the real issue'. What should have been a rallying call for common sense was set up as an ironic catchphrase to make people even more willing to believe crackpot 'alternative news' sites over easily-verifiable fact. While I don't strongly identify as being tied to any particular part of the political spectrum (I've used those examples because both were the more powerful forces at the time, which is why it was especially noticeable), seeing how well the marketing masterclass of the last few years has worked has left me flabbergasted.

And then online, it's:

Media: You did something bad to someone more vulnerable than you.
Popular celebrity: Save me, my fans! They're trying to Cancel me!

Again, it's using something which really happens (especially in overseas entertainment industries) to appear reasonable and steal the mantle of underdog from the victims of the original bullying. The fans love their idols already and can easily be persuaded to chase the person who called them out off the Internet. If it really was a case that somebody could say something negative about a popular figure and delete them overnight then it would be a real problem. But is that happening? In some cases, being 'cancelled' by a big corporation is almost a badge of pride. Most commonly they simply realign their platform and continue with a more supportive audience. And to me, that's fine. I don't like Gina Carano as a person (though I barely knew her before the recent upset). But a lot of people clearly do, and a career built around being 'too opinionated to stay quiet' has proven to be extremely marketable in our society.

Going back to Lil Nas X, even though I don't really follow US pop music Twitter I've been seeing a lot of hysteria about that particular video from people wanting to protect innocent minds from corruption (heck, 'satanic panic' was legitimately trending across the US the other day, showing that some things never change no matter how long a person lives). I'm not worried about Lil Nas X losing his platform over it because he's already well established, yet if he was someone who didn't have the thickest of skin then I think they'd be thinking twice about poking the hornet's nest that way and tone their next efforts down considerably. As it is, he's harnessed the Streisand effect and is probably laughing all the way to the bank. It's riveting to see people losing their minds over a couple of minutes of CG effects and makeup.

It feels as though the negative effect of powerful people 'punching down' with their condemnation disproportionately affects those who are making genuinely quirky, interesting material from unique directions without much support. Me challenging one of the dozens of RPG-based isekai LN harem shows which seem to come out each year doesn't risk challenging anything about our free speech. They're safe, palatable titles which have a huge entrenched fanbase and absolutely nobody cares that Rui in the UK is cringing at the way all of the redheaded girls in miniskirts keep tripping over and slapping the main character in the exact same way. Conversely, the people trying to shout down Lil Nas X for making a video to his own personal taste are actively trying to stop something which is, for some reason, relatively niche. It feels more likely that the way he's being treated will discourage other people from putting their own art out there because society isn't ready. And this is what I feel often happens in anime fandom too.

Digression aside (sorry!) I think it's important that nobody in this thread is actively saying 'ban fan service', or 'ban this series I don't like'. Though I'd personally shed no tears if certain titles/themes lost popularity, fan service shows are usually more about trying to make a quick buck than making clever social commentary. Since we live in a capitalist society I don't think there's any danger at all of them disappearing; if anything we've gone from a world with the odd cheeky Gainax bounce here and there to a world where even series with no logical need for T&A feel the need to stuff it into every free inch of screen space in case the viewer's attention wanders for a second.

An anime equivalent to the free speech wars in this case would seem to be:

Fans who don't like fan service: You know, Miss Kobayashi's Dragon Maid is a good show but did Kanna really need to be sexualised quite that much while the narrative constantly drew attention to how much she looked and acted like a preteen child? It kind of detracted from the tone of the rest of the anime for me.
Knee jerk online reaction (sadly the rhetoric is genuine): The feminists want to ban all fan service! They're destroying anime!

I think we can talk about the issues with the point in question without having to fear the abandonment of free speech. Honestly, I hate Kanna as a character and I didn't laugh once during her episodes. Had I known about the pandering themes in advance, I might not have watched the show in the first place and then I wouldn't be bringing it up as an example of creepy fan service four years later. I have no problem with other people liking it in spite of Kanna being so polarising (similarly I have no problem with people liking Kanna as a character or seeing her as the ultimate self-insert in some way - we all have different comfort levels and life experiences) and the majority of the first season remains a classic, it's just bewildering to me that an entire production committee apparently decided that a fluffy series about dragons and computer programmers making eyes at one another would be improved by that content. Understandable back when it was an offbeat seinen manga made by a person known for their offbeat comedy strips, less understandable when it's a big budget anime that advertisers are pushing as a glossy, light-hearted comedy that anybody can enjoy. I think it's fair to criticise it with the way it was presented by its production committee.

Fans have no problem criticising similar issues in Usagi Drop so it feels as though there's a lot more emotion when a beloved mainstream series gets heat for its content compared to a niche title. What's the difference? That Kanna is drawn to look more attractive than Rin? That it's made for men? That it's culturally acceptable for us to sexualise little girls but a more realistic, non-sexualised interpretation hits too close to home? That exploring the visual side of attraction is ok but unwelcome human emotions are banned? Are we all supposed to agree that Usagi Drop is fair game for criticism (as it should be) yet anyone who speaks out against a popular seinen title has an agenda? It's one heck of a minefield.

(Yes Dragon Maid fans, I'm specifically talking about Kanna and not the new character who is likely to go down even better later this year. However, since I know about the series' potential issues in advance - they certainly haven't been shy with the key art - I can make an informed decision on whether to watch for myself. That seems... fine? You'll never hear me speak a word against Eiken because that didn't sacrifice a single iota of its freaky creative capital on trying to appeal to a mass market it was never intending to court in the first place. The jarring effect of fan service which doesn't feel as though it belongs in the scene or series where it appears is a big part of why it gets such a bad rap, I think.)

Anyway, I'm definitely rambling a lot (sorry) and I think we're both pretty much aligned in despairing at consumer capitalism trumping artistic integrity, because 99% of the series which bug me wouldn't even register on my radar if they were just pitched as 'this series is about creepy stuff because its insane creator wanted to see what happened when they made it that way'. Cool. That sounds interesting and experimental. But that kind of approach doesn't sell, whereas stealthing content which panders into series which otherwise tick all of the boxes of a neatly packaged 'blockbuster hit' does. It's interesting to be forced to think about how it all works.

(Apologies to anyone else who trawled through my stream of consciousness...)

R

 

[ayase]

A lot of the backlash against 'cancel culture' feels like fear-mongering peddled by people with an agenda, just like the backlashes against consent and feminism and trans people who are just trying to use bathrooms like human beings.

I think I've said before that my answer to that is to take all the signs off all the doors and let anyone use any bathroom. Why are we segregating people anyway? Don't like equality? Hold it in.

I'll leave people to ruminate on that while I formulate a proper reply.

this series is about creepy stuff because its insane creator wanted to see what happened when they made it that way'

Also, do I have your permission to use this as a blurb if I ever do release anything commercially?

 

[Rui]

Also, do I have your permission to use this as a blurb if I ever do release anything commercially?

Consider that permission granted. I'd have a lot of time for whatever madness came out of that brain of yours.

R

 

[João Gomes]

Sorry for the delay in answering you @ayase, I wrote the earlier post during my lunch break, and it ended up getting cut short, so I didn't find the time until now.

This can be a touchy subject in the sense that first, I'm not an artist and second, I speak from a place of privilege, I'm a straight white guy, so I have no idea what it's like to be subjected to weird looks/comments/exclusionary behavior, generally speaking. So this is very much an armchair opinion, if you will.

Before I go any further, and so that you can better understand my mindset, if I end up using any vocabulary that you would normally associate with self-righteous, virtue-signaling, performatively-woke characters, let me just ask you to hold that eyeroll you're about to do until the end of the post, because I don't see myself in that kind of tone of discourse (I swear I'll avoid "problematic", at the very least lol).

So, I guess at this point, the discussion you guys were having is straying further from fanservice specifically and is getting ever closer to the effects media can have on very real, concrete societal issues. I suppose it will circle back to fanservice, in the end.

First of all, I believe you when you talk about your personal experiences. If it's any consolation, I also had no idea about Nas X and only vaguely even recognized the name.

I used to think that way, that artistic integrity is of utmost importance and it should be cherished and upheld but after so many years of seeing so much injustice inflicted upon those less fortunate than myself, I came to slowly adopt a viewpoint that boils down to a very basic "how would that make me feel?". This applies to practically anything you can think of, I'm 33 and already I feel behind the times a good portion of the time.

When you were talking about artists, I admit my mind immediately landed on manga artists in the sense that yes, while they work for corporate, who will benefit a great deal from their work they don't seem to be on a leash and generally do what they want. And there's a s.hit ton of examples of really questionable stuff, like I've flipped though some pages of Made in Abyss and there's some stuff that you just can't defend in there. I was kind of mortified, having bought the series blu-ray for having put money on the mangaka's hands, however small the amount. I'm showing my support for that kind of s.hit and that I accept it. I'm even more conflicted having grown to enjoy the anime.

And the problem is right there, if we accept and enjoy s.hit like kids depicted in sensual and kinky ways for the sake of freedom of expression and entertainment, what does that say about us, as a society? That somehow this guy's freedom of artistic expression and my entertainment is more important than calling this kind of s.hit out and doing what we can to stop it? I know, this is a single, in my opinion extreme, example, from a country that has a very peculiar history with sexuality, but my point stands for other examples, I think.

It isn't worth it to make a black character noticeably less black in my fanart for the sake of my artistic freedom when I'm just gonna go and remind a lot of people of what they're subjected to daily and have been for centuries. Again, not in the "I'm so mad and so right and superior to you and all of Twitter is gonna know it" sense, but in the sense that this hurts people that have historically been backed into a corner and expected to stay in their holes and I wouldn't want to be in their place.

This applies to basically any real problem we have as a collective of people, you know, sex, gender and so on and so forth.

Rui gave a good example: it's about the way it's presented. If all you've got is s.hit representation, you're sending a message and it's not good. If your women characters are only there to show tiddie and being generally helpless unless the protagonist helps them, that's bs. If you've got women who resemble and dress like real people, that's cooler. What do you want me to say, that I don't enjoy anime tiddie? Of course I do, but if that comes at the cost of depicting women as something less than what they are, f.uck that.

If all of us, ideally stood on the same ground and level, this wouldn't be a discussion but it's not the case and I don't think it will be in our lifetimes. Isolated, the examples I mentioned aren't much but the problem is they're not: they just add on top of a pile of hurt to many people and that's why we have to see these depictions for what they are and the effect they can have. It's not about caving to pressure, it's about being mindful of other people.

I hope this doesn't sound like I'm preaching, it's really not the case. I just want you to fully understand my point of view and I'm sure you agree in regards to representation as you've stated, even if we stand on different terms regarding artistic expression.

 

[IdiomaticLynx]

Fans who don't like fan service: You know, Miss Kobayashi's Dragon Maid is a good show but did Kanna really need to be sexualised quite that much while the narrative constantly drew attention to how much she looked and acted like a preteen child? It kind of detracted from the tone of the rest of the anime for me.
Knee jerk online reaction (sadly the rhetoric is genuine): The feminists want to ban all fan service! They're destroying anime!

As much as I liked Miss Kobayashi's Dragon Maid, I also couldn't stand any scene focussing on Kanna (or Lucoa for that matter). Sadly that almost made up half of the show. Although to be precise, I didn't really mind Kanna as character when she acted as a kid (e.g. buying school supplies or eating bugs), but all scenes featuring her with that other kid were not entertaining to me at all.

But what I wanted to remark about the above hypothetical online exchange, is that I think it lacks context. I'm not active on social media and only vaguely get wind of these "controversies" from time to time, so I could be completely wrong on this (correct me if that's the case). With how the exchange is phrased, anyone would "disagree" with the knee jerk reaction. I'm not disputing that this exact exchange or similar ones don't happen, but there's bound to be plenty of "aggravating" ones from both sides as well. This could for example be things like "whoever likes this show is ..." or "thrash like this shouldn't be allowed to be made". There seem to be plenty of people that then put a narrative spin on it (e.g. feminists are behind this) and others go along with it. In the end, if that is what you believe, the initial fan's post can be seen as a "danger". I'm sure that other people will be jumping in head-first to argue the opposite. Before long the "discussion" (if you can call it that) has nothing to do with the topic raised at all.

Now one of the core issues, if you ask me, is the polarization that takes place. There are only so many people that have an opinion about "Kanna of Dragon Maid", whereas there are likely more people with an opinion about "feminist wanting to ban all fan service". And there are likely even more people about "feminist" in general. From what I gather social media seem unfit for proper discussion (esp. Twitter with their character limit; the example of @Rui would barely fit in a tweet, add in some hashtags and you'd already have to compact it). They really keep people spoon-fed with opinion confirming content (intentionally or not). As a result these "controversies" can easily thrive, including people that fabricate or otherwise perpetuate them.

The above might be skewed by my negative impression of (popular) social media, but I think there's also an inherit flaw to them when it comes to discussions. Most popular social media tend to be general purpose and push for non-anonymized profiles. As a result there are no boundaries on the subject matter at all. Whereas here it would be surprising to find someone register who actively dislikes anime, manga and whatever else comes from Japan. This lack of scope leads to issues where sharing your opinion on a subject is suddenly broadcast to your friends, family, cycling club and often also the world. At the same time, "befriending" someone or liking their posts sends a signal that you agree with that person as a whole instead of on a particular topic/subject.

That's why I always prefer online fora like this one, although they seem to be in decline. Having a community of people that share a particular interest or hobby helps proper discussion. While it might seem to be a self induced "filter bubble", there's still plenty of different opinions. Broadening the scope would only include people without a clear opinion on the subject or those who are clearly "against" it. While interesting to include those, it would be tiring and pointless on a daily basis. Yet that is what seems to happen on a lot of social media. I digress and I'm going in circles, so I'll leave it at that.

Fans have no problem criticising similar issues in Usagi Drop so it feels as though there's a lot more emotion when a beloved mainstream series gets heat for its content compared to a niche title. What's the difference? That Kanna is drawn to look more attractive than Rin? That it's made for men? That it's culturally acceptable for us to sexualise little girls but a more realistic, non-sexualised interpretation hits too close to home? That exploring the visual side of attraction is ok but unwelcome human emotions are banned? Are we all supposed to agree that Usagi Drop is fair game for criticism (as it should be) yet anyone who speaks out against a popular seinen title has an agenda? It's one heck of a minefield.

This is actually an interesting question. Not having seen or read Usagi Drop due to this makes it a bit hard to reason, but from what I understood the criticism is mostly aimed at a later volume of the manga that wasn't adapted in the anime, right? That might actually make it even more niche and "under the radar". Fans obviously are aware of it, but the broader "public" might not be. It also doesn't help that it aired five and a half years before Dragon Maid. Not saying it would be different if it aired now, but it could.

What I personally think, is that most fans of Usagi Drop also don't like the twist(?) Or at least not enough to defend it. As such, there aren't really two sides to argue. And even if a "discussion" would arise, it's easy to split the show in two parts. With Kanna, she's intertwined in the show and there are plenty of people who seem to like her (be it character design, related jokes, or all of it). Some people might even see it as an attack on the show itself. While that sounds a bit excessive, I can also see that for some people the show is Kanna and without her, it simply wouldn't be the same.

Needless to say, this doesn't change the point that any show should be fair to criticize or even just express unpopular opinions about.

Personally I do notice a difference in how much I tolerate out of place fan service (or other negative points), depending on the nature of the show. I'm a lot more lenient in less serious looking or more comedy focussed shows compared to more realistic or serious shows. With the former I roll my eyes and continue on (or not), whereas with the latter it tends to reflect on my general opinion of the show as a whole.

It's always remarkable how anime productions keep ending up with shows littered with fan service. I often think, if I had to make the call, it wouldn't turn out that way. But that's probably too naive, it's a safe bet that seems to sell. Let's also not forget that this doesn't apply only to fan service, but also to things like isekai, shounen, etc... Fact of the matter is, 90% (if not more) of the shows simply isn't good. Remove any of these "reasons" and 90% would still not be good. On the flip side, having fan service be this common, also allowed good shows to pop into existence that take a creative spin on it.

 

[Lordhippos]

As much as I liked Miss Kobayashi's Dragon Maid, I also couldn't stand any scene focussing on Kanna (or Lucoa for that matter). Sadly that almost made up half of the show. Although to be precise, I didn't really mind Kanna as character when she acted as a kid (e.g. buying school supplies or eating bugs), but all scenes featuring her with that other kid were not entertaining to me at all.

I loved Kobayashi but I do agree with this, I also found Kanna acting like a kid to be fun, but yeah the slightly weird scenes with her and the other kid was strange. I still enjoyed the show in general, but I was mostly in it for the Tohru antics tbh.

 

[ayase]

I'm gonna be here all night if I don't watch out. Let me have a go at being concise, I'm not very good at it, but here goes. CRITICAL FAILURE

You must be a good debater too, @ayase , because we've both been vehemently disagreeing on all kinds of things for as long as we've been posting here yet I enjoy reading every word of your posts. I'm actually rather envious that you can stick to your guns with regards to absolute freedom with such determination. I'm a product of my experiences and far more of a pessimist than an idealist.

Honestly kind of you to say, Rui. I feel the same about your always well thought out and put across posts. Though I'm not sure I consider myself an idealist so much as someone who thinks people should just leave each other alone, which if anything might be more pessimistic. Hedgehogs' dilemma and all that.

I agree in general with your take on the media spin and distraction and the role of celebrity and politics in these stupid culture wars. I think no matter how much we might spar on here, we probably still agree more than we disagree when it comes to real world stuff and ways real change for real people can be achieved. I guess I just spend so much time in the realm of fantasy that it is very valuable to me and I don't like to see mine or anybody else's compromised. One or two of your points I think I've sort of dealt with along with my replies to @João below.

Before I go any further, and so that you can better understand my mindset, if I end up using any vocabulary that you would normally associate with self-righteous, virtue-signaling, performatively-woke characters, let me just ask you to hold that eyeroll you're about to do until the end of the post, because I don't see myself in that kind of tone of discourse (I swear I'll avoid "problematic", at the very least lol).

We might not have interacted a whole lot João (I've been more active on here in the last month than I have in years) but one rule I hold to is that I respect others' rights to their opinions as long as they respect mine. Hopefully that comes through in mine and Rui's interactions (we have both been here a veeeeery long time and have, I think, a fairly decent understanding of one another at this point) and the only people I really get mad at (or even feel mad at) are people who don't show respect for the other people they are talking with. And that's clearly not you. So no worries, at all. If nothing else, surely this discussion up until now has at least revealed I am nigh-on impossible to offend?

I've flipped though some pages of Made in Abyss and there's some stuff that you just can't defend in there. I was kind of mortified, having bought the series blu-ray for having put money on the mangaka's hands, however small the amount. I'm showing my support for that kind of s.hit and that I accept it. I'm even more conflicted having grown to enjoy the anime.

This will probably come as no surprise at this point but I don't even take issue with lolicon, so I'll take the unpopular position and defend it (while I probably won’t do quite as good a job as one of my creative heroes who remains so, I’ll give it a go). I understand the arguments it's upsetting to people who have suffered sexual abuse as children, that it trivialises it or worse, even encourages child abuse. The last I would really, strongly disagree with because that's the exact kind of logic which regimes that ban content featuring gay people use; it's the kind of logic the UK itself used when it had the horrible Section 28 (that was from 1988-2000, not even long ago at all) which forbade teaching children about homosexuality for fear it would turn them gay. As for the earlier points, I can see that it could be upsetting, I absolutely can. I take no joy in the thought of real victims being hurt by seeing it. But in the same way can also see why it could be upsetting to a veteran to watch a war film (either one which glorified war or one which showed it in all its gory detail, either would probably be as bad) and yet I don't think that makes war films objectionable. If people know that something is likely to upset them/offend them/trigger their PTSD they are able to avoid it. As @Rui mentioned, there is perhaps an issue with content sneaking into things where it might not be expected. I will concede (there's a rarity) that's a fair criticism; people should know what they are going into so they don't have to see things they don't want to. And that, I think, goes for the other points about potential to cause hurt too (mainly just so I'm REALLY not here all night).

if we accept and enjoy s.hit like kids depicted in sensual and kinky ways for the sake of freedom of expression and entertainment, what does that say about us, as a society? That somehow this guy's freedom of artistic expression and my entertainment is more important than calling this kind of s.hit out and doing what we can to stop it?

I think what I'd like it to say is that a society which is permissive is not afraid. That we can confront ideas, words and images that make us uncomfortable and come away unharmed. Challenged, perhaps, but not affected. I actually do enjoy the Made in Abyss manga very much. Some of the content was a bit of a surprise coming from the anime, I will admit (and I think it's fair to say Tsukushi is indeed a lolicon) but it's also compelling as it is utterly unafraid to plunge into the darkest abyss of the human mind too. It isn't as though it's purely fapping material. It does feature a lot of child abuse (though more often of the violent rather than sexual kind) its child characters however are interesting, capable and yes, sometimes sexual. Speaking as a former child (if perhaps a bit of an odd one) I think children can be all of those things but these are ideas most people shy away from. They might be difficult topics to deal with, but I think they're better confronted than ignored and the realm of fiction is by far the safest place to explore them without putting any real children in danger. I think the question of whether it's worth potentially hurting people is a little loaded, because I don't think it has to hurt people, either by them avoiding it or just... choosing not to be hurt by it. That's a matter of opinion, I know, but again I strongly believe people can choose whether or not they allow themselves to be negatively affected by things.

I'm sure you agree in regards to representation as you've stated, even if we stand on different terms regarding artistic expression.

I think as I said before(? this discussion is so long now) I certainly don't personally like or continue to consume anything which it becomes apparent to me clearly has an agenda of trying to promote actual racism, sexism or other prejudices. But thankfully I don't think that many things do.

I came to slowly adopt a viewpoint that boils down to a very basic "how would that make me feel?". This applies to practically anything you can think of

Luckily or unluckily, these days for me the answer to what something would make me feel is usually "very little" and that probably goes further than most of these lengthy posts to explaining the positions I take. I can still be moved by things I suppose, things still make me feel joy or sadness but not to any great degree and I'm never really upset by anything any more. Certainly not by anything that isn't real. There's far too much real life suffering for me to get angry at fantasy.

That'll do for now.

Edit: And with this post, I take the No.3 spot from the boss man himself. Coming for you next maestro (I don’t think I’ll ever catch Grav)

 

[ayase]

One thing I would say to you though @ayase is that I'm not for the bullying or suppression of anyone, but nor do I think it's wrong to reasonably and relatively politely criticise any content in any fiction you may think is a bit **** for any reason.

I don't either. It's the severe lack of politeness and reasonableness which is so common in these kinds of criticisms specifically about content which bother me. It is rare (although perhaps less so somewhere like AUKN where we do have a community of mostly reasonable people) to see anyone criticising media for its content really owning their opinions and making clear it is them who have the problem and who take issue with something rather than it being some sort of larger, societal problem they are bravely fighting against by uh, telling everyone how much they don't like it.

It's the crusading "think of the children/oppressed" arguments which p*ss me off, they're an appeal to emotion and I find them dishonest. Other adults get to make their own decisions and should be trusted to do so, but I will say that is also true of creators who change their minds. If they do it freely after introspection, I can't criticise that. But if they do it under duress because they're scared of what might happen to them or their careers if they don't, that's a terrible shame. And that's the difference, I think, between offering constructive criticism and feedback and "cancelling" which is itself a bit of a politically correct term for bullying, threats and intimidation. I don't believe those two things are equivalent and don't deny anyone's right to exercise the former.

I mean, thinking of a creator whose work I adore, Hideo Kojima. His character, Silence, in MGS5 was criticized by both men and women fans in the run up to release for her preposterous costume design. Kojima's angry response was that we'd be "ashamed of our words and deeds" once we played the game and discovered the reason for her costume choice and the character was unchanged. The game was a big hit, and it also turned out that no one was ashamed of their words or deeds as there was literally no convincing explanation in the game for Silence's sexy costume. Kojima could have stuck more sexy semi-naked women in his next game if he wanted to, but it seems like perhaps he reflected on it and decided perhaps it was a bit puerile after all and thought maybe he could do better. Personally, I don't really care much if he did or didn't carry on his penchant for ridiculously clothed female characters, but they are mainstream games and he wasn't forced into doing anything he didn't want to.

Kojima's odd behaviour aside (that's not exactly unusual as far as he's concerned) I think in terms of creators and their freedom the world needs more Dwayne McDuffies (who would totally have agreed with you and not me regarding representation btw) more Aaron McGruders, more Ian Jones-Quarteys, Lauren Fausts, Rebecca Sugars and Rumiko Takahashis, more people who get out their pens and create things they want to see who are able to draw on their own experiences (and the world definitely needs more Fred Perrys going their own way and doing their own thing, industry be damned, but he rarely gets mentioned alongside other black artists. I wonder why... Might be something to do with this thread's original topic )

Are there still racist/sexist barriers to these people working in the industry? Yes, there are real challenges for real people there, but I also think things are moving in the right direction on that front and there has probably never been a time in the world's history that they were lower (especially with the opportunities the internet has created to get your work directly to an audience) and it is possible because the existence and continued appeal of all those aforementioned creators' work proves it. I don't think we need Japanese man Hideo Kojima (who does have a position that affords him enviable freedom within an otherwise trend-chasing industry) to temper his work so it's more to the tastes of (certain, by no means all) western women. I think we need him to create whatever he wants to create and for those western women to do the same, because the limitless potential of fiction and fantasy has room for everyone and can cater to every taste. People barely need to scratch the surface to find things they will enjoy, but it seems a lot of them would rather spend their time criticising the mass-market slop that's the most easily accessible when they could be spending it discovering and consuming things they would really like. And that's just sad, both for them and the less-known creators they're missing out on and who in turn, are missing out on their support.

 

[Vashdaman]

I agree with some that, but even then I find myself having mixed feelings. Like when I saw some people criticize the hobbit's lack of racial diversity, myself not being a hobbit or lotr fan by any means ,one impulse in me was to wonder why people would bother expecting anything of that sort from a conservative (although watching recent videos on youtube about LGBTQ interpretations of lotr has somewhat changed my opinion on them) hollywood film based on an old book by a perhaps racist English guy, it seemed like a waste of energy. But then I think, that's a huge modern worldwide family blockbuster, why shouldn't young children of colour be made to feel included? And then I think, yeah, the makers of that film were just bloody lazy.

It's a tricky one, I feel like you would probably believe that striving to have oneself absorbed into the soulless mainstream "culture" that doesn't really care, and never did, about one's worth other than their monetary worth, is a bad thing rather than something to be desired. Maybe you've said that to me before on here, but apologies if I'm putting words in your mouth. Anyway I definitely sympathise somewhat with that view, and sometimes I wonder what is lost in the rush to be subsumed into the dominant culture. But ultimately, I just don't think it's fair that certain groups of people have had to grow up feeling side lined and less valuable and then face all kinds of extra hurdles that comes with being outside the status quo. Will we ever reach some utopia where all people are treated fairly and included and no has to go through unnecessary pain, probably not, but things could be and should be much better than they are now. I feel like your answer to problematic fiction is "toughen up and learn to not be offended", but I don't think such a harsh one sided answer is enough for me, no one learns and nothing moves. I think some creators could and do learn and become more thoughtful from criticism. I'm sure some creators do simply acquiesce to market and social pressure, but also I'm sure there are some who have genuinely listened to what people have told them, reflected, and thought "you know what, I didn't see things like that before, but now I see I could have done better" and grown, or not. Art is personal expression, but it's also a dialogue with people, you're going to get feedback, and sometimes it might be valuable and sometimes not, but I'm not sure that thinking "it's fiction so just leave it alone" is always good enough.

 

[ayase]

I saw some people criticize the hobbit's lack of racial diversity, myself not being a hobbit

Speaking as a hobbit I can see non-hobbits feeling a bit left out, but as I recall there was plenty of dwarf, elf and human representation in there too.

But then I think, that's a huge modern worldwide family blockbuster, why shouldn't young children of colour be made to feel included? And then I think, yeah, the makers of that film were just bloody lazy.

This is a genuinely interesting question to me and made me sit back and ponder for a while. Now, surely part of what is appealing about something like Tolkien's work to people of cultures all over the world is the fact it's rooted very much in Anglo-Saxon tradition, that's what he was interested in and was his inspiration as an author, so would diversifying it in the name of modern multicultural sensibilities not be to lose something of that? Dropping anything which is very much a product of a particular culture at a particular time into the monoculture blender seems a bit wrong to me, it doesn't matter if it's English, Japanese, African or whatever. And if you're not going to change the characters at all other than changing their race or gender, isn't that just shallow tokenism? And if you do change the character to be someone of different experiences because of their gender or culture, then you're changing the story (not that there wasn’t more than enough changing of the story in the Hobbit films as it is mind, but I was certainly critical of those decisions as well).

This doesn't mean I'm at all against culture developing by taking inspiration from other cultural sources. Look at music again, I mean that's an amazing example of cross-cultural exchange which has resulted in new genres and collaborations and all sorts. And you can find examples of black American and white European artists being influenced by anime and manga creating their own styles and their own works, but also basing them in their own non-Japanese experiences. All that, I think is amazing and beautiful and if there's something that bothers me more than the idea things are "problematic" it's the concept of "cultural appropriation" because as far as I'm concerned, we are ALL doing that ALL THE TIME because that's what culture IS. It's the only reason white British people have a different culture from white Germans, or black Americans have a different culture from black Africans: Because they adopted different bits of different other cultures while keeping or doing away with different parts of their earlier culture. It's an ever-changing, ever-evolving landscape and I don't think it needs to be concerned with how people were doing things in the past.

You're not exactly wrong in your assessment of my thoughts there, because as much as I still enjoy say, Star Wars, a significant amount of blame for all this dredging up of any problems with fiction of the past must be laid at the feet of media franchises and never-ending IP rights (thanks, Disney) because they necessitate changing things to fit in with the times in order to stay popular and profitable. So Marvel go "Look! Spider Man's black now. Look! Thor's a woman now" and I feel like this leads to an attitude of "Well if [x] can be changed, why can't [y]?" And the answer is usually because [y] is not a perpetually in use IP which is the property of a multinational corporation. We keep re-living the past because that's what our media itself is doing, rather than moving on and leaving it behind and creating something new. If people want to get involved in these franchise operations and point them in a direction they’d like to see (and most of the “culture wars” seem to be about this exact thing) then that’s one way of effecting change, but it’s not the be-all and end-all of culture and I’d rather more effort went into creating things which are new and different.

I feel like your answer to problematic fiction is "toughen up and learn to not be offended"

For those things which already exist, it pretty much is. They're out there now. You couldn't (and can't) prevent other people from creating them and there's no changing them. Even if the creator relents the original works will continue to exist, so I think it's better to just accept that. Other people are also going to keep creating things you don't like or agree with, forever. But what you can do is aim to do a better job yourself, or support people you think are doing a better job. So to go back to your earlier point, I think it would be awesome if watching the LotR films inspired a young non-white kid to write fantasy fiction that was more interesting to them, maybe including things from their own cultural background and experiences that they thought would make for a good story. I'd very much hope they would be able to do this while still experiencing the story in its original form, but I admit that I don't know how important representation is to people in general, or individually. I can't really speak from anyone's experience but my own and I can't say I've ever really had a problem identifying with non-white, non-male or non-straight characters but maybe that's just me and my imagination. But how cool would it be to see a story where a new generation of Hobbits journey out further East and have adventures among the largely undeveloped cultures there, which could easily be grounded in Arab, Indian or Chinese culture. There are hundreds of possibilities there (and considering a good half of all fantasy fiction written after Tolkien is basically LotR fanfiction there's not really anything stopping anyone). You do it Vash! I'll look forward to reading it.

It does also irritate me a little how people manage to miss all the good stuff while they're dredging the past for stuff to be mad about. How many people have read say, Storm Constantine's fantasy novels which were exploring gender and sexual identity back in the s*dding 1980s? NOT ENOUGH. Why not? Because no-one who would be interested in them bloody talks about or notices her work when looking at fiction from the past, because most of the time it seems they're more interested in finding things to pick holes in than things they might actually enjoy. I feel like I'm probably repeating myself now and between us we've taken this thread off at a real tangent here, but that's one of the reasons I enjoy discussing things with you. Plugs for all those creators I admire out of the way, I think it's time for bed.

 

[CommanderZx2]

Wait is this some kind of joke? People actually arguing in favour of artificial diversity through a simplified human lens for a fantasy setting? Can you imagine playing Mass Effect and instead of the various alien races you come across instead you just meet just stand-ins for human races?

Besides hobbits themselves are diverse, there's more to diversity than just skin colour. For instance there are three hobbit races represented namely: harfoots, stoors, and fallohides. They each have different physical characteristics and appearances.

 

[João Gomes]

Damn, Gaiman's post was huge @ayase. I understand the argument of needing to defend what we don't like as much as what we do, for the sake of freedom of expression that all can enjoy.

With that said, context is, as always, essential. When talking about Made in Abyss for example, if we're talking about the work itself I mean there's a couple of things in there that kinda make you raise your eyebrow, but that in isolation, is just a fictional depiction and by itself, harmless.

On the other hand, tell me if you think it's too much of a reach to assume the author consumes child porn in his private life (you probably do; I don't). Seaking against myself, it annoys me that I've contributed to this guy being able to, in turn, contribute to ****** up real-life problems with real-life implications. I don't know, maybe I'm tripping with this, and yes it's just speculation, but I don't think it's an outlandish idea.

It's all about the way it's depicted and your intention and the way it comes across. If you're depicting sexuality between children in an almost nostalgic sense, in a way mirroring your own experiences, that's one thing. We've all been there, we all remember having our first sexual impulses but some of the stuff going on in Abyss goes into fetish territory and as a grown man if you have fetishes with your child characters, that's gonna make me think "what's this guy like in real life?". And I like Abyss. I like Ruroken, I like a lot of stuff that was made by people with serious issues. And that annoys me.

Again, my stance isn't "censor everything I don't like/cancel someone that doesn't align with my views". You've got potentially offensive material but you're not really on a crusade or have an agenda with real life consequences? OK, whatever, people remain largely free to express themselves. Maybe you've got crude material, but if people enjoy it, cool. And opposing voices also remain free to express themselves. That's my view on it.

But if an artist has the power and intention to influence serious, real-life problems, then I don't think it's correct to give that a pass. I don't think it's correct to separate art from artist if it affects people in real life, not in the sense that it may offend them, but if it ends up contributing to their suffering. It stops being about an isolated piece of art and bleeds into the real world.

 

[ayase]

On the other hand, tell me if you think it's too much of a reach to assume the author consumes child porn in his private life (you probably do; I don't). Seaking against myself, it annoys me that I've contributed to this guy being able to, in turn, contribute to ****** up real-life problems with real-life implications. I don't know, maybe I'm tripping with this, and yes it's just speculation, but I don't think it's an outlandish idea.

Yeah, you’ve more or less pre-empted my response there, I do think that’s rather an unfair presumption to make. And I base that largely on my own experiences (what else can we really do?) of enjoying situations and characters in a fictional context which I would find horrifying in real life. Like I said earlier, I think fantasy is the place for people to explore their darker thoughts and desires without hurting any real people, and while I might be the naive one here I would very much hope that most lolicon, rape or abuse writers and artists (and most people, in general) feel the same way.

Hell, I find it hard to enjoy real pornography because I know how exploitative it is of real human beings. I can’t stand the thought of hurting real people and would never be able to live with myself if I did, even going back to Rui’s experiences I would never even want to make a real person feel objectified by my words. And not for ridiculous, unhelpful reasons that a lot of moralists on both the left and right seem to keep trotting out (that laws are all that stands between every man going out and becoming a rapist) but simply because I am in possession of a conscience, and empathy, because I respect the rights of other people. Perhaps I’m overestimating the number of people in society these days who still think like this, I dunno (thanks Thatcher). But I just don’t see that as being a problem where fictional characters are concerned and I doubt there is anything that could change my mind on that.

But if an artist has the power and intention to influence serious, real-life problems, then I don't think it's correct to give that a pass. I don't think it's correct to separate art from artist if it affects people in real life, not in the sense that it may offend them, but if it ends up contributing to their suffering. It stops being about an isolated piece of art and bleeds into the real world.

I think it depends how much power you think artists have (and there are a spectrum of opinions even here in this thread), where you see intention to influence reality in their work and whether or not it’s really present. Personally, I think it’s usually fairly obvious when a creator is using their art as a platform for their beliefs, and certainly in the sphere of visual media it is rarely subtle. Like I said earlier, if I see that something is pushing an agenda I disagree with (or even one I do agree with, but so ham-fistedly I think it makes the cause look bad) I won’t continue to support it. But I don’t think something like Made in Abyss (to continue using it as an example for easiness’ sake) is pushing any agendas or having an effect on the real world. If it was instead a comic pushing an agenda for legalised child abuse in real life, I would neither enjoy or support it.

 

[Rui]

Wait is this some kind of joke? People actually arguing in favour of artificial diversity through a simplified human lens for a fantasy setting? Can you imagine playing Mass Effect and instead of the various alien races you come across instead you just meet just stand-ins for human races?

I'm a big fantasy fan and it is really noticeable how much of a white sausage fest the movies are when watched with a modern perspective. Even the exotic fantasy races are relatively human-like compared to how I imagined them when I read the books, though respect to the movies for at least trying (it winds me up whenever elves are presented as 'humans with pointy ears' and dwarves are 'stockier, hairy humans' - give me some genuinely alien traits and culture, please!)

From my experience, few fantasy books go out of their way to emphasise that everyone is of white Caucasian stock - I would find it rather immersion-breaking if they did - and leave the fine details of most characters' appearances up to the reader. That that ends up translating into 'everyone is white' in the visual adaptations of the material is weird to me. Sure, there are probably some fantasy worlds which are like that. But our world isn't white. Medieval Europe wasn't 100% white either (just like historical academic achievement wasn't 100% male the way our history books imply). It's less authentic to present worlds without diversity unless you live in a part of the world with none.

Did LOTR's complete lack of human diversity stop me enjoying the content? Absolutely not, they were a product of their time (in terms of the source material), they are only one set of films in a sea of thousands and I still really, really like LotR. Does it stick out and make me privately disappointed that the visuals are so monotonous? Kind of, honestly. It always has. Back when I was a young kid I got well used to projecting onto outcasts and outsiders (usually villains) because I always found the heroic archetypes didn't represent my experiences. If it was only part of the time, that's fair play - everyone should have their time in the sun - but left unquestioned it always seems to naturally tend towards maintaining a certain status quo. Intended self-insert characters always rub me up the wrong way because I find them unrelatable every bally time. It's tiring to always be the person projecting into someone else's fantasy.

But take Netflix's The Witcher, which earned a lot of flak for doing the opposite and casting a variety of folks across the various nu-Tolkien fantasy races. Black elves and mixed-race humans were the focus of the backlash; people complained that non-caucasian actors playing roles in a pseudo-European setting written by someone from a white majority country was 'ruining' the material with 'artificial diversity'. Personally, I thought that the actress chosen for Yennefer was flawless in the role and stunningly attractive, and I really liked the series even though I've never played the games. It literally made me a fan of The Witcher all on its own. I cannot imagine any way of portraying the character that would have worked better. But people cheapen her work by saying that she was cast for the sake of diversity instead of appreciating her performance for what it was. The chap who played the black elf, likewise, did a perfectly good job with the role. The colour of his skin shouldn't have been relevant unless someone was going in there deliberately trying to Pantone-check every member of the cast in search of material for scandalised posts on the Internet about how diversity was ruining fantasy (this happened). The elf guy was just an elf.

(The other backlash against The Witcher was that the show required the user to actually pay attention to the non-chronological presentation of the story to follow it, which was met with a lot of bowing and scraping and promises that future seasons would be less challenging. A pity, though I believe it was also because the rest of the source material isn't in the same short story format rather than because the artistic choices were condemned by Internet complaints. At least I hope that's the reason, because being rewarded for engaging my brain is damnably rare in most popular television.)

If people were churning out fantasy titles with 'artificial diversity' where everyone was a minority for no reason to the detriment of the story I'd probably understand, but I'm just not seeing it? Star Trek's vulcans are basically 'space elves' but just because they were shown as white up until Voyager, was Tuvok being black a problem? Voyager had a lot of issues but Tuvok was one of the better characters (in my personal opinion) and if humans can come with a variety of skin tones, surely vulcans - a race so biologically similar that they can interbreed with humans - would have similar levels of diversity? It would have been a bit weird if he came with the same cultural connotations as a black human character from one particular country or another but Tuvok acted just like any other vulcan in the series. I would call that 'natural diversity', not 'artificial diversity' at all. The actor was still playing an alien like the other non-human cast members.

The same goes for other fantasy worlds like the Forgotten Realms series and (as a result) TTRPGs like Dungeons & Dragons. Traditionally, most stock fantasy art has elves as white-looking blonde bombshells but the actual source material doesn't imply that. In fact, the source material for Forgotten Realms is pretty explicit that there is wide physical variation between elves (and humans) in that setting, including skin tones, yet when it comes to people running campaigns we traditionally end up with a load of 'good' blonde elves in chainmail bikinis and the only dark-skinned ones end up as villainous dark elves. Hmm. Interesting, that. I don't dislike chainmail bikinis and drow myself, but I prefer a bit of plausible worldbuilding instead of being forced into playing out someone else's biases (which don't even respect the actual source material!) I read a wonderfully written post from a black gamer a while back where he said that every time he played TTRPGs people would dance around awkwardly whenever they used drow or orcs in the story. He wasn't offended by drow or orcs at all because until people acted weird around him he had no understanding of why he was supposed to be projecting onto them in the first place - his self-insert characters had always tended to be humans or elves or gnomes with normal heroic backgrounds like everyone else! Yet people would push back on him if he tried to make a gnome with darker skin or a human with afro-coded features because that somehow broke the other players' immersion in a world full of demons and talking animals. Yikes. He wasn't even mad about it, just tired of having to individually educate every new group with which he played.

In anime it's even easier to add a little variety, and to their credit a lot more titles do this nowadays even though Japan's ethnic minorities are relatively rare compared to other countries. I have noticed a lot more effort to research foreign characters properly instead of just dumping in a blonde cutie with a speech impediment, and to include more interesting designs instead of a bunch of hotties with the same face and different hair colours. I honestly cannot think of a single instance where that extra effort has detrimented the material in any way; we still have the trope of the brash foreigner who stumbles around Japan yelling 'BOKU WA SAM DESU' in a dodgy accent but we also have a bunch of more interesting interpretations happening elsewhere. If anyone thinks that better diversity in anime is ruining it I'd want to hear some examples. We're getting an eclectic mix of full-on traditional all-Japanese casts (e.g. HoriMiya), realistic non-Japanese characters (Carole & Tuesday), and characters who aren't coded as white or Japanese even though ethnicity is not core to their character (e.g. Revolutionary Girl Utena, which is older but as I love it I'm gratuitously mentioning it anyway). Nothing is being lost that I can see.

I was once chatting on another forum and someone was complaining that a character from a particular series 'didn't need to be female' because she wasn't particularly sexy and her femininity was irrelevant to the story being told. This was a long, long time ago and I don't remember which series it was any more, but that comment stuck with me because I don't think someone from a minority group needs that facet of themselves to be their core defining value. Sometimes it's interesting to explore it, sometimes it's better that it's simple set dressing to demonstrate that members of that group are, in fact, functional and relevant members of society and part of the story. You can really see which female characters in anime are designed with 'being female' as part of the creator's brief and it isn't always beneficial; my partner is into the shounen action series My Hero Academia and learning that Tsuyu was originally conceived as a male character goes a long way towards explaining why she's so much better designed than the various fetish-themed kemono-mimi heroes. She's still really popular (and from the Internet I can see that her lack of conventional sex appeal certainly doesn't stop people finding her sexy) whereas I couldn't even name the female members of the eye candy Wild, Wild Pussycats team if my life depended on it. Maybe it's better to focus on making characters interesting and unique than it is to religiously stick to tried and tested convention?

Anime fantasy has a big advantage over live action fantasy because it can put non-humanoid races in alongside all of the humans and bonkers colour palettes are already completely normal. Seeing elves who are just 'humans but with pointy ears' in anime disappoints me even more than anything that has ever been done with Tolkien's works. It's such a waste of the medium's potential.

R

 

[ayase]

The same goes for other fantasy worlds like the Forgotten Realms series and (as a result) TTRPGs like Dungeons & Dragons. Traditionally, most stock fantasy art has elves as white-looking blonde bombshells but the actual source material doesn't imply that. In fact, the source material for Forgotten Realms is pretty explicit that there is wide physical variation between elves (and humans) in that setting, including skin tones, yet when it comes to people running campaigns we traditionally end up with a load of 'good' blonde elves in chainmail bikinis and the only dark-skinned ones end up as villainous dark elves. Hmm. Interesting, that. I don't dislike chainmail bikinis and drow myself, but I prefer a bit of plausible worldbuilding instead of being forced into playing out someone else's biases (which don't even respect the actual source material!) I read a wonderfully written post from a black gamer a while back where he said that every time he played TTRPGs people would dance around awkwardly whenever they used drow or orcs in the story. He wasn't offended by drow or orcs at all because until people acted weird around him he had no understanding of why he was supposed to be projecting onto them in the first place - his self-insert characters had always tended to be humans or elves or gnomes with normal heroic backgrounds like everyone else! Yet people would push back on him if he tried to make a gnome with darker skin or a human with afro-coded features because that somehow broke the other players' immersion in a world full of demons and talking animals. Yikes. He wasn't even mad about it, just tired of having to individual educate every new group with which he played.

I was in fact going to mention D&D in my own post (I thought perhaps that was in danger of veering so far off-topic it would go through a crash barrier, over a cliff and explode in spectacular fashion, so thanks for grabbing the wheel and doing it anyway Rui ) in relation to @Vashdaman 's point about people perhaps not seeing themselves represented. You've covered some of what I was going to say already, but I do also think RPGs (not just ones that require other players either, you can go into Skyrim, s*d off the main quest and be whoever you want, even mod the heck out of it and ride around on a My Little Pony if you like) are a fantastic example of how people who maybe aren't confident enough in their creative abilities to write or draw can still use their imaginations to create awesome characters and stories and have fun in a fantasy setting playing exactly the characters they'd like to see. I do, and it's interesting to note from a personal perspective that when I started out the characters I created were more like me, but as time passes I find myself both more confident and more interested in playing characters who aren't like me. Because it's a challenge, it's actually quite good fun and it's interesting to do that "putting yourself in someone else's shoes" thing. So potentially (as long as you're playing with the right people, and I play with someone who deliberately creates useless characters so everyone including himself is surprised when they succeed at anything, so I'm in good company) that's an excellent way of not only creating representation for yourself, but also experiencing and considering what it's like to be someone else.

 

[Lordhippos]

That is a big old reply @Rui !

For my .2C worth, I prefer my diversification to not be forced, and to be somewhat historically accurate if appropriate to do so.

For example, Vinland Saga being based on early medieval times I'd expect the characters to look like northern European Scandinavians.

In a fantasy world with elves? sure, no problem with diversifying the character designs a bit then. Set in Africa for some reason? (has any anime been set in Africa?) then sure, make them look African. I much prefer a well thought out design with some research put into it.

In your example of The Witcher, coming from the games, I think people were (rightly) annoyed by them not being cast to look somewhat like the characters in the games. I am all for "best person for the job" type deals, but that was a mis-step in my opinion. I didn't have any problem with the way Yennefer acted, but the actress didn't reflect the source material that well, nor how she looked in the games.

Speaking of miscast roles, one of my most anticipated shows, Altered Carbon, got completely destroyed in season 2 and has now been cancelled. The actor who played Kovacs in Season 2 (Mackie) was just so bad, it was painful. Kinnaman was excellent in Season 1. Right person for the right job, in this case sadly not true!

Things have moved on a fair bit in terms of racial prejudices generally, but I hate the whole woke thing myself, one of my colleagues even sent an article the other week about how the world blacklist should be banned and blocklist should be used instead. I've personally never associated blacklist with racist connotations, but it's probably true in some circles that it is.

 

[ayase]

Seeing elves who are just 'humans but with pointy ears' in anime disappoints me even more than anything that has ever been done with Tolkien's works. It's such a waste of the medium's potential.

And on this point, I'm reminded of a particular oglaf strip (NSFW website). But yes, anime, your boringly human fantasy races are disappointing not only from a point of originality but as a colossal deviant who likes my monster girls to be, y'know, actually monstrous.

 

[CommanderZx2]

And on this point, I'm reminded of a particular oglaf strip (NSFW website). But yes, anime, your boringly human fantasy races are disappointing not only from a point of originality but as a colossal deviant who likes my monster girls to be, y'know, actually monstrous.

That's a funny oglag strip, but really isn't all that true. For instance there's a fairly famous statue in the UK in fact called the 'Dryad with boar' and the dryad is a young boy. It's located on the high street in Bromsgrove.

File:Dryad and Boar sculpture, Bromsgrove, October 2015 - 02.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

commons.wikimedia.org

 

[Rui]

That's a funny oglag strip, but really isn't all that true. For instance there's a fairly famous statue in the UK in fact called the 'Dryad with boar' and the dryad is a young boy. It's located on the high street in Bromsgrove.

File:Dryad and Boar sculpture, Bromsgrove, October 2015 - 02.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

commons.wikimedia.org

Yeah but in the fantasy genre, it's totally true. The same way that angels are depicted a certain way in historical material but in the media they're always hot blonde chicks wearing scraps of white cloth, and that a lot of fey creatures from real world folk stories are universally interpreted as sexy babes in fantasy genre fiction (see also: pixies).

I mean I don't think that female tyrannosaurus rexes actually looked the way they did in the strip either

R

 

[CommanderZx2]

Yeah but in the fantasy genre, it's totally true. The same way that angels are depicted a certain way in historical material but in the media they're always hot blonde chicks wearing scraps of white cloth, and that a lot of fey creatures from real world folk stories are universally interpreted as sexy babes in fantasy genre fiction (see also: pixies).

I mean I don't think that female tyrannosaurus rexes actually looked the way they did in the strip either

R

It is certainly true that the only media I've seen to more accurately depict angels' monstrous appearance is Bayonetta.

Although it's difficult to have a story where characters interact as per normal if one of them looks like an indescribable monster.