"Diveristy" in writing - The 50/50 Rule and More

You know, the more I think about it...The diversity shoehorning crowd must have cut their writing teeth on too many shitty fanfics and wish fulfilment fap pieces as opposed to actual literature that didn't try to please everyone. By literature I mean any writing that avoids fanservice or meeting a quota for peeohcee or lgblt characters. (Including the classics, because they may have catered to a certain pov but they did so in a professional way oftentimes.)
 
I wish the diversity crowd had more good people writing for their side in Sci-Fi/Fantasy lit, and at the same time, I'd love to see a resurgence in old-guard style adventure fiction, sword-and-sorcery, bugger politics, we have monsters to slay.

It's a shame that going for the diversity crowd means you have to deal with shitheels like the acid-tossing lady, and going for the 'old school' crowd means you have to deal with absolute spergs like Vox 'I can't write good fiction so I write flamebait books so people will buy my shit fiction' Day.
 
I dunno, I actually do think that representation is important (yeah yeah, say all you want, but it does have a good principle), besides it's just very interesting to research and write about other cultures, sexualities, etc...

But on the other hand the way the internet millennials go on about it isn't the way either. A story is not "worse" if the cast is only composed of straight white people, and i'm not going to attack any author and discourage them from writing because of that (Unless the author was a dick and a shit writer...Perhaps).
 
friedshrimp said:
But on the other hand the way the internet millennials go on about it isn't the way either. A story is not "worse" if the cast is only composed of straight white people, and i'm not going to attack any author and discourage them from writing because of that (Unless the author was a dick and a shit writer...Perhaps).
Click to expand...

All you have to do to save it from being problematic is just claim Dumbledore is gay or some goofy shit like that.
 
Mungo said:
To paraphrase someone else, I think that making a character have some "diverse" qualities is fine if it serves the character, if those traits are the glue that holds a model airplane together. If you make the character completely subservient to their character traits, that's like grinding up the model airplane parts to beef up the glue.

There are ways to make a character gay/tranny/a minority without making them a bad one. Take, say, Arcade Gannon, from Fallout: New Vegas. For those that haven't played the game, he's an intelligent scientist that serves as an NPC companion. Some of his dialogue hints at his preference for male company (for instance, he describes a platonic female friend as the "only woman in his life") and, if you have the Confirmed Bachelor perk (a stat bonus exclusively for male Couriers that opens up extra conversational options with people that are attracted to men,) he will flirt with you.

That's it.

His biggest character trait isn't his homosexuality, he isn't defined by it, and he treats his relationships with other men confidently and with discretion, like a real person. He's a very well-written character who has a lot of depth and emotional range and can end up in all sorts of places in the ending. In a medium where good writing is considered optional in many cases, and especially as part of a minority group in that medium especially plagued by retardedly "diverse" characters, Arcade Gannon stands out as an example of how to make a character diverse without dragging real world politics into the issue or compromising the quality of his writing.
Click to expand...


I think a lot of this spawns from the SJW's lack of actual personality, or the toxicity of thereof.

They do not have a personality, just bile, and thus they have no identity beside being a SJW. So they project this around the world.

This is why they all want communities of their own, because they need them to define themselves. They can't be just a guy that happens to be gay for example, the gayness is their central trait. They can't be a black dude who likes cars, their blackness must be central.

When you strip away these, all you find is a hollow shell of a SJW filled with bile.

This is why their diversity characters feel shoehorned in, for like their authors, they do not have much of a personality.
Take away the diversity, and there is no "person" left of the character.

A good character you can know because whenever he or she is a guy, a girl, homo or heterosexual, white or black, he or she will not be dependent on these traits and would still be just as interesting if some of these attributes were changed they would still remain the same, because they would have a personality beside skin colour and sexual preference.
 
waffle said:
This is mindblowingly retarded. What if I'm writing a war story about a WWII infantry company, am I covered if a guy has a memory about home and his ~250 sisters? Or a story in a men's prison, Or a women's prison for that matter (is that OK and inclusive now, even if it turns into lesbians in prison smut? The rule said it's ok if there are more women. And hey, it's got LBGTQLMNOP people in it, it's gotta be good and inclusive!)
Click to expand...
You can get away with some stuff if it's a WW2, non-modern men's prison (no female guards), etc. from what I know.
 
Gonna weigh in here, and play a bit of Devil's Advocate.

There are a SHIT-TON of writing guides full of thought-exercises and writing prompts. I've got a couple, myself. They are all, essentially, pairs of variously tinted lenses through which to view and analyze your works: Some people say it's all about being spontaneous and connecting with your subconscious mind: Others stress various plot-structures, like character arcs and a four-act structure: Personally, I think Stephen King's On Writing is "the best" single book about that stuff, but it's more of a "writing 101."

Anyway, I suspect that's the original spirit, of this 50/50 rule. There's a SHIT TON of those too- little writer's rules of thumb. Here's a couple, off the top of my head.

1) Never write in 2nd person.
2) Adjectives [edit- ADVERBS] are bad.
3) Show, don't tell.
4) Always be sure to include information about all five senses.
5) Write what you know.

That's off the top of my head.

Obviously, there are successful exceptions to each of these rules. But, I'd like to point out, that a couple of outliers, don't negate the essential wisdom of the doctrine. For the most part, you're better off writing what you know. Adjectives [edit- ADVERBS] should be avoided, if you're describing physical actions. Your writing will be stronger, as a result.

It's a good idea, in general, to try and include women characters. Certainly, I've written stuff before, and gotten feedback that was "I liked it, but there weren't any women characters." And then I was like, "Shit, I totally didn't even think about that." A lot of times, it's not a whole lot of work, to make a character female, after you've initially written the character as male.

So anyway, I suspect that's the origin of this 50/50 rule, and some SJWs got a hold of it and went crazy.

PS- Here's another of those writing books that stands out in my mind. I suspect Judd Apatow has read it. It's nominally about screenwriting, but storytelling is storytelling, non?
 
Last edited:
Mister Moo said:
Gonna weigh in here, and play a bit of Devil's Advocate.

There are a SHIT-TON of writing guides full of thought-exercises and writing prompts. I've got a couple, myself. They are all, essentially, pairs of variously tinted lenses through which to view and analyze your works: Some people say it's all about being spontaneous and connecting with your subconscious mind: Others stress various plot-structures, like character arcs and a four-act structure: Personally, I think Stephen King's On Writing is "the best" single book about that stuff, but it's more of a "writing 101."

Anyway, I suspect that's the original spirit, of this 50/50 rule. There's a SHIT TON of those too- little writer's rules of thumb. Here's a couple, off the top of my head.

1) Never write in 2nd person.
2) Adjectives are bad.
3) Show, don't tell.
4) Always be sure to include information about all five senses.
5) Write what you know.

That's off the top of my head.

Obviously, there are successful exceptions to each of these rules. But, I'd like to point out, that a couple of outliers, don't negate the essential wisdom of the doctrine. For the most part, you're better off writing what you know. Adjectives should be avoided, if you're describing physical actions. Your writing will be stronger, as a result.

It's a good idea, in general, to try and include women characters. Certainly, I've written stuff before, and gotten feedback that was "I liked it, but there weren't any women characters." And then I was like, "Shit, I totally didn't even think about that." A lot of times, it's not a whole lot of work, to make a character female, after you've initially written the character as male.

So anyway, I suspect that's the origin of this 50/50 rule, and some SJWs got a hold of it and went crazy.

PS- Here's another of those writing books that stands out in my mind. I suspect Judd Apatow has read it. It's nominally about screenwriting, but storytelling is storytelling, non?
Click to expand...
This is great, but one quibble - isn't that supposed to be "No Adverbs" instead of adjectives? Adverbs are cancer.

I think most are missing the diversity forest for the trees here. They aren't just pushing for the diversity of fictional humans. The real bullshit behind this is the diversity of the authors/artists. In genre literature, you've got scads of howlers trying to shame readers for the lack of female authors on their shelves. Hollywood's gets a ration of shit for the lack of women directors. No one gives a fuck about chicks drawing grip pay but those sweet director/producer jobs just have to be equal, damn it. Trying to dictate to artists exactly how their art should be composed is pretty fucking rankling. Calling for quotas on who can produce art and literature? How have these philistines not been put against a wall?

I'm all for giving advice when it is either requested or welcome. I don't see having an opinion that a work could use another chick or being perplexed about the lack of homosexuality as a problem. You start making demands, though, and you are just like the neckbeard fanboys you are claiming to be opposed to. Tell me women are being systematically oppressed in literary genres while ignoring that their work simply doesn't sell and you need to fuck off.
 
Oh Long Johnson said:
one quibble - isn't that supposed to be "No Adverbs" instead of adjectives? Adverbs are cancer.
Click to expand...
...
Yup. LOL- although writing without adjectives might lead to some interesting results.

But yeah, adverbs.

Good comment too, BTW.

FWIW - I make TWO exceptions to the adverb rule-
1) An intellectual/conceptual adverb, and not describing a physical action- IE "He was, basically, exhausted," or "The eyes were modified, synthetically." I try not to worry about those. "They were able to reach an amicable resolution diplomatically."
2) If you're making up a new adverb, from scratch, you're probably okay. -IE "She slipped her hand into his, muscously intertwining her fingers with his..." (this is a theoretical exception of mine, however- I can't recall the time I've made up my own adverb, from scratch, and kept it- usually you're better off inventing a new VERB- "She MUCOUSED her hand into his")
 
Pandering to SJWs is pointless because most of the time, they won't even buy the products that they want to change/censor.

It's one thing to make a crippled-transgender-schizophrenic-whatever character because you want to, but it's another thing to do it out of pressure. The effort and care (or lack of) will show.

It's like the difference between Sir Hammerlock and Janey Springs.
 
Urban Superstition said:
Pandering to SJWs is pointless because most of the time, they won't even buy the products that they want to change/censor.

It's one thing to make a crippled-transgender-schizophrenic-whatever character because you want to, but it's another thing to do it out of pressure. The effort and care (or lack of) will show.

It's like the difference between Sir Hammerlock and Janey Springs.
Click to expand...
Excuse my ignorance, but could you explain these characters.
 
You'll be criticized regardless of what you do with your diversity. Either by people who "support" it or by people "against" it (and I put those under quotation marks because I mean those somewhat loosely).

If you do not include any diversity (or barely any), you'll get shit because you're a lazy creator or your work is not representative enough. If you include diversity, you'll get shit from appropriating from other cultures (whatever the fuck) or you'll be pandering to the SJWs depending on the amount (and that amount might just be completely arbitrary).

Personally, I'd say it really boils down to what you want to create and what are the rules and restrictions of whatever it is you're creating. If something unrealistic (from real life's standpoint) makes sense in-universe, then it's fine, so long as you let people know one way or another (unless you want your readers nagging on you). If you want to expose a character's "diverse factor", but it's not relevant to the story, do so by providing supplementary material on that character (and you'll be allowed to expand on that however you like) or by throwing subtle hints that will clue people in through the character's dialogue and actions.

You should really do whatever the hell you want. If you don't want to include a particular group because you have a personal distaste for that group or if you feel that group will not suit your story, then don't include it. It's not a crime and it's not harmful if you're not advocating real-life hatred or violence/discrimination against that group. It's not an obligation, it should never EVER be one; if people criticize your work because it doesn't feature that one particular race or whatever, then they can just look for something else that suits their needs. There's plenty of good material out there for them to consume, and you don't need their money.

I don't think diversity is bad if it's relevant, if you want to do it because you truly enjoy it, and if it serves the purpose of forcing the creator to work hard on properly portraying that specific character and opening their minds to different experiences. It is, however, by no means an obligation, and forcing creators to do that sort of thing pretty much goes against the freedom of expression that the Arts are supposed to give them.
 
There's "diversity" and there's diversity.
the-truth-and-lionel-hutz.png
 
A lot of people in the thread already said what I wanted to say. If you really want your story to be more diverse then good for you! It's your product and if you think it works, then more power to you. However, in my personal opinion, if you add diversity because you want to attract "readers" or get brownie points then you're a shit writer. A good story doesn't pander and has characters that are likeable and believable. I can't tell you how many times I've seen characters that are literally their orientation or sexuality and when you want to learn about them they have maybe a small list of traits so you can get a glimpse, but any other time it's like "Sara is a star premium gay female who likes females. Oh..she's also smart and loyal BUT SHE'S A TURBO DYKE DON'T FORGET THAT!" That turns me away faster than anything and makes me think you can't make characters for shit either. Diversity is fine if the setting/situation calls for it like someone's lost in maybe a huge ass Wal-Mart or lost in a tourist trap or whatever have you. However if you're pushing in the ambiguously black/gay/trans duo in like...rural China then I'm gonna have to give you side-eye. Not saying those people won't exist out there but come on now..
 
For diversity, you're probably better off just using characters that don't correspond to any actual race or ethnicity to allow the reader to project themselves no matter what. Blue/Red/Green skin, animals, robots, that stuff. Artistically speaking it's cowardly, but otherwise you're just one bored tumblrite away from a manufactured shitstorm and the HuffPo branding you this week's racist of the century because a black character used a spear. Either that or just use white people. Better lazy than racist.

That's at least what I think many creators are pushed towards in these trying times.
 
Intelligent Calcium said:
For diversity, you're probably better off just using characters that don't correspond to any actual race or ethnicity to allow the reader to project themselves no matter what. Blue/Red/Green skin, animals, robots, that stuff. Artistically speaking it's cowardly, but otherwise you're just one bored tumblrite away from a manufactured shitstorm and the HuffPo branding you this week's racist of the century because a black character used a spear. Either that or just use white people. Better lazy than racist.

That's at least what I think many creators are pushed towards in these trying times.
Click to expand...
SJWs and feminists will still pout. Let's take this review of We Bare Bears where the author still finds something to complain about over how too many of the voice actors are white and that these 'neutral' bears sound like white men.
 
I think it's important in one sense--that it encourages authors to think outside of their own experiences. I'm not saying a white author should load their story with POCs who have been oppressed by The Man, but speaking as a white author, I do enjoy looking creating characters who grew up in other groups and trying to imagine how they might look differently at something.

That being said, enforced diversity can be a huge headache. To my disgust, I've found myself contemplating changing characters' races or sexes to diversify my casts. In those cases, I wasn't thinking of diversity in terms of interests and experiences, but in terms of "Shit, my cast is too white, and if someone decides to take offense at this I am so not in a position to fight back."

Spoilering some potential powerlevel here. For what it's worth, I think it's relevant ...

My impression is also that diversity is an issue at the publication level. Both publishers I've worked with have brought it up in one way or another. One had some issues about the race and language of a POC (ugh, I hate that term) hero, but it was the other that surprised me. The editor--and I swear this is true--actually e-mailed me to tell me how pleased they were that I had a disabled villain who not only exploited their disability to look harmless but was fully effective and dangerous despite it. Apparently, a bad guy from a minority group is a real rarity on their desk these days.

I also had a short story about the crucifixion of Jesus rejected because some Roman soldiers in it were talking shit about Jews, but I'm not sure that counts.
 
Yaoi Huntress Earth said:
Excuse my ignorance, but could you explain these characters.
Click to expand...
No worries, friendly game and writingsperg here to help!
Sir Hammerlock is black and canonically bi (or gay if you ask some people.) He's also had most of his limbs chewed off by alien Tremors expies, had to deal with Claptrap a bit more than any other NPC, and still managed to be a well-written character despite some of the groan-inducing dialogue when he starred in some Borderlands 2 DLC. It also really helps most peoples' opinions of him that he looks like an African-American Theodore Roosevelt.
These factors ended up making him a noticeable and easily enjoyable character as opposed to, say, the kind of tumblrina OC our sides would be in orbit over.
tl;dr- queer colored man who exists outside of his sexuality and race.

As for Janey Springs, I haven't played through the series far enough, but I imagine she's the result of Gearbox trying to pander to sjws as opposed to their usually sane audience. @Urban Superstition might be able to elaborate more.
 
Last edited:
Ah, yes.

Janey Springs is another homosexual character. She's supposed to be a "black marketeer with a heart of gold", but it may as well be an afterthought to this walking social commentary of a character. Within the first five minutes of meeting her, she brings up and hammers in the fact that she's not into guys, and how a guy got really rude to her about it.

Granted, there are interesting things about her that I like, such how she got mauled by the creatures of the moon and lost someone close to her (presumably a girlfriend) to said creatures (I did enjoy the mission where you collect her echologs), but her intro just soured my opinion of her. If it weren't for that, the fact that she hits on every third female character (and ultimately starts dating one of them, Athena) would have been much less annoying.

And then there's that one mission where Torgue rants about how the concept of the "friendzone" is misogynistic...
At least he gets told to shut up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom