And if I ask you and Buttercheese not to generalize then I should do exactly that as well. I should not see everyone who does not embrace the representation of diversity as someone who would wish my existence ceased.
DESPITE examples that tell of the contrary. DESPITE for the few radical people who wish me dead because I am a gay man. DESPITE those few examples I should NEVER generalize, and think of all people who do not embrace diversity as people who would like to see people like me dead.
It seems we've been trying to say the same thing then, really.
And if the only gay men in the Wichter 2 are prostitute and degenerate and predator, then I see the reason for people to be angry. I don't feel that way, but I can see why.
I also can see why some people might be angry, but I also see that actually being angry over that is stupid.
There's also a huge ammount of characters with sexuality not even once mentioned in Witcher games (or many other games), meaning people can see whatever they want in them. Some people, however, won't be pleased until they literally see themselves in the fictional world. These people don't care about actual characters, they only care to be pandered to, because their sense of self-worth depends on their sexuality or race, or gender way too much, rather than on their skills, accomplishments etc. They also have tendecy to think that one or two negative examples are somehow a valid representative sample of certain group of people, which is wrong.
That attitude, combined with feeling of entitlement of "being represented" is disgusting. Worst of all, these people cause much more damage to themselves, than the "misrepresentation" does and are not even aware of it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Dethmold the only example of gay person in The Witcher 2?
He was the only male homosexual, if you don't count one male prostitute. But let's forget about lesbians, and how your sexuality has nothing to do with one's moral compass, just for you. This topic disgusts me more and more.
I haven't played the Witcher games, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but I am pretty sure that lesbians in a game series that is pretty heavy on the male gaze fanservice are a whole nother box than having a male gay antagonist. Because, you know, I am pretty sure that most heterosexual men find the idea of two women showing sexual interest in each other much more appealling than two men doing the same.
Gay men and lesbian women are both marginalised and both lack proper represenation in the videogame world, but the problems are different.
There's also a huge ammount of characters with sexuality not even once mentioned in Witcher games (or many other games), meaning people can see whatever they want in them.
So what? Still, the only gay men are degenerate and a prostitute. It's like saying: "yeah, all black characters in the game are illiterate thieves and rapist, but there are people of unspecified skin colour and people can find representation in them!".
Some people, however, won't be pleased until they literally see themselves in the fictional world. These people don't care about actual characters, they only care to be pandered to, because their sense of self-worth depends on their sexuality or race, or gender way too much, rather than on their skills, accomplishments etc.
Are you refering to someone in this thread, or from real world at least? Because I see no point in bringing up some vague stereotype, if that's not the case.
They also have tendecy to think that one or two negative examples are somehow a valid representative sample of certain group of people, which is wrong.
First of all, if you look at broader picture, it's usually not "one or two examples" - especially if you take a look at trans people, for example. And second thing - if you had 10 gay men in Witcher 2, then I doubt anyone would doubt Dethmold, the same way you usually don't mind men being awful in fiction, because there are usually many more examples within piece of art. In Baldur's Gate you have cowardly men and courageous men, wise men and stupid men, manipulative men and naive men. If that was the case with The Witcher 2... Well.
@Artona None of your replies are valid. Still, only thing that matters to you is sexuality, skin colour or gender. That's exactly the problem here. The fact you even said that bit:
"yeah, all black characters in the game are illiterate thieves and rapist, but there are people of unspecified skin colour and people can find representation in them!".
confirms that you don't give a damn about anything else. Because screw hundreds of actually important traits people can relate to, all that matter is race and gender. Why don't you see how stupid that is?
First of all, if you look at broader picture, it's usually not "one or two examples" - especially if you take a look at trans people, for example. And second thing - if you had 10 gay men in Witcher 2, then I doubt anyone would doubt Dethmold, the same way you usually don't mind men being awful in fiction, because there are usually many more examples within piece of art. In Baldur's Gate you have cowardly men and courageous men, wise men and stupid men, manipulative men and naive men. If that was the case with The Witcher 2... Well.
That also is invalid reply. The reason there is supposedly so little gay people in the Witcher 2 is the souce material, and on what said source material was based upon. Let's keep it short: Witcher world is essentialy a crapsack world, similar to medieval Europe with fantasy elements. Now, you're not seeing mcuh gay people there? Oh, maybe because openly coming out as gay back then was not a good idea and that society wasn't that understanding then? Surely, these are factors to consider.
"cowardly men, courageus men, wise men, stupid men..." etc... I'm not sure if I should be happy that you are actually seeing something else than race, gender or sexuality or should I be ashamed that you never notice that such examples are actually in there.
@Shandaxx This is not condemnation. I am however stating that this is the problem, and serious one at that.
You might have the point with how I approach that problem, but here's the deal: I'm not a diagnostist nor therapist, but I know the general things about these fields, simply because I had to learn it while I was studying at university. And here's the basic: you can help, or even only reach, the patient/client if he/she wants to.
Why I'm saying this?
Because people don't want that. They prefer to have very shallow and labeling outlook at characters (and I hope that doesn't translate to view towards actual people) and keep their feeling of self-worth based on non-existent characters in media.
Check out the first (I think?) reply I gave you on this topic. I mean what I said back then. Seriously, first time I learned that you apparently think, that representation in media somehow validates your existence, I was disrurbed and concerned. That's not healthy.
None of your replies are valid. Still, only thing that matters to you is sexuality, skin colour or gender. That's exactly the problem here. The fact you even said that bit: Artona said: "yeah, all black characters in the game are illiterate thieves and rapist, but there are people of unspecified skin colour and people can find representation in them!".
confirms that you don't give a damn about anything else. Because screw hundreds of actually important traits people can relate to, all that matter is race and gender. Why don't you see how stupid that is?
Well, those false accusations you make about me ("you ony care about sexuality, skin colour and gender!") are stupid. They are also pretty insulting and demeaning, I wish to point out. But I'll make an effort to make things simpler, because apparently something gets lost in translation. I'm not saying that gender, sex, orientation or skin colour are the only thing people can relate to. I'm saying that portrayal of those characteristics can make people angry, if creators seem to associate things like homosexuality with sexual deviation. If all people with dark hair in Witcher 2 were deviants, then I could see dark haired people getting angry. If left-handed were portrayed as stupid and ugly, then maybe left-handed felt offended. But that's not the case. The case is that on two occasions The Witcher 2 makes effort to show or mention someone's homosexuality, is for deviant and prostitute. Really, if you made a game where the only white people are all into incest, then it would be the same issue.
That also is invalid reply. The reason there is supposedly so little gay people in the Witcher 2 is the souce material, and on what said source material was based upon. Let's keep it short: Witcher world is essentialy a crapsack world, similar to medieval Europe with fantasy elements. Now, you're not seeing mcuh gay people there? Oh, maybe because openly coming out as gay back then was not a good idea and that society wasn't that understanding then? Surely, these are factors to consider.
That explanation is irrelevant and unnecessary. I've read all was written about Geralt (not really) from Rivia dozen times before games were a things. Nobody in this thread hates on Witcher because it needs more gay people - the issue is how they are shown. If they decided to introduce gay men into the story, why did they have to make them appaling?
@Shandaxx I have answered myself that question and apologize for being jerkass and making you feel worse.
@Artona The accusation wasn't for no reason. I point out that the character is shitty human being and that has nothing to do with his sexuality. People, on the other hand, act like sexuality was the only thing that matters. They won't relate to merit of someone idealistic and good like Saskia, but are offended because gay person is potrayed as an evil deviant. In a cynical, unpleasant and overall bad to live in world, as you surely know.
Also, I guarantee you that your example with "dark hair" is invalid, because idenity politcis doesn't deal with hair color.
As for your last question - as you surely know, the world in story is cynical, brutal, full of violence, depravity and so on. Good people are actually minority in there, so seeing Detmold depicted this way is no surprise. Given that homosexuals are minority in real world, and that good people in the Witchers universe are minority (or at least, are emphasized less), it's easy to deduce that it's most likely than not that one gay character would be depicted as evil, instead in more positive way. Is that logical explanation?
Pulling back from the current discussion for a moment. I have never played the Witcher 2 (I found the world and characters in the first one tiresome), but does every single character besides the two examples listed above, state their sexuality? I find it interesting, that in the lack of announced orientation, people tend to assume heterosexuality.
@Shandaxx I have answered myself that question and apologize for being jerkass and making you feel worse.
@Artona The accusation wasn't for no reason. I point out that the character is shitty human being and that has nothing to do with his sexuality. People, on the other hand, act like sexuality was the only thing that matters. They won't relate to merit of someone idealistic and good like Saskia, but are offended because gay person is potrayed as an evil deviant. In a cynical, unpleasant and overall bad to live in world, as you surely know.
As far as people asking like "sexuality is the only thing that matters," that's your takeaway, but it's not what people are doing or saying. Nor are people doing or saying that about gender and race. You're imposing these views on people and it's creating friction. I stopped talking to you because you kept insisting that you knew what I was thinking better than I did, and you attacked me on a personal level because I disagreed with you. You continue to attack people for disagreeing with you, and accusing them of thinking things even though you can't possibly know that.
If you want to have a constructive discussion, you need to stop doing these things.
As for your last question - as you surely know, the world in story is cynical, brutal, full of violence, depravity and so on. Good people are actually minority in there, so seeing Detmold depicted this way is no surprise. Given that homosexuals are minority in real world, and that good people in the Witchers universe are minority (or at least, are emphasized less), it's easy to deduce that it's most likely than not that one gay character would be depicted as evil, instead in more positive way. Is that logical explanation?
This is not an explanation, it's an excuse. The Witcher's world didn't just spring into existence fully formed and ready for people to put stories in it. Flesh and blood people chose to write it that way, and flesh and blood people decided to only portray gay men in a certain way. They're responsible for that choice and subject to criticism for it. Worldbuilding isn't a get out of criticism free card, it rather raises the question, "why is the world written in such a way that we can only have terrible gay people in it?" After all, many demographics have a more balanced representation despite the excuse that good people are in the minority in the Witcher setting, but somehow the idea that this is a crapsack world must utterly define how gay people are represented. That is a very thin argument, as well as an excuse.
I point out that the character is shitty human being and that has nothing to do with his sexuality. People, on the other hand, act like sexuality was the only thing that matters.
Not true. Already explained the issue. Also, topic of this thread is representation and diversty in writing, so it's reasonable to examine the Witcher 2 from that point of view.
They won't relate to merit of someone idealistic and good like Saskia, but are offended because gay person is potrayed as an evil deviant.
Saskia is not a gay man and @Buttercheese already explained why her portrayal (as a lesbian) may be different from Dethmold.
Also, I guarantee you that your example with "dark hair" is invalid, because idenity politcis doesn't deal with hair color.
So?
Good people are actually minority in there, so seeing Detmold depicted this way is no surprise. Given that homosexuals are minority in real world, and that good people in the Witchers universe are minority (or at least, are emphasized less), it's easy to deduce that it's most likely than not that one gay character would be depicted as evil, instead in more positive way. Is that logical explanation?
No. You use no deduction here and we are not talking about statistics, but content with creator. So you commit fallacy.
@BelleSorciere Excuse me, I'm not the one who is offended because of writing. I also know, and at least can logically explain why things can be written this or that way. I won't take offence because the character doesn't represent me. Can't you see that I have some basis to act like I do?
Also, about the "excuse". Not, it is not excuse. As an author, A. Sapkowski decided how he is going to present the world his novels take place in. He took some concepts, inspirations and that's about it. He, neither any other author, has any obligation to adjust his concepts because some people might get offended. IF the author decides to do so, that's his/her decisions. All I did with so called "excuse" is explaining you why representing gay people may be non existent in a universe with that particular setting. In this case, we have logic vs. feels argument.
@Artona 1. How is that not true. Also, when speaking about writing and writters I already said: writters have no obligation to pander towards certain group of people. Criticize it if you want, but I don't think the cirtique is for any valid reason. Unless you want to imply that by simply writing the story the way you see fit, not caring about represenation, you are somehow a horrible human being.
2. I am talking about Saskia's actual merit (like idealism) and you mention a lesbian. With this, you emphasized that her being lesbian is more important than her other traits. Courage? Idealism? Strong moral compass? Competence? Strong and charismatic female character? NAH! LESBIAN!
3. Is that supposed to be an answer?
4. We are not talking about statistics, that's true, but still the story setting and rules the setting is based on does matter a lot. It is a huge factor for a writer. If the setting has to have strong sense of realism, homosexual characters are bound to be a minority, and in prejudiced society they will be even less emphasized, as coming out wouldn't be very pleasant to them.
And since you mentioned the creator of content, the creator is also a human being, who's sole intention might be to told the story he/she wants to told. Not "I have to represent certain group of people in positive way, because otherwise I'm going to be criticized". Or worse, called racist, sexist or bigot.
5. I am tempted to reply with "So?", but I won't. Yes, that was rude, I admit it. At this point thought, I don't think any apologies would matter.
@BelleSorciere Excuse me, I'm not the one who is offended because of writing. I also know, and at least can logically explain why things can be written this or that way. I won't take offence because the character doesn't represent me. Can't you see that I have some basis to act like I do?
No one has stated any offense in this thread. People have offered critical commentary about games and characters in games, but that's not the same thing.
And no, you haven't logically explained anything. I haven't seen any actual logic in your posts. I have seen multiple assertions about what you think people believe and what you think people should believe, and I've seen you snap at people for not conforming to the latter, but logic? None. If anyone in this thread is offended, I would say it's you because your clear anger whenever anyone says race, gender, or sexual orientation are important in terms of representation.
I strongly suggest you learn to see things from other people's perspectives and stop projecting your issues onto everyone else.
Please don't bother to @ me again. I have no desire to interact further with you.
Rather than discussing other people either directly or indirectly by hinting at them I would like to stir the discussion into the direction of representation in video games again.
Let's try to stop discussing other people who do have different opinions on this. Let's try to discuss these different opinions and NOT the people themselves.
For the sake of the thread and the health of the community, I should perfectly clear about this.
As I have said many times in the past, the Site Rules explicitly say that personal attacks of all kinds, direct or indirect, are off-limits. Always, and no exceptions. Respectful conduct is not "recommended"; it is mandatory. Say whatever you want about representation in video games, but your fellow forumites are off-limits.
The next time you post in this thread, think about whether you're talking about the subject of the discussion, or if you're trying to say something about the other people in this debate. If it's the latter, then delete it.
This discussion is not about your fellow forumites.
So, is stating that a character is offensive not taking offence? Because that statement is present in this topic.
As for logic, I explained why the setting such as the the Witcher's is not very likely to have many gay characters, why most likely a gay character will be a bad person in-universe. Earlier, I explained why valuing too much R/G/S is a harmful thing.
My assertions are based upon observation. That's one. Second, I do understand why people believe what they do, even if I disagree. As for reasons why I disagree, I stated them before. I don't care for representation, as long as the character are written well. In addition, if my experiences with media are of any indications, putting the focus on representation instead of writing good story is a bad idea, resulting in dissapointing product. Examples of this are how Marvel Comics generally sels nowadays or inept games like Mass Effect: Andromeda. Was focus on representation and political correctness really worth it? Because it did affect quality very badly.
I also strongly suggest you learn to see things from other people's perspective, because I don't believe you get mine at all. And I'm not projecting things. I have stated before that I rate character and actual people on their merit, not on factors they have no influence over. I see people as people, not people as straight or gay.
@O_Bruce: That post contains nothing against the Site Rules. It's strictly about the subject at hand, instead of other forumites. If you were under the impression that I would delete it, then I need to point out the difference between that post, which is not a problem, and these posts, which were:
These people don't care about actual characters, they only care to be pandered to, because their sense of self-worth depends on their sexuality or race, or gender way too much, rather than on their skills, accomplishments etc. ... That attitude, combined with feeling of entitlement of "being represented" is disgusting. ... Still, only thing that matters to you is sexuality, skin colour or gender. That's exactly the problem here. The fact you even said that bit:
"yeah, all black characters in the game are illiterate thieves and rapist, but there are people of unspecified skin colour and people can find representation in them!".
confirms that you don't give a damn about anything else. Because screw hundreds of actually important traits people can relate to, all that matter is race and gender. Why don't you see how stupid that is? ... I'm not sure if I should be happy that you are actually seeing something else than race, gender or sexuality or should I be ashamed that you never notice that such examples are actually in there. ... And here's the basic: you can help, or even only reach, the patient/client if he/she wants to. ... Seriously, first time I learned that you apparently think, that representation in media somehow validates your existence, I was disrurbed and concerned. That's not healthy.
I hate to quote people in sequence like this because it comes off as aggressive or accusatory, but I feel I need to specify exactly what comments I'm talking about. There's a difference between making an argument that other forumites disagree with and making comments about other forumites and saying there's something wrong with them as people.
I don't know what you learned in school, nor does it matter in the least. Even if you have an actual doctorate and training in a mental health field, and not just a few semesters in the subject as an undergraduate. These people are not your patients, @O_Bruce.
The only information you have about these people are a few paragraphs about a video game debate. No mental health professional would give advice based on such incredibly limited information.
I'm trying to avoid getting stuck in this tar baby but I do have to say I can kind of see where @O_Bruce is coming from (even if it is rather clumsily explained). I think that maybe as a white male heterosexual I don't worry about representation at all because I've never had to worry about being the underdog. Even the sitcoms where my type is ridiculed (ie: the dumb, self-absorbed, sports addicted, white daddy stereotype) I find amusing because of the subtle truths behind the humor. Maybe I just have a well developed sense of irony though...
1. How is that not true. Also, when speaking about writing and writters I already said: writters have no obligation to pander towards certain group of people. Criticize it if you want, but I don't think the cirtique is for any valid reason. Unless you want to imply that by simply writing the story the way you see fit, not caring about represenation, you are somehow a horrible human being.
Already explained *twice* now and I'm not sure how to rephrase it. From my point of view discussion looks like this: - The way the Witcher 2 shows gay men can make some people angry. - All you care about is sexual orientation! - That's not true. I'm simply saying that if all gay men in your game are either deviants or prostitutes, someone may have problem with that portrayal. - You see?! All you talk about is orientation, because this is all you care about!
It seem like you don't differentiate between internal logic of piece of art and logic of interpretation, or a metalevel, if you will. The world of Witcher 2, observed from "the inside" is a gritty and dark place, and surely Dethmold fits there. But at a same time, he is creation of writers of the game, who made decision to make him the way he is. They said "okay, this man will be gay". You can explain that using logic of the game world.
2. I am talking about Saskia's actual merit (like idealism) and you mention a lesbian. With this, you emphasized that her being lesbian is more important than her other traits. Courage? Idealism? Strong moral compass? Competence? Strong and charismatic female character? NAH! LESBIAN
You said "They won't relate to merit of someone idealistic and good like Saskia, but are offended because gay person is potrayed as an evil deviant." You mentioned homosexualism in regards to Saskia, not me. And - okay, you got me. When talking about representation of gay men in the game, I talk about *gasp!* representation of gay men in the game. It's like going into thread about music they shouting "Omg! All you guys care about is music!". And if that needs explaining: I'm not talking about competence, strong moral compass, courage and idealism those aren't traits you are born with, and as that they are not base for unfair discrimination. There are no "naturally brave people" who have to face stereotypes that they are feminine, talk in high-pitched voice and use handbag.
3. Is that supposed to be an answer?
No. That is inquiry what it has to do with anything. I don't care about identity politics and see no reason to bring it up.
4. We are not talking about statistics, that's true, but still the story setting and rules the setting is based on does matter a lot. It is a huge factor for a writer. If the setting has to have strong sense of realism, homosexual characters are bound to be a minority, and in prejudiced society they will be even less emphasized, as coming out wouldn't be very pleasant to them.
Nobody is talking about number of homosexual in the game. Already explained that. Also - there is nothing in the Sapkowski's books (that have such a beautiful character like Regis) that make Dethmold necessary or needed. Witchers being unable to have kids? Sure. Aen Seidhe elves being dying race? Sure.
And since you mentioned the creator of content, the creator is also a human being, who's sole intention might be to told the story he/she wants to told. Not "I have to represent certain group of people in positive way, because otherwise I'm going to be criticized". Or worse, called racist, sexist or bigot.
I never claimed to car about their intent or I care, really. I'm interested in piece of art and what it tells. And I think writers should be big boys and girls, who can take on things like that. Especially when they created those terrible sex cards in the first game.
Personally I couldn't relate with Benedict Cumberbatch at Sherlock 2010 because Sherlock is more of a machine than a man and the same goes again for Benedict Cumberbatch at The Imitation Game 2014 though i did find both the TV series & Movie very interesting But The TV series Luther 2010 & Idris Elba were @#$! awesome!!! <---you see that there? 3 exclamation marks... i never do that. *also i can't watch movies or tv series where the protagonist is gay.
I read the post where Artona and O_Bruce argue... personally i believe that even in Democracy there are voices that must be gaged (fascism, racism, and others that i can't think of) either to protect Democracy or to protect the people and by "the people" i mean homosexuality even in the form of "Art" should not be promoted in anyway in public & the same goes for heterosexuallity but hey that's just me...
I read the post where Artona and O_Bruce argue... personally i believe that even in Democracy there are voices that must be gaged (fascism, racism, and others that i can't think of) either to protect Democracy or to protect the people and by "the people" i mean homosexuality even in the form of "Art" should not be promoted in anyway in public & the same goes for heterosexuallity but hey that's just me...
Sexuality is a human thing and you can't avoid portraying it in anything unless no one ever has a significant other of any gender. No married couples, no boyfriends and girlfriends, no girlfriends and girlfriends, no boyfriends and boyfriends. No flings. No one night stands. No dating. No children*, no weddings.
If you carve out sexuality, which you seem to be arguing, what's left?
More to the point, why do you think sexuality shouldn't be promoted?
I read the post where Artona and O_Bruce argue... personally i believe that even in Democracy there are voices that must be gaged (fascism, racism, and others that i can't think of) either to protect Democracy or to protect the people
I agree, though with a degree of hesitation. It is, however, how it works here in Poland - our constitution forbade invoking totalitarian methods of fascism, nazism and communism, among other things.
i mean homosexuality even in the form of "Art" should not be promoted in anyway in public & the same goes for heterosexuallity but hey that's just me...
I never understood what people exactly mean when they talk about "promotion of homosexuality". It's not a product you can acquire, it's not even a life-style you can take. It's something you're born with and there isn't much to be done about that. It's not like after watching "Milk" number of homosexuals in society will suddenly rise. Unless we are talking about removing sexuality from the picture entirely, just like @BelleSorciere mentioned - but I guess it could work with some pieces of art, but then again, it wouldn't be about homosexuality, but a sexuality per se.
And to return to topic: I spent some time on old Bioware forums and I was quite surprised to see that among lgbt+ community there Dorian was critized as his characters uses many stereotypical "gay traits" (he's sparkly, flamboyant, likes fashion and luxury, and so on), and that his character quest is directly tied to his homosexuality.
Sexuality is a human thing and you can't avoid portraying it in anything unless no one ever has a significant other of any gender. No married couples, no boyfriends and girlfriends, no girlfriends and girlfriends, no byfriends and boyfriends. No flings. No one night stands. No dating. No children*, no weddings.
If you carve out sexuality, which you seem to be arguing, what's left?
More to the point, why do you think sexuality shouldn't be promoted?
* Children have parents
What i mean is sex-scenes in movies, tv series, magazines and other media and i say that because you can't understand love unless you experience it "Love is supposed to dignify us! Exalt us! How can it be love, John if all it does make you lonely and corrupt?" -- Luther 2010 Episode 1
I never understood what people exactly mean when they talk about "promotion of homosexuality". It's not a product you can acquire, it's not even a life-style you can take. It's something you're born with and there isn't much to be done about that.
I disagree to that and you'll ask me why and i'll say some things are matter of faith and let's just leave it at that.
Comments
There's also a huge ammount of characters with sexuality not even once mentioned in Witcher games (or many other games), meaning people can see whatever they want in them. Some people, however, won't be pleased until they literally see themselves in the fictional world. These people don't care about actual characters, they only care to be pandered to, because their sense of self-worth depends on their sexuality or race, or gender way too much, rather than on their skills, accomplishments etc. They also have tendecy to think that one or two negative examples are somehow a valid representative sample of certain group of people, which is wrong.
That attitude, combined with feeling of entitlement of "being represented" is disgusting. Worst of all, these people cause much more damage to themselves, than the "misrepresentation" does and are not even aware of it.
Gay men and lesbian women are both marginalised and both lack proper represenation in the videogame world, but the problems are different.
So what? Still, the only gay men are degenerate and a prostitute. It's like saying: "yeah, all black characters in the game are illiterate thieves and rapist, but there are people of unspecified skin colour and people can find representation in them!".
Are you refering to someone in this thread, or from real world at least? Because I see no point in bringing up some vague stereotype, if that's not the case.
First of all, if you look at broader picture, it's usually not "one or two examples" - especially if you take a look at trans people, for example.
And second thing - if you had 10 gay men in Witcher 2, then I doubt anyone would doubt Dethmold, the same way you usually don't mind men being awful in fiction, because there are usually many more examples within piece of art. In Baldur's Gate you have cowardly men and courageous men, wise men and stupid men, manipulative men and naive men. If that was the case with The Witcher 2... Well.
None of your replies are valid. Still, only thing that matters to you is sexuality, skin colour or gender. That's exactly the problem here. The fact you even said that bit: confirms that you don't give a damn about anything else. Because screw hundreds of actually important traits people can relate to, all that matter is race and gender. Why don't you see how stupid that is?
And yes, I'm reffering to many someones here. That also is invalid reply. The reason there is supposedly so little gay people in the Witcher 2 is the souce material, and on what said source material was based upon. Let's keep it short: Witcher world is essentialy a crapsack world, similar to medieval Europe with fantasy elements. Now, you're not seeing mcuh gay people there? Oh, maybe because openly coming out as gay back then was not a good idea and that society wasn't that understanding then? Surely, these are factors to consider.
"cowardly men, courageus men, wise men, stupid men..." etc... I'm not sure if I should be happy that you are actually seeing something else than race, gender or sexuality or should I be ashamed that you never notice that such examples are actually in there.
This is not condemnation. I am however stating that this is the problem, and serious one at that.
You might have the point with how I approach that problem, but here's the deal: I'm not a diagnostist nor therapist, but I know the general things about these fields, simply because I had to learn it while I was studying at university. And here's the basic: you can help, or even only reach, the patient/client if he/she wants to.
Why I'm saying this?
Because people don't want that. They prefer to have very shallow and labeling outlook at characters (and I hope that doesn't translate to view towards actual people) and keep their feeling of self-worth based on non-existent characters in media.
Check out the first (I think?) reply I gave you on this topic. I mean what I said back then. Seriously, first time I learned that you apparently think, that representation in media somehow validates your existence, I was disrurbed and concerned. That's not healthy.
Artona said:
"yeah, all black characters in the game are illiterate thieves and rapist, but there are people of unspecified skin colour and people can find representation in them!".
confirms that you don't give a damn about anything else. Because screw hundreds of actually important traits people can relate to, all that matter is race and gender. Why don't you see how stupid that is?
Well, those false accusations you make about me ("you ony care about sexuality, skin colour and gender!") are stupid. They are also pretty insulting and demeaning, I wish to point out.
But I'll make an effort to make things simpler, because apparently something gets lost in translation.
I'm not saying that gender, sex, orientation or skin colour are the only thing people can relate to. I'm saying that portrayal of those characteristics can make people angry, if creators seem to associate things like homosexuality with sexual deviation. If all people with dark hair in Witcher 2 were deviants, then I could see dark haired people getting angry. If left-handed were portrayed as stupid and ugly, then maybe left-handed felt offended.
But that's not the case. The case is that on two occasions The Witcher 2 makes effort to show or mention someone's homosexuality, is for deviant and prostitute. Really, if you made a game where the only white people are all into incest, then it would be the same issue.
That explanation is irrelevant and unnecessary. I've read all was written about Geralt (not really) from Rivia dozen times before games were a things.
Nobody in this thread hates on Witcher because it needs more gay people - the issue is how they are shown. If they decided to introduce gay men into the story, why did they have to make them appaling?
I have answered myself that question and apologize for being jerkass and making you feel worse.
@Artona
The accusation wasn't for no reason. I point out that the character is shitty human being and that has nothing to do with his sexuality. People, on the other hand, act like sexuality was the only thing that matters. They won't relate to merit of someone idealistic and good like Saskia, but are offended because gay person is potrayed as an evil deviant. In a cynical, unpleasant and overall bad to live in world, as you surely know.
Also, I guarantee you that your example with "dark hair" is invalid, because idenity politcis doesn't deal with hair color.
As for your last question - as you surely know, the world in story is cynical, brutal, full of violence, depravity and so on. Good people are actually minority in there, so seeing Detmold depicted this way is no surprise. Given that homosexuals are minority in real world, and that good people in the Witchers universe are minority (or at least, are emphasized less), it's easy to deduce that it's most likely than not that one gay character would be depicted as evil, instead in more positive way. Is that logical explanation?
If you want to have a constructive discussion, you need to stop doing these things. This is not an explanation, it's an excuse. The Witcher's world didn't just spring into existence fully formed and ready for people to put stories in it. Flesh and blood people chose to write it that way, and flesh and blood people decided to only portray gay men in a certain way. They're responsible for that choice and subject to criticism for it. Worldbuilding isn't a get out of criticism free card, it rather raises the question, "why is the world written in such a way that we can only have terrible gay people in it?" After all, many demographics have a more balanced representation despite the excuse that good people are in the minority in the Witcher setting, but somehow the idea that this is a crapsack world must utterly define how gay people are represented. That is a very thin argument, as well as an excuse.
Not true. Already explained the issue. Also, topic of this thread is representation and diversty in writing, so it's reasonable to examine the Witcher 2 from that point of view.
Saskia is not a gay man and @Buttercheese already explained why her portrayal (as a lesbian) may be different from Dethmold.
So?
No. You use no deduction here and we are not talking about statistics, but content with creator. So you commit fallacy.
It was still demeaning and rude.
Excuse me, I'm not the one who is offended because of writing. I also know, and at least can logically explain why things can be written this or that way. I won't take offence because the character doesn't represent me. Can't you see that I have some basis to act like I do?
Also, about the "excuse". Not, it is not excuse. As an author, A. Sapkowski decided how he is going to present the world his novels take place in. He took some concepts, inspirations and that's about it. He, neither any other author, has any obligation to adjust his concepts because some people might get offended. IF the author decides to do so, that's his/her decisions. All I did with so called "excuse" is explaining you why representing gay people may be non existent in a universe with that particular setting. In this case, we have logic vs. feels argument.
@Artona
1. How is that not true. Also, when speaking about writing and writters I already said: writters have no obligation to pander towards certain group of people. Criticize it if you want, but I don't think the cirtique is for any valid reason. Unless you want to imply that by simply writing the story the way you see fit, not caring about represenation, you are somehow a horrible human being.
2. I am talking about Saskia's actual merit (like idealism) and you mention a lesbian. With this, you emphasized that her being lesbian is more important than her other traits. Courage? Idealism? Strong moral compass? Competence? Strong and charismatic female character? NAH! LESBIAN!
3. Is that supposed to be an answer?
4. We are not talking about statistics, that's true, but still the story setting and rules the setting is based on does matter a lot. It is a huge factor for a writer. If the setting has to have strong sense of realism, homosexual characters are bound to be a minority, and in prejudiced society they will be even less emphasized, as coming out wouldn't be very pleasant to them.
And since you mentioned the creator of content, the creator is also a human being, who's sole intention might be to told the story he/she wants to told. Not "I have to represent certain group of people in positive way, because otherwise I'm going to be criticized". Or worse, called racist, sexist or bigot.
5. I am tempted to reply with "So?", but I won't. Yes, that was rude, I admit it. At this point thought, I don't think any apologies would matter.
And no, you haven't logically explained anything. I haven't seen any actual logic in your posts. I have seen multiple assertions about what you think people believe and what you think people should believe, and I've seen you snap at people for not conforming to the latter, but logic? None. If anyone in this thread is offended, I would say it's you because your clear anger whenever anyone says race, gender, or sexual orientation are important in terms of representation.
I strongly suggest you learn to see things from other people's perspectives and stop projecting your issues onto everyone else.
Please don't bother to @ me again. I have no desire to interact further with you.
As I have said many times in the past, the Site Rules explicitly say that personal attacks of all kinds, direct or indirect, are off-limits. Always, and no exceptions. Respectful conduct is not "recommended"; it is mandatory. Say whatever you want about representation in video games, but your fellow forumites are off-limits.
The next time you post in this thread, think about whether you're talking about the subject of the discussion, or if you're trying to say something about the other people in this debate. If it's the latter, then delete it.
This discussion is not about your fellow forumites.
So, is stating that a character is offensive not taking offence? Because that statement is present in this topic.
As for logic, I explained why the setting such as the the Witcher's is not very likely to have many gay characters, why most likely a gay character will be a bad person in-universe. Earlier, I explained why valuing too much R/G/S is a harmful thing.
My assertions are based upon observation. That's one. Second, I do understand why people believe what they do, even if I disagree. As for reasons why I disagree, I stated them before. I don't care for representation, as long as the character are written well. In addition, if my experiences with media are of any indications, putting the focus on representation instead of writing good story is a bad idea, resulting in dissapointing product. Examples of this are how Marvel Comics generally sels nowadays or inept games like Mass Effect: Andromeda. Was focus on representation and political correctness really worth it? Because it did affect quality very badly.
I also strongly suggest you learn to see things from other people's perspective, because I don't believe you get mine at all. And I'm not projecting things. I have stated before that I rate character and actual people on their merit, not on factors they have no influence over. I see people as people, not people as straight or gay.
I don't know what you learned in school, nor does it matter in the least. Even if you have an actual doctorate and training in a mental health field, and not just a few semesters in the subject as an undergraduate. These people are not your patients, @O_Bruce.
The only information you have about these people are a few paragraphs about a video game debate. No mental health professional would give advice based on such incredibly limited information.
Already explained *twice* now and I'm not sure how to rephrase it. From my point of view discussion looks like this:
- The way the Witcher 2 shows gay men can make some people angry.
- All you care about is sexual orientation!
- That's not true. I'm simply saying that if all gay men in your game are either deviants or prostitutes, someone may have problem with that portrayal.
- You see?! All you talk about is orientation, because this is all you care about!
It seem like you don't differentiate between internal logic of piece of art and logic of interpretation, or a metalevel, if you will. The world of Witcher 2, observed from "the inside" is a gritty and dark place, and surely Dethmold fits there. But at a same time, he is creation of writers of the game, who made decision to make him the way he is. They said "okay, this man will be gay". You can explain that using logic of the game world.
You said "They won't relate to merit of someone idealistic and good like Saskia, but are offended because gay person is potrayed as an evil deviant."
You mentioned homosexualism in regards to Saskia, not me.
And - okay, you got me. When talking about representation of gay men in the game, I talk about *gasp!* representation of gay men in the game. It's like going into thread about music they shouting "Omg! All you guys care about is music!".
And if that needs explaining: I'm not talking about competence, strong moral compass, courage and idealism those aren't traits you are born with, and as that they are not base for unfair discrimination. There are no "naturally brave people" who have to face stereotypes that they are feminine, talk in high-pitched voice and use handbag.
No. That is inquiry what it has to do with anything. I don't care about identity politics and see no reason to bring it up.
Nobody is talking about number of homosexual in the game. Already explained that.
Also - there is nothing in the Sapkowski's books (that have such a beautiful character like Regis) that make Dethmold necessary or needed. Witchers being unable to have kids? Sure. Aen Seidhe elves being dying race? Sure.
I never claimed to car about their intent or I care, really. I'm interested in piece of art and what it tells.
And I think writers should be big boys and girls, who can take on things like that. Especially when they created those terrible sex cards in the first game.
Let it go.
But
The TV series Luther 2010 & Idris Elba were @#$! awesome!!! <---you see that there? 3 exclamation marks... i never do that.
*also i can't watch movies or tv series where the protagonist is gay.
If you carve out sexuality, which you seem to be arguing, what's left?
More to the point, why do you think sexuality shouldn't be promoted?
* Children have parents
Okay. When mod demands, user listens.
@dreamtraveler:
I agree, though with a degree of hesitation. It is, however, how it works here in Poland - our constitution forbade invoking totalitarian methods of fascism, nazism and communism, among other things.
I never understood what people exactly mean when they talk about "promotion of homosexuality". It's not a product you can acquire, it's not even a life-style you can take. It's something you're born with and there isn't much to be done about that. It's not like after watching "Milk" number of homosexuals in society will suddenly rise.
Unless we are talking about removing sexuality from the picture entirely, just like @BelleSorciere mentioned - but I guess it could work with some pieces of art, but then again, it wouldn't be about homosexuality, but a sexuality per se.
And to return to topic: I spent some time on old Bioware forums and I was quite surprised to see that among lgbt+ community there Dorian was critized as his characters uses many stereotypical "gay traits" (he's sparkly, flamboyant, likes fashion and luxury, and so on), and that his character quest is directly tied to his homosexuality.