Tumblr often points out how important equality is in books, on TV. Despite the flaws it has, I find that it often raises some very good points, and really does help to make people aware of diversity, and also a much broader diversity than is commonly imagined. Just because places like Tumblr talk about LGBTQA+ people on the internet does not mean that they only exist on the internet. Nor does it mean that people, who say, identify as pansexual or asexual, are fictional or internet identities.
In fact, the internet is one of the only places where these people are visible.
I think it's important to consider that from an objective point of view. I don't believe that to believe there are people who self-identify (since, I would argue, self-identification is the only form of identification that truly matters) as LGBTQA+ means you have to be part of those letters. I feel that they are all equally valid sexualities, and they are seriously underrepresented within fiction. I don't read as widely as I should, so perhaps I'm missing out on a lot. I know that there are sections on Amazon, say, dedicated to Gay and Lesbian Fiction (although I could debate pros and cons for whether needs to be relegated to its own section - is it indeed relegated?), so clearly there are inclusions for people of all sexualities. But - in mainstream literature, TV and film. The bestsellers lists, the blockbuster films, the most-downloaded Netflix TV series - is that representation there?
In TV, increasingly, yes. I'm aware of more representations in more shows. Just recently, a cartoon generally intended for children (which I won't name in case people are yet to see it) confirmed two of the characters as bisexual. Shows are being made where people of multiple sexualities are vital to the plot, for example Orphan Black. I could easily go on about the amazing representation of all the characters in Orphan Black, but for this blog post, I'll keep it basic. One of the main characters is gay, is a rent boy, and is marvellous. Another of the characters, Cosima, is either gay or bisexual and it generally depends who you ask, and her girlfriend Delphine is bisexual. A trans character was introduced in the last series. That is representation. And the thing is - it's not like that's over-representation. In life, you come across people of all sexualities, and so that's what it should be like in television and in literature. TV has been doing it for a while, beginning, truly, from Russell T Davies's Queer as Folk in 1999/2000, and being drip-fed into soaps and dramas since then. In novels, for example, Will Grayson Will Grayson, a novel partly written by hugely successful author John Green. It's not his most well known novel - but it's there, on every bookshelf in every bookstore, in the teen fiction section. A novel about two guys with the same name that fall in love.
So representation is there. But this blog post is here because every day I see, and reblog, posts about heteronormativity and "queerbating", and there is still a fundamental lack of proper representation. These are not internet concepts, just as sexualities the wider public may not be as aware of are not internet sexualities. They are not modern ideas. They've always been there, they're just emerging, because like-minded and "forward thinking" people have a common ground to discuss it. And those people are watching TV, are reading novels, and writing the future TV and novels. So naturally, a wider representation is being, pardon the current meme pun, craved.
There's the whole thing of shipping, which could be another blog post or twelve. Shipping is great. People having OTPs is great. People imagining OTPs and writing fan fiction is also great. People craving (sorry again) the need for two characters of, for example, the same sex to be together and having to infer their relationship and sexualities is less great. It's less great because they have to infer it. Why not say? Sherlock, for example, has one of the best opening TV episodes of any TV show. A Study in Pink is marvellous. There's the scene at the restaurant where Sherlock confirms he does not like women romantically and does not confirm he does not like men. John does not confirm this either - but Sherlock says he is married to his work. So, asexual? Possibly gay? Was his fake relationship in Series Three totally passionless - meaning could he be bi? The thing is - we don't know. How easy would it have been for the writer to tell us? The fan fiction could still exist even if both characters were confirmed as straight - that's not what matters. It matters that the opportunity was there yet it almost feels misleading because the lack of confirmation has created speculation. Maybe that's a petty argument - but lots of people don't think it is. And it's my opinion. But that whole lack of speculation, the little hints and nudges, the lack of confirmation even now - is where "queerbating" stems from.
I understand that in today's age, still, it's hard for, on an American 'kids' show, the writers to overtly have a character say "I am [insert sexuality here]". That's, unfortunately, the way it is. But the writers still confirmed it afterwards, away from the series, and stopped the speculation there. An indiscreet will they/won't they storyline (that was more understated than even that) in a show that has never had conversations about sexuality is different to a show that has and still won't own up. People do have the opportunity to be honest, and to say that "yes, this character is pansexual" or whatever - or at least make it as clear as they can. But dangling it in front of the audience isn't really acceptable. And hopefully, by writing more about diverse characters, it will soon reach the stage where kids shows CAN talk about sexualities, properly.
This blog is very directly about sexuality because if it was about feminism or any other wider topics of equality, I wouldn't stop talking. The representation of females is again, only sporadically great. But this is something that pops up every single day, and as someone who writes, it's something I think about a lot. Me and my friend, when creating a project to work on, consciously discussed characters, personalities, looks (more outfits, to be fair) and sexualities (in no particular order, I might add). Our desire to write characters or to create them a certain way ended up, coincidentally, with a group of main characters who have various sexualities. It was only afterwards we realised we had only one heterosexual main character. (I'm reminded of a Tumblr post that mockingly complains about the lack of them on TV at the moment.) It's not a problem. It just is and it's wonderful.
Despite all this though, and quite paradoxically, it is key that the sexualities are the "least interesting thing" about the characters (to quote Cosima, there). It is a part of them but it is not them. Connor Franta, YouTuber, recently came out as gay and said in his video that he would not let his sexuality "confine or define him". I feel this is as it is for characters. It is a part of their personality, it tells them and the writers who they look to love, and that's it. The thing is - that's all it needs to be. Having LGBTQA+ characters on screen is, in a sort of unfortunate way, a statement if it needs to be, (they should not be just a statement) but it is enough to have the representation that people feel is mostly missing. As long as they're properly good characters, but that's an essential for every character ever created.
People just need to be there. People of all races, of all genders, of all sexualities and beliefs. And that's it. And not just suggested. Proudly confirmed. Confirmation doesn't need the direct words - it can use images, passing comments, but that is still confirmation, and can still be proud. Writers should be proud of their characters and be proud of people enough to strive to equally include people in their writing. It's not a burden. If it's not a burden to easily write heterosexual white men, or not a burden to write a family, or a group of space pirates, it's not a burden to write people that we pass every day on the street.
And I hope people do more of that in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment