Talk:The Grimm Reaper/@comment-25995041-20191112162616/@comment-35434444-20191113152335

I don't know if I criticized this scene when it came out, but I remember saying something. Either way I've had time to think it over since then.

LGBT characters? Fine. The scene? fine (actually it's pretty good.) Pandering to the leftists? Whatever -- I can't act like it's stupid to be too political if I get political about other people being political.

When this came out, a defence I think Fatmanfalling in particular made for it was something to the effect of, "it's better to have more demographics because it adds variety." I.E nothing short of a period piece could not be improved by sprinkling some gay and melanin on top of it.

I think I disagreed with this because it would start to feel contrived, but I've thought it over. Why do works of art sometimes have lots of intricate patterns and filigree on them? No reason -- it's just nice to have all that jazz. Well, maybe for Fatman race and sexual orientation is a way of jazzing things up. Makes sense.

However. I still have something I'd like to raise...



I agree with every dissertation on the value of diversity, both in terms of a social value and a writing device. I just don't think demanding it is going to work.

If this is supposed to be about representation, then twisting RT's arm until they acquiesce is not what you want. What you want is for the creators to include LGBT relationships because they want to do it. Not because you want them to. If you have to force them, then I question your motives. It seems to me like you just want them to kowtow to your particular ideology which completely misses the point of trying to be virtuous.

   After all, what is putting more gay people onscreen supposed to do for the LGBT community? Raise awareness? Make them feel more included? More acknowledged? That's putting the cart before the horse. Because If you do that, then including LGBT people will just because the new way of ignoring them! If the writers had in them to become aware   of the LGBT community in an authentic way they would have already included however many LGBT characters feels appropriate.

Think about the tired trope of the token romantic love interest. Nobody cares about these things. A boy the protagonist. The girl shows up. Absolutely nothing transpires between them throughout the whole movie and suddenly they're tickling each others tonsils at the end of the third act. Just a complete non-subplot that's just thrown in so that it can be pushed as far out of the screenwriter's consciousness as possible because it's felt to be obligatory.

If you make it mandatory to include diverse people, that's all that will happen. It will be insincere because all the moralizing in the world is treating the symptom and not the cause. Any creator who's heart isn't really in the thing will include the LGBT people and then dispense with them and efficiently as they can get away with. We're very lucky in this case that RT seemed willing to do at least something like this from the outset and as a result it's come off rather well. But be care full what you wish for because you might just get it and force all these other writers onto a bandwagon they don't care to ride.

Bottom line on this, if an LGBT scene is natural it's because the writer already has an inclination towards putting it in. But you can't force someone to be natural.

Nothing is more calculated to put a virtue out of reach than raising it on a pedestal. That's why two thirds of marriages end in divorce the last time I checked. Because each partner requires that the other loves them and love is an extremely difficult thing to output 24/7 as opposed to olden times when people married for practical reasons instead of romantic ideals.

You want them to dance in order to remember. What will you do if they dance just to forget?

You might say, "How is this different from any other criticism? Surely writing isn't always about what the writer wants. What if we wanted diversity just because it's fun?"

True enough. The same applies there. If we all say something is good writing and the writer doesn't want to do it, no force on heaven or earth can make him do it in any way that isn't fake. What then is the point of criticism?

<p class="MsoNormal">As far as I can tell, there isn't a point to it. We do it because we can't help talking.

<p class="MsoNormal">The only difference I'd say there is, is that critique falls under concerns of quality assurance which puts a bigger onus on the writer than ideological issues, especially if they don't do anything overtly hateful. Therefore it makes more sense to expect certain things of them even though whether or not they can comply runs into the same problem.

<p class="MsoNormal">I know this was a long message culminating it not much of anything, but I just wanted to put this issue to rest, at least as far as my own thoughts go. It's one of the biggest ongoing controversies of the series and if it comes up again, I don't feel that I'll have much more to say about it unless it impacts the plot set up by my precious Lost Fable.

<p class="MsoNormal">In short: These people want diversity? Give it too them. I hope it works out.

<p class="MsoNormal">In the words of Spoony, "I hope they live."

<p class="MsoNormal">I'd make more apologies and disclaimers how this is just going to floor the entire wiki with how arrogant and philosophical it is, but I'm going to stir up opposition no matter what I do, so it's not worth caring about.

<p class="MsoNormal">Here goes for nothing.