a ramble about representation

Just cuz I had some thoughts I felt like getting off my chest.

So like, I've been avidly watching a lot of you people with your original projects and honestly I've been seeing an awesome amount of projects with diverse casts. Not just personality spectrum, but race, gender identity, sexual and romantic orientations. I think it's great to see that plenty of you have given a lot of thought about that.

One thing I actually want to get feedback on is 'what are you doing it for?' Because when you're doing representation for a minority, I believe it's important to give regard to your 'purpose'.

You know how many movies and TV shows you've seen where there's one token minority? Like the Big Bang Theory with a predominantly white cast and then there's Raj, the one Indian character. Or how Glee initially started out with one openly homosexual character, things like that? And then people got sick of things like that, finding that they can't see themselves in tons of media. Wanting things like a Disney princess that represents them and so on (like more tan/darker skinned princesses, etc). Now the latest trend is go around taking characters in fandoms and inserting all these random headcanons for the sake of 'diversity'.

In a sense, I can understand where people are coming from with this. I'm asexual and fuck I would LOVE to see actual characters who identify as ace onscreen. I really would. But at the same time, I personally see no point in forcing ace headcanons onto characters I like, even ones who seem like I could relate to them. At the end of the day, that character is NOT my OC and no matter how many headcanons I project onto them, they will never be the canon and the 'diverse headcanons' will only matter to a small handful. Representation and diversity should occur in canon because that is actually what reaches the bigger audiences, what teaches them about those things and actually leads to further understanding. Insisting to people that 'APH Iceland is ace-aro, end of story!' is not just shoving your personal agenda, but the fact that it's not supported by canon means that people don't get to understand why you believe in that headcanon, nor do they get a visual representation of what that aspect of diversity even means.

Insisting a character is gay is not the same as a character who is canonly represented as gay. Let's take the example of one of the classic slash pairings Kirk/Spock. These characters are shipped together and it's incredibly popular, but at the same time... it's not canon and it never will be. Spock even has a canon love interest iirc, and it's a heterosexual pairing. Insisting to someone that Kirk and Spock are SO GAY for each other is not going to translate across every spectrum. You'll get people who agree because they ship it, but you will always get those people who are like "but how? i don't see it. Kirk isn't gay. Spock has a female love interest so he can't be gay."

Now let's try again. Cam and Mitch from Modern Family are gay! Telling that to someone will get universal agreement BECAUSE IT IS THE CANON TRUTH. They are depicted as a couple on that show, they even adopted a child together and are shown to be great parents too. Right there is canon representation of a homosexual relationship, a healthy one, gay parents with a daughter they do very well to provide for. And that sort of representation is where people can become more understanding because they actually get to see it right there in front of them, they cannot dispute it.

Hell, let's look at all those gender headcanons. There was that person whose name I forgot that edited a wiki article to try and claim that Samus being trans was canon. While there were some who were up for the headcanon, the majority were not. Why? Because there is nothing in the canon games that actually proves it. As far as most people are concerned, Samus is female and that's that. While I am TOTALLY up for representation of transgender and so on, you are seriously going to alienate and confuse people if you insist certain characters to identify a particular way that differs from canon. If you want people to see actual representation, you should point them towards it. For example, Laverne Cox's character on 'Orange is the New Black'. Actual trans MtF actress, the character is a WoC MtF trans. The character is a great example and ACTUAL representation. And you must remember that gender identity was something people weren't very aware of until these very recent decades. You have to understand that people will never be onboard with diverse gender headcanons until they understand the sheer concept itself. It's so important that people are educated rather than alienated, otherwise you will never get there, it just won't translate.

Honestly, even now I get confused with certain terms like 'demigender', how bigender and genderfluid are any different, etc etc. I'm pretty open-minded but I'm telling you that me a year or two ago would have thought all this to be 100% rubbish. Most people in the world still think that gender is as simple as 'male' or 'female' and that transgender doesn't exist. I'm telling you right now that 'headcanon representation' will never change their minds. Actual canon representation is more likely to make people reconsider their position. It was only a few years ago where people were against homosexuality but after watching the romance of Kurt/Blaine in Glee that they felt it more acceptable. Fanon didn't do a damn thing. Canon did.

It's all fine and dandy to want representation, but what are you doing it for? Are you wanting representation to show a more realistic depiction of society? Are you wanting to have these diverse characters educate wider audiences about certain things like better understanding of a particular culture, or a sexuality, or a gender identity issue? Because while representation is great, you have to be careful about a few things:

- avoiding the 'token' characters: your token Hispanic character, your token homosexual who embraces every goddamn homo stereotype, that trans character BECAUSE DIVERSITY!!!!111
- is this actually legit? If you're story-telling, you should always be considerate of your setting. Is this a world where ____ is possible? Are they still a minority and if so, how are they treated in this setting as a minority? Is this completely normal/mainstream, if so, how did it become that way? I'm telling you right now, if your story is set in the 1800s or whatever, your character being openly bisexual is REALLY FUCKING UNLIKELY. And if they are bisexual anyway, what are the consequences if this becomes known, how are they keeping it secret, how do they feel about being bisexual? Because if your character is a minority in a discriminating setting, the character themselves is definitely going to be shaped by it.
- To follow up on the above, if you're having diverse representation, you're going to be doing your audiences a MASSIVE FAVOUR by portraying it realistically as possible. Poor representation of a minority is actually more likely to increase misunderstandings. Why do you think it's such a big deal that Russians are often portrayed in villain roles and then there's a bunch of Americans irl who are like "fucking commies!!!" with their attitude? If the setting is during a time period where those attitudes were prevalent then kay, it's good to be realistic and not sugarcoat nasty attitudes, but in a modern day setting and it just so happens your evil villain is from the Middle East, theeeen holy fucking shit, it's time to be thinking your choices through.
- Don't let the representation distract you from your actual purpose. If your storylines are based around the representation, then great. But if the storyline has nothing to do with it, it can be quite conflicting and your audience won't necessarily buy into what you're trying to accomplish.

And one of my favourites:

JUST BECAUSE YOUR CHARACTER REPRESENTS A MINORITY DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD BE GIVING YOURSELF A PAT ON THE BACK FOR DIVERSE REPRESENTATION. Your character could easily be as shitty as the next classic cis white male character tbph. If your character is special because they're a mixed race panromantic asexual genderfluid with pink hair and asperger's, then honestly I don't give a flying rat's ass. Now, if your character is special because they have this fascinating storyline, they lead an interesting life, have a well fleshed out backstory and tons of intrigue and it just so happens that they're mixed race panromantic asexual genderfluid with pink hair and asperger's THEN you have a better chance. Your character is not special or interesting just because 'lol diversity'.

And I'm all for people labelling themselves and their characters if it makes them comfortable to do so. I'm all for people having all these interesting headcanons and whatnot. I'm not for people enforcing this sort of representation in a way that puts others off and makes them closed off rather than willing to learn more. I'm up for representation that empowers people and educates others who didn't previously understand. I'm up for representation combined with amazing storylines, fleshed out characters and relationships. And you don't get to give yourself a pat on the back for representation until your portrayal truly resonates with someone. Token representation doesn't make anyone feel special. Forcing it upon others doesn't teach them about it.

I know that media is hard. As an asexual I am constantly waiting for a character who is openly asexual. I am waiting for someone well-known to be like "you know what? I'm ace". It feels like I'm never going to get that. I also don't think grasping for straws is good either. If you want representation, it ought to be good representation, right? And sometimes wanting representation is actually this: you have to be someone who is capable of providing it for others. I'm a story-writer. I can totally find ways to incorporate it into my stories. I want to see more people come up with stories, because eventually one or more of them will make it to the mainstream, and finally that representation people have been looking for will be there. It will never get there if people don't make the effort to get it there.

I guess to give an example... my four main leads in the Mystic Show.
Xavier - a panromantic asexual. These orientations aren't what purely define him, and a good portion of the story you get to know him for more his personality, reading through his actions and watching his development. It becomes noted that while some of the other male characters display more awareness of sexuality, it flies over Xavier's head a lot in terms of interest. My goal is for people to get to know him as character before they are ever made aware of things like orientation. It's only going to be until Xavier's bond with Quin is high enough that he starts to get confused about the blurred lines between "I really like this person as a friend" and "actually no wait I'm hella romantically attracted to this person" - and as an asexual, that line is so complicated and it's a major thing for us. I don't really get sexual attraction, so understanding a romantic connection simply isn't based upon whether I want to bang 'em or not. And it's through character development and story progression that the reader will realise that they've been watching the development of an asexual protagonist all along. And honestly, so many people misunderstand asexuality, that the only way for them to understand is actual depiction.

Quin - His representation isn't intended to be obvious from the getgo, similar to Xavier. He seems like a fun-loving guy who ends up very popular with the others, both the guys and the girls of the group, and quite frankly, all the characters in the Mystic are quick to assume he's straight. Quin's adventurous, outgoing, pretty wild, is very 'blokey' around the other males of the group, seems to want to look super cool in front of the ladies. An important thing about Quin is that he is one of the more complex characters in the Mystic Show, and a major part of his storyline is watching it all unravel. Xavier plays a key role in getting through the layers to Quin's character, and likewise. Quin in a sense, is a representation of many things. One of them is the struggle of identity -> who you really are as a person VS how you think society should view you. Quin is the fear that being true to yourself will only lead to discrimination, but he is also the courage - following Quin in the Mystic Show means you're going to be watching a character who starts out trying to be what others expect him to be, to coming out as who he really is. Ultimately Quin is indeed homosexual, but I think that his journey is going to be a relatable one.

Miriama - a WoC, not only that but a Maori one - and I'm telling ya, Maori culture lacks representation. She's a WoC in a leading role, not just in terms of being a protagonist, but within the main group in the Mystic she is the essential leader. With this dysfunctional group though, Miriama is in a position where she has to prove her worth as the leader. She experiences tons of power-play storylines, battling Abel and Chris, one being a representation of brawn and the other being the brain; she's up against Kaitlyn a lot of the time, who uses manipulation, charm and beauty to her advantage; and not to mention Stanford, an incredibly eccentric man who consistently expresses his doubts and questions Miriama's purpose. I think in Miriama's representation, I want to show her being strong against these tough odds and showing that she really does have the qualities of a fantastic leader. Not only that, but I want people to see the vulnerable sides too - just how much it hurts to have to constantly stay strong when so many around you are doubting your position.

Another thing with the Xavier-Quin-Miriama main trio is seeing a trio where the girl really isn't a love interest for the guys. So often you see trios and the girl's purpose is a love interest and her general purpose is to serve the interest of the men around her. It's important for women to see healthy platonic relationships between a female character and her close male friends. It's also important to see a female character whose character arc isn't built around serving other men. In Miriama's case, while she does interact with males, it's actually these men who are there to boost her story, not the other way around. In all honesty, Abel and Chris' characters NEED the presence of Miriama and Kaitlyn in which to build upon their respective characters. Miriama and Kaitlyn don't need them in order to serve purpose, but Miriama especially so. She's an independent woman and other characters need her more than she needs them.

And I think a good deal of my watchers know about Holly. She's shy, she's vulnerable, deliberately designed to be unattractive, overweight, etc... in terms of presentation she is obviously flawed. The Mystic Show constantly challenges Holly on this. Holly seems like someone who will fall into the Ugly Duckling trope, where their visual ugliness causes them to be the subject of ridicule but later on the Ugly Duckling will grow up to be a beautiful Swan who wows everyone with their beauty. While an interesting message itself - someone you picked on long ago could turn out to be even better than you in later life... it's very superficial and unrealistic. With Holly I wanted to highlight that her transformation will never be a visual one except for one thing - she will go from unconfident to confident... but she doesn't have to undergo some big makeover on the outside to do so. Holly is going to go through tons of character development and become a much better person all without having to break her true identity. She'll always be a chubby person, she'll always love food and have extremely poor taste in fashion. She'll always be more of an indoorsy person and she'll always be introverted. What she'll prove however is that she can still be a strong person who is proud of who she is, and she will show the world that it cannot break her, never. I'm really hoping to write Holly's character development well though, because it's a crucial part of the Mystic Show series as a whole. She is one of the most unique protagonists I've ever had to work with and I'm determined to make her memorable and do her justice.

And yes I do believe that characters with weight issues need representation. Many people misunderstand them because there's a lack of it. What I mean by this is I don't believe in media promoting unhealthy weight. In fact I discourage that... but it's important to show it to create understanding of the struggles people go through. And with Holly I will be clear that I am trying to write her into a healthier lifestyle, whilst maintaining the true essence and nuances of her character. I want her happy and confident, but I don't want to force unrealistic expectations onto her. The key is realism and it's way way easier said than done. Still, if Holly becomes an inspirational character in future, then I will be satisfied. So far when I've told people about my plans with Holly, I've had positive feedback, so that's something.

...Yeah, I know I talked a lot. But I guess my explanation of my main four was to show you representation and how I plan to actually incorporate it in a way that makes sense, that is relatable, that could serve as a platform of understanding. The kind of representation I want to see is the kind where the creator could go on and on about the character. I could write essays on any of my main characters in the Mystic Show and their complexities and what they bring to the table. If I'm honest, those characters are among the best I've ever created for myself. I love my 'Blood of Fay' characters but I haven't quite gotten them to the same level as my other cast.

And these essays would be more than just representation. I could just go on and on about my characters for ages and ages, I really could. But I want to hold back, because I don't want to spoil crucial plot points and stuff like that too much.

But it all falls back to my main point:

I LOVE REPRESENTATION, BUT THERE ARE WAYS TO CREATE GOOD REPRESENTATION RATHER THAN TOKEN REPRESENTATION. KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO. ALSO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT FANON REPRESENTATION DOES FOR PEOPLE AND WHAT CANON REPRESENTATION DOES FOR PEOPLE.

and while I'm here I'd love to hear people with original projects tell me about their representations, what it means to them and how they intend to incorporate it, what they wish to accomplish by incorporating it.