Replying to Avatar Lyn Alden

In the entire original Star Wars trilogy, no two named female characters ever spoke to each other.

In fact there, were only four named women across the trilogy, throughout six and a half hours of content spread across multiple worlds, and for most people they can only name Leia.

I'm not bringing it up as a criticism; just an observation. Sometimes guys wonder why their girlfriends/wives don't love their favorite fiction quite as much as they do.

It's not to say a given story *should* have more characters of XYZ demographic, but basically if a guy tunes into a movie and no two guys ever speak to each other in it, and it's ladies everywhere with hardly any men around, you'd basically just get the vibe pretty quickly that this wasn't written with you in mind at all. If you like it, that's great, but it's kind of by accident since you just weren't really considered as part of it being put together. I do like Star Wars, for example.

I love the Breaking Bad show, too. The premise didn't appeal to me on the surface (middle-aged guy with cancer, young drug maker guy, and to the extent that there are women in the show it's mostly the wives of the important characters), but my husband told me it was great so I watched it with him and loved it. Wouldn't change a thing about it.

And then of course, since we can't have nice things, over the past decade the attempts to put more diversity into fantasy or science fiction have been pretty ham-fisted. Rey is a trash character, basically. Almost any attempt with this sort of stuff is lazy. Books have generally done it better because it comes from one author's mind rather than some committee.

I think part of why the TV show Arcane was so well-received (especially the first season) was that it had a ton of different characters in it but it wasn't *about* that diversity. It just happened naturally as a byproduct of good writing and care. A bunch of very different characters dealing with themes that are about technological progress vs safety, economic disparity and sovereignty, extremism to achieve goals, etc. Young and old, male and female, rich and poor, all different colors. Rather than feel forced, it just seems obvious in that setting.

I've put some thought into this when writing fiction. Men and women, and people of various cultures, do have a ton in common in the fiction they like. Probably more than most realize.

-My number one priority is to just write good stuff and tell the story I want to tell. By default there are a broad range of characters in a story like that, at least in my head. Otherwise it would feel boring. Unless I was writing a specific period piece (something like Saving Private Ryan set in WWII battle zones where obviously it would almost all be men), I'd have to go out of my way to write a story where no two men ever speak to each other, or no two women ever speak to each other. That would take effort.

-My second consideration is to of course think about my audience (which a lot of current media trends ironically don't do- they just create a piece to fulfill their own grievances and forget about the main demographic that would actually want to watch/read what they made). How would different people experience it? That's where beta readers are helpful, but also just a basic 101 test of imagining like five different people reading it and getting the vibe of whether it's written with them in mind, or not. The goal in that case is certainly not to write for everyone (eg most stories I think of tend to be quite dark and violent, and with substantial complexity, which is a combo that already excludes a lot of people), but to at least be aware of the types of people I might be writing for. The natural state of things in a sufficiently complex setting is a broad range of character types.

Basically when I exclude types of readers, I want it to be a conscious decision rather than "huh, I hadn't considered that."

If you want to make money, mayve you need to keep your audience in mind. If you want to make timeless art (ie Lord of the Rings - also devoid of women), what your audience wants should be the least of your concerns.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

The way I look at it, whether writing fiction or nonfiction, it’s not about writing what the audience wants- it’s about successfully landing what’s in your head into the audience’s head.

That means understanding the audience. If there are inadvertent frictions between you and the audience, the work is less likely to spread the entertainment, ideas, themes, and so forth as the creator sees it.

This is obviously a very wide field where we can't make any generalisations, but I still that your point sounds a bit like "but how do we serve the mainstream" (and I think: we shouldn't) whereas my point is more like "how do we just be creative and artistic" (but I agree that not all works must meet that criteria, there is a gray zone in between).

I'm pretty sure Franz Kafka or Kurt Vonnegut didn't give a flying fuck about some potential audience, but people will be talking about their work for centuries.

Tolkien probably also didn't think (or even plan) that his work would become pop culture.

The Bible? Absolutely horrible and impenetrable in every possible way - but somehow it found an audience.

I guess, if a work defies all norms and surprises us, an audience that nobody could have predicted will somehow materialize.

Ironically I think this about bitcoin. I don’t think satoshi intended it to be more than a hobby project with some cool use cases for a fringe. Like ‘this is what a censorship resistant internet money might resemble.’ Not that it would actually have the sink thrown at it by regulators and BIS etc. I don’t know what the rest of my point was but here’s at least half