Grr. Would like to reply, but Yuku doesn't seem to like it . . .. Can only use quick reply, so no pre-post corrections. Again, I apologize that this comes out as a bit of a rant.
However, as I pointed out, there's no reason the situation used as an example doesn't apply to either gender. Let's also remember that there are certain situations that simply do not transfer between genders. So the basis for the rule is already flawed, though salvageable. After all, if there is a plot twist where you find out Frank Farkle is pregnant, that would be moronic. But, if Fanny Farkle forwarded that frightening fact (fingering Fred Berkel would be frivolous), followers would feign acceptance and feel they were not fibbed to. (Sorry, Laugh In moment.)
I stand by my suggested interpretation of the rule: “If there is more than one way to get a specific character development, take the less-rapey one. Unless that’s what you’re looking for.”
The specific situation, from the joke, doesn't work because it's Mario. But, the situation John Kovalic is ranting against does apply to both genders. Why doesn't sexual abuse fit in Lara Croft's background?
While I’m not trying to accuse Rob of a prudish-agenda for posting that link (it was funny as hell!). As this took off I got to asking myself that question: Why doesn't sexual abuse fit in Lara Croft's background?
The only reason I can come up with is: People are offended by it. It makes them uncomfortable and they don’t like it, wanting to return to their own, preconceived notions of how the character should be developed. Not our character. Not our call.
Let’s also realize that this isn’t a sophomoric titillation stunt the developers are pulling. This was a knee-jerk reaction by uninformed outsiders to a perceived slight with nothing to go on but a slipped phrase from a loose tongue. It’s like the “pornographic quality sex scene” in Mass Effect or the seizing of SJGames computers for creating a Hacker’s Bible (from the old Cyberpunk days for those of you who weren’t part of that era). There’s nothing there . . . get over it.
To help people write a better story, we don’t want to take tools away from them. Basically, the idea not to include plot-points that couldn’t fit for both genders is drastically limiting and, quite possibly, could be telling real victims of sexual abuse that their experiences aren’t worth writing about.
If it’s something you don’t want to write about, for whatever reason, that’s okay. No one is going to hold a gun to your head and say “Write a rape story or I’ll blow your brains out.” But, if someone wants to write a rape story, don’t tell them they shouldn’t because “it doesn’t apply to both genders” or “it’s a lazy way of doing character development.” You have to read the story first, to see if that’s the case.
ETA: Had to fix a sentence.
robkelk Wrote:More importantly, the "rapey" bit was a particular case of a general rule: If a plot twist doesn't work when applied to one gender, it probably won't work in all the other cases as well.
JFerio Wrote:That the joke might have some logic flaws does not discount that the idea behind it has some potential usefulness to any writer.The basis for the argument has nothing to do with being a visual artist in any media, it has to do with helping aspiring writers produce quality works.
However, as I pointed out, there's no reason the situation used as an example doesn't apply to either gender. Let's also remember that there are certain situations that simply do not transfer between genders. So the basis for the rule is already flawed, though salvageable. After all, if there is a plot twist where you find out Frank Farkle is pregnant, that would be moronic. But, if Fanny Farkle forwarded that frightening fact (fingering Fred Berkel would be frivolous), followers would feign acceptance and feel they were not fibbed to. (Sorry, Laugh In moment.)
I stand by my suggested interpretation of the rule: “If there is more than one way to get a specific character development, take the less-rapey one. Unless that’s what you’re looking for.”
The specific situation, from the joke, doesn't work because it's Mario. But, the situation John Kovalic is ranting against does apply to both genders. Why doesn't sexual abuse fit in Lara Croft's background?
While I’m not trying to accuse Rob of a prudish-agenda for posting that link (it was funny as hell!). As this took off I got to asking myself that question: Why doesn't sexual abuse fit in Lara Croft's background?
The only reason I can come up with is: People are offended by it. It makes them uncomfortable and they don’t like it, wanting to return to their own, preconceived notions of how the character should be developed. Not our character. Not our call.
Let’s also realize that this isn’t a sophomoric titillation stunt the developers are pulling. This was a knee-jerk reaction by uninformed outsiders to a perceived slight with nothing to go on but a slipped phrase from a loose tongue. It’s like the “pornographic quality sex scene” in Mass Effect or the seizing of SJGames computers for creating a Hacker’s Bible (from the old Cyberpunk days for those of you who weren’t part of that era). There’s nothing there . . . get over it.
To help people write a better story, we don’t want to take tools away from them. Basically, the idea not to include plot-points that couldn’t fit for both genders is drastically limiting and, quite possibly, could be telling real victims of sexual abuse that their experiences aren’t worth writing about.
If it’s something you don’t want to write about, for whatever reason, that’s okay. No one is going to hold a gun to your head and say “Write a rape story or I’ll blow your brains out.” But, if someone wants to write a rape story, don’t tell them they shouldn’t because “it doesn’t apply to both genders” or “it’s a lazy way of doing character development.” You have to read the story first, to see if that’s the case.
ETA: Had to fix a sentence.