Representation vs. Tokenism

[Holoman]

Firstly, could someone tell me what the Q stands for in LGBTQ? I see this being added more and more but I don't know what it means.

Anyway on topic, I think you're right to worry because someone is undoubtedly going to think it's tokenism. But at the same time if you removed them some other people would complain there are no homosexual people, so you can't win.

I tend not to notice these things anyway. I don't even notice gender/race/sexuality balances when I read or watch TV/film.

One thing I'm doing in my WIP, is to have a gay character but never directly expose the fact. So one of my characters is gay, and that influences a lot of what he does, particularly his relationships etc. He has a failed relationship and kids with a woman who he cares about deeply but, being gay, doesn't want to be with. I never show him doing anything gay, and some readers probably won't even pick up that he is.

 

[Miskatonic]

I assume Q stands for queer. Being serious.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

I assume Q stands for queer. Being serious.

I thought it stood for "questioning"

 

[Ireth]

I thought it stood for "questioning"

It's both, much like the A stands for both Agender and Asexual.

 

[FifthView]

Firstly, could someone tell me what the Q stands for in LGBTQ? I see this being added more and more but I don't know what it means.

It stands for queer. The odd (ahem) thing about the term, from what I understand, is that lots of people identify as "queer" who are straight, gay, bi, and whatever else, with respect to love interests–but they have a queer identity, i.e., see themselves as being outside the norm in some way. Probably your best bet would be to look all this up because, although I'm gay myself and I do "grok" the idea of queer identity, I doubt I'm explaining this well.

There is also, btw, an entire field of literary (and/or social) theory called queer theory. I've read a few of the important texts in the field, but I've not studied it more extensively.

 

[WooHooMan]

Don't quote me on this but I was under the assumption that the Q stood for queer as in gender queer. Agender, hermaphrodite, intersex, non-binary and so forth. It's almost a catch-all term for anyone who doesn't fit into L, G, B or T.

 

[Ireth]

Don't quote me on this but I was under the assumption that the Q stood for queer as in gender queer. Agender, hermaphrodite, intersex, non-binary and so forth. It's almost a catch-all term for anyone who doesn't fit into L, G, B or T.

Almost, but not quite. There's an I for Intersex in the acronym too, as well as the A that I mentioned earlier. (I'm not sure hermaphrodite is an accepted term anymore.)

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

Almost, but not quite. There's an I for Intersex in the acronym too, as well as the A that I mentioned earlier. (I'm not sure hermaphrodite is an accepted term anymore.)

What terms are "accepted" and not accepted changes at a confusing rate. "Queer" used to be a derogatory term, didn't it?

 

[FifthView]

It's almost a catch-all term for anyone who doesn't fit into L, G, B or T.

It's not an entirely specific term, at least when approaching the subject from a normative POV. I.e. from the idea that people can easily be labeled L, G, B or T or straight. So it's not a checkbox for Other when those don't apply. I remember one of my first encounters with someone who self-identified as Q who said, "I'm straight and queer.” I, who am gay, asked Huh? Because I'd only met gay men (mostly) and some lesbians who'd used that term to describe themselves until that point, and it was an adjective more than an ... Identity? Label? ( Obviously it's been around for a while.)

Having nonconforming or non-normative identities can take many forms. But it's easier, in my opinion, to self-identify as Q than it is to label another as Q unless that other person has already self-identified. Which, I think, is a large part of the point of Q.

Here’s a link to an explanation that meshes somewhat with my understanding:

What does the Q in LGBTQ stand for?

 

[FifthView]

Am I overthinking this, or is it something I am right to be concerned about?

My gut instinct is to say that the moment you start worrying about representation vs tokenism, the representation becomes tokenism. Simply representing a character as that character is, is one thing, but the conscientious bending of plot to accommodate a minority character is the definition of tokenism, or close to it.

Another problem in your particular case is that tokenism typically relegates the token to a minor role. Person A says, "Why must character be X, if character is a minor character and X plays no role in the story?" and B answers, "In order to have X." Now, saying that the character spoke to one announcing her Xness and that's why she is X doesn't carry enough strength for a reader because it doesn't quite answer the "Why X?" question. I.e., the character needs to speak to the reader also, even if it's a minor character. The X needs to feel like a given, a necessary part of that reality, even if it's not particularly important to the plot. The author has no time to interject, "But the character announced herself as this, that's why!" during the reading.

 

[Ireth]

My gut instinct is to say that the moment you start worrying about representation vs tokenism, the representation becomes tokenism. Simply representing a character as that character is, is one thing, but the conscientious bending of plot to accommodate a minority character is the definition of tokenism, or close to it.

So what are you suggesting I do?

Another problem in your particular case is that tokenism typically relegates the token to a minor role. Person A says, "Why must character be X, if character is a minor character and X plays no role in the story?" and B answers, "In order to have X."

It's not a matter of what the character MUST be, it's a matter of showing what she IS. I didn't consciously write a gay couple into my story from the start; that's just how things turned out as the characters developed.

Now, saying that the character spoke to one announcing her Xness and that's why she is X doesn't carry enough strength for a reader because it doesn't quite answer the "Why X?" question. I.e., the character needs to speak to the reader also, even if it's a minor character. The X needs to feel like a given, a necessary part of that reality, even if it's not particularly important to the plot.

That's what I'm trying to do with expanding on these characters' orientation in more than one scene. Basically, with regards to the "Why X?" question... "Why not X?"

 

[FifthView]

I'd say just focus on creating believable, interesting, deep (or at least, non-shallow) characters, even the minor characters, and worry less about what happens to them, whether they are killed early or not, or what activists and critics will say about the inclusion of X.

If there's no difference between "Why X?" and "Why not X?", then....neither reality is particularly important and X isn't particularly important. It's incidental. And this may lead to a feeling of tokenism. But if you write it so that neither question arises for the reader, then you might be able to avoid that reaction. Keep in mind though that you can't please everyone, and some people will always ask "Why X?" regardless of what you do.

I realize this may be a rather vague answer to your question, so sorry in advance! :redface:

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

There's really no way to win. No matter what, someone will find your portrayal of minority groups offensive. There isn't a right way to do it that will satisfy everyone.

And...in a sense, you can't really "represent" minority groups with one character (or two, or any number.) They're one character.

So, there's not much you can do except be true to the character.

 

[WooHooMan]

Almost, but not quite. There's an I for Intersex in the acronym too, as well as the A that I mentioned earlier. (I'm not sure hermaphrodite is an accepted term anymore.)

I know an hermaphrodite who identifies as an hermaphrodite. So, some people seem to accept it.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

It's not a matter of what the character MUST be, it's a matter of showing what she IS. I didn't consciously write a gay couple into my story from the start; that's just how things turned out as the characters developed.

This I totally get. When I made my huntress Addison Lane a lesbian, it wasn't like I wanted her to be homosexual. I just felt like that's who she is. There are some ways I start to take over and redefine my characters because I want to do something new with them, but orientation wasn't something I planned. It just felt like a part of her. For me to make her straight would have felt wrong. Nobody would know except me, but I'd know, and the character being forced to be straight by me would make her feel less real, less independent, not worth writing…

Ireth, if you're creating characters as I do—that is, letting the characters be themselves (or how you made them on a subconscious level), then it can't be tokenism. You're not saying, I need lesbians for diversity's sake. You're saying, they're lesbians… and if anything, you made one change because you didn't have the heart to break them up with a death. (You hear that, Person of Interest episode #100?)

Tokenism is Peter Jackson changing a character's gender so the Hobbit won't have an all-male adventuring party. There is absolutely no reason to change the gender of a character in an existing story besides, "I have no women. Now I have one woman. Box: checked!"

 

[Deleted member 4265]

Like others have said, there are always going to be people who are unhappy with the way you represent a certain group. What people perceive as an "authentic" representation vs. tokenism is largely down to their own preconceptions regarding the group being represented. I think the only thing you can do is make something you feel is a good representation. What's important is the intent behind it.

 

[Laurence]

So, good news. All you have to do is erase your character and create a new character with your subconscience!

 

[Ireth]

So, good news. All you have to do is erase your character and create a new character with your subconscience!

What do you mean?

 

[cydare]

Hi there! I'm quite new to the forums, but I just wanted to throw in my two cents and hopefully reassure you.

Tokenism is
- Adding characters for the sake of claiming diversity. "My novel is inclusive, it has lesbians!"
- Making the characters fit into stereotypes rather than rounding them into a real person.
- Giving the character no role other than showing off their diversity point

Having characters which happen to be lesbians (or any other group) isn't a problem. Characters' sexual orientations don't have to play a role in the story. They may shape how they perceive parts of the world and react to certain situations (especially in worlds in which sexualities that vary from heterosexual are frowned upon), however, they don't have to.

The women in your story don't have to be main characters. They need to be as developed as the MCs either. Work on developing them as much as you would any other side character with a similar level of involvement in the story. They're just two women who happen to be in love.

You're right in thinking "Why not X" rather than "Why X". Because, really, why not? LGBTQA+ people exist, and why shouldn't they be in the story too?

 

[AElisabet]

Hi there! I'm quite new to the forums, but I just wanted to throw in my two cents and hopefully reassure you.

Tokenism is
- Adding characters for the sake of claiming diversity. "My novel is inclusive, it has lesbians!"
- Making the characters fit into stereotypes rather than rounding them into a real person.
- Giving the character no role other than showing off their diversity point

You're right in thinking "Why not X" rather than "Why X". Because, really, why not? LGBTQA+ people exist, and why shouldn't they be in the story too?

I think that is a pretty good checklist. I have a major character in my WIP who I've finally admitted to myself is gay - I think I've "known" that he is gay for a while, but I was nervous about writing it. So I think this has been on my mind a lot.

What concerned me about my character is that he takes on the role of an antagonist in the second half, and I was worried about having a "villainous" gay character. (This is a fairly grey morality world, so by villian I mean more Tywin Lannister than "Dark Lord." And I love Tywin Lannister). But he isn't villainous because he's gay, and he's definitely not stereotypical.