Skip to main content

How "Representation" In Fiction Becomes Toxic


Some things sound so obviously good that they don't need to be examined.  One of those things is the idea of Representation in fiction; movies, television or books.  Entertainment where some people are conspicuously absent would seem to be an obvious problem, right?  A person doesn't have to be "woke" or any sort of feminist to occasionally watch an old television show and realize (for example) that all the scientists and astronauts in an old movie are men. It's as glaring an anachronism these days as watching a show where everyone is chain smoking cigarettes.

Entertainment should reflect the diverse nature of real life and society because, in the end, fiction has to be even more real than real life.  If nothing else, it makes that entertainment more interesting to introduce characters with a variety of backgrounds and challenges.

And so we're told that diverse fiction is BETTER fiction.

The way that this rather obvious truth is often framed, often discussed, is that fiction needs Representation.  Which is about where it all starts going off the rails.

Representation has to be understood as a "term of art".  But for once, it's actually really close to the real meaning of the word.  Is there someone in the TV show that you're watching, in the book that you're reading, that represents you?  

So, lets do this with "me" and the 1950's era space show with the 100% male scientists.  Do I want the representation of "me" to walk into a scene and present as a blonde ditz?  Not really.  Do I want me to be the antagonist, a saboteur?  That would be interesting, but it wouldn't be how I'd like to be represented. Do I want me to be a complication to the plot?  Do I want my representative to be screwing around with married men and causing discord on the team? Do I want it to be a bit part? Do I want bad things to happen to me? Do I want to fail over and over again?  What do I want?  

At the end of the day, it turns out that what I really want is a Mary Sue self-insert into the story.  I don't want "me" to be immoral, ineffective, counter-effective, vain, criminal, deceitful, conflicted, untrustworthy, or stupid.  

I want to be heroic and loved by all.

Except that would be really bad fiction.  Not BETTER fiction.  BAD.

The whole concept of Representation ties characters and the creative process to the need to make someone feel good about the character that represents them.  If you're handicapped, for example, it's not Representation to have a handicapped character in a movie if they turn out to be a jerk or a criminal.

 People joke that when you're watching a crime show and there are a variety of suspects that the white man will be the guilty one.  Or the Christian rather than the Muslim. It happens often enough that people notice.  Because if the criminal is the Black woman or the trans kid or the Asian in a wheelchair, that character will be seen as the Representation of everyone somewhat like them.  And clearly that would be hate.


I want to be heroic and loved by all. Doesn't everyone? 

Characters put into a story for the purpose of Representation aren't always poorly written.  They're not always a self-insert-by-proxie Mary Sue. But they often are. Often they are just that.  (Enter the Mary Sue we know as Rey.)

I believe there are two elements to why this sort of impulse to inclusion goes so badly so often.

First, the concept that one character is Representation for a race, identity, or condition, assumes group or collective identity. 

Second, the representation of invisible characteristics is ignored or even deliberately devalued.

I never identified with Nancy Drew, and I even look like her.  I liked the Hardy Boys better because they were more like me on the *inside*.


~brb said…
That 1950's sci-fi you decry had Representation: it just served a different collection of ethnic stereotypes. Usually the cast had one American, one Brit, one Italian, one Jew, one comic-relief Irishman or Scotsman... Maybe if it was really progressive it had a Russian, a Pole, or an Asian of indeterminate nationality.

(Does this begin to sound like the Enterprise bridge crew to you?)

Eventually, readers/viewers grow up a little and begin to recognize Representation for what it really is -- Tokenism -- and they get fed up with it, because it is not unlike being force-fed lima beans. As you probably remember from your childhood, in the long run, being told, "I don't care if you don't like it, eat it, because it's good for you" just engenders resentment.
Synova said…
Thanks for your comment, brb. :)

Popular posts from this blog


  Somehow I never got this colored and posted.  Anyhow, everyone should be honest about what their goals are and what they have as intended results.   ADDENDUM: When I added Popper's Paradox to the "labels" on this, I did a quick check that I had his name right and saw the fast and dirty definition on wikipedia, that unfettered tolerance simply means that the intolerant will always win.  This is baloney, of course, because we can *contend* without being intolerant.  We can still advocate for tolerance among everyone.  But even so, it struck me just how Popper's Paradox plays into the Progressive/SJW ethos. Intolerance isn't wrong. Racism isn't wrong. "Punching" isn't wrong. Political violence isn't wrong. Hate isn't wrong. Not even fascism is wrong. The Progressive/SJW ethos is that none of these things are wrong, they only become wrong based on who is targeted by those things. Those who like to quote Popper believe intolerance a moral ne

Why We Can't Have Unity

  Trump didn't divide the country. Let's get that out of the way first. There's several things that have divided us but the people who get elected are only the symptoms. Collective Identity is why we can't have Unity.  Don't believe me? 1) Dealing with groups is tempting because it's a force multiplier, and we've had "group politics" forever, but it's reached a tipping point. Everyone is considered primarily their group identity. 2) A failure to buy into this group identity ideology has been framed as racism. So we're told to believe that people with ideological differences or who question dividing everyone into group identities are not just people with different opinions, they are evil. Even arguing against the focus on group identity will get you called a racist. 3) Group identity defines nearly everything. Racism, right and wrong are no longer defined by actions or attitudes, at least by a critical percentage of the population. Right, wr

Why it doesn't matter what Parler allowed.

Because allowing people to say scary things in public (or mean things, or false things) doesn't inflame anyone.  It attracts people who are already inflamed. There used to be a joke that went more or less something like this:  There's a couple thousand white supremacist militia members in the US and two thirds of them are undercover FBI agents. And that's the second reason.  Because we actually want the scary conversations to happen in public. Driving those conversations underground doesn't make them go away. Inflamed people are still inflamed except now they are also legitimately aggrieved.  We have thousands of years of History that proves that this is true. Short of simply killing everyone of a certain mindset, ideology, religion, or culture, it's impossible to make them go away by forcing them to keep their scary ideas quiet.  Killing a few simply creates martyrs, not converts. Economic oppression, which was used against the Jews as well as endless other minorit