Historical or alternate history fiction falls under pure fiction imo. That’s fine as long as it makes sense. If it’s meant to be some super grounded realistic historical slice-of-life then it would just make me think “when are they going to bring up the fact that there’s X type of person walking around here” for the whole story.
Not exclusive to black people. If there were a story that took place in 12th century Mongolia and there was some Nordic guy walking around I would be like “huh, what’s his story” and then be confused when it was never mentioned. That’s how I feel about a lot of these creative choices.
Except there actually were people of different cultures/ethnicities/nationalities in other places in the past, often without anyone caring that much. Sure, it was often notable but it wasn’t always exclusionary. Implying this shouldn’t be done is the real historical fiction.
“It happened” and “it is good writing” are different imo. I just want diverse characters in typically mono-ethnic settings to have a story as to how they got there. I feel like that’s just good writing.
It could be part of good writing. It absolutely isn’t required. We don’t get the background on most characters. Why should they have to give detail they wouldn’t provide for other characters just to satisfy you?
But magic doesn’t have any grounding or association with the world as we know it. Neither does aliens.
We can only use the world as we know it as a frame of reference for a story.
I’d argue in lbaudia’s example that it is confusing if in 12th century Mongolia, there was some Nordic guy walking around, I’d imagine there to be a backstory of some kind. If there wasn’t, then that would definitely be an example where I’d be annoyed at white people in fiction.
I thought a great example of casting was the TV show “The Expanse”. To be able to cast someone as specific as Bobbie Draper so well - these studios have no excuse to whitewash as they do except laziness.
I’d argue that magic does have grounding in our world. Sure, we understand today (at leady most of us) that it isn’t real. For most of our history people have believed magic was real though, and attributed real events to magic. We have the word because it has a long history of people thinking it exists. If a story wanted to use “magic” to explain events, that’d be pretty realistic to the times it’s taking place in.
People made these exact same arguments about the inclusion of a black samurai in an Assassin’s Creed game.
A black samurai who was based on a real person who actually existed in history.
The game they’re playing is very obvious to anyone who’s actually paying an ounce of attention, and it has nothing to do with caring about historical accuracy.
It’s bullshit. It’s an excuse. It’s foolish. I do not suffer it gladly.
Assassin’s creed is purely fictional and has very little basis in reality, so no, people do not make the exact same argument about Assassin’s creed, because my argument necessarily excludes it as I have said already lol. Besides, Yaskue was a real person. It’s not even historically inaccurate and his origin is explained.
Good example, in Castlevania Nocturne they introduce a bunch of multi-ethnic characters and give them all backstories as to how they ended up in 19th century France. I think that’s awesome, and I love to see the thought and effort being put in there. I don’t want these characters to be white, I want them to have a story.
Historical or alternate history fiction falls under pure fiction imo. That’s fine as long as it makes sense. If it’s meant to be some super grounded realistic historical slice-of-life then it would just make me think “when are they going to bring up the fact that there’s X type of person walking around here” for the whole story.
Not exclusive to black people. If there were a story that took place in 12th century Mongolia and there was some Nordic guy walking around I would be like “huh, what’s his story” and then be confused when it was never mentioned. That’s how I feel about a lot of these creative choices.
Except there actually were people of different cultures/ethnicities/nationalities in other places in the past, often without anyone caring that much. Sure, it was often notable but it wasn’t always exclusionary. Implying this shouldn’t be done is the real historical fiction.
“It happened” and “it is good writing” are different imo. I just want diverse characters in typically mono-ethnic settings to have a story as to how they got there. I feel like that’s just good writing.
It could be part of good writing. It absolutely isn’t required. We don’t get the background on most characters. Why should they have to give detail they wouldn’t provide for other characters just to satisfy you?
I feel like this is deliberately obtuse lol
That’s literally just a longer way of saying that it’s okay if it’s magic but it’s not okay if it’s black people.
& yeah, I’ll hold my breath for people getting equally upset about white people in fiction. Any day now. I’m sure.
I can’t disapprove a hypothetical, I guess, but a hypothetical isn’t proof of anything either.
But magic doesn’t have any grounding or association with the world as we know it. Neither does aliens. We can only use the world as we know it as a frame of reference for a story.
I’d argue in lbaudia’s example that it is confusing if in 12th century Mongolia, there was some Nordic guy walking around, I’d imagine there to be a backstory of some kind. If there wasn’t, then that would definitely be an example where I’d be annoyed at white people in fiction.
I thought a great example of casting was the TV show “The Expanse”. To be able to cast someone as specific as Bobbie Draper so well - these studios have no excuse to whitewash as they do except laziness.
I’d argue that magic does have grounding in our world. Sure, we understand today (at leady most of us) that it isn’t real. For most of our history people have believed magic was real though, and attributed real events to magic. We have the word because it has a long history of people thinking it exists. If a story wanted to use “magic” to explain events, that’d be pretty realistic to the times it’s taking place in.
People made these exact same arguments about the inclusion of a black samurai in an Assassin’s Creed game.
A black samurai who was based on a real person who actually existed in history.
The game they’re playing is very obvious to anyone who’s actually paying an ounce of attention, and it has nothing to do with caring about historical accuracy.
It’s bullshit. It’s an excuse. It’s foolish. I do not suffer it gladly.
Yes, and I loved that they wrote the black samurai character into that game to tell that story! I don’t get your point?
That you are, whether intentionally or unintentionally, toying around with white supremacist propaganda narratives.
That’s my point.
Narratives created to influence your mind and radicalize you.
No one is immune to these influences. Beware.
No, nuance exists and this is ridiculous absolutism lmao.
Assassin’s creed is purely fictional and has very little basis in reality, so no, people do not make the exact same argument about Assassin’s creed, because my argument necessarily excludes it as I have said already lol. Besides, Yaskue was a real person. It’s not even historically inaccurate and his origin is explained.
Good example, in Castlevania Nocturne they introduce a bunch of multi-ethnic characters and give them all backstories as to how they ended up in 19th century France. I think that’s awesome, and I love to see the thought and effort being put in there. I don’t want these characters to be white, I want them to have a story.