The difference between real life and fiction, is that real life doesn’t follow a story. Things happen because things happen.
But if you’re going to introduce an element into a story, it should have some kind of impact on that story - more than just a drive-by “I’m queer” that never gets elaborated on.
I used this as an example elsewhere, but tell me which feels more shoehorned in:
Snape and Dumbledoore supposedly being gay lovers despite it not being hinted at even once in the entire film’s chronology up to the point JKR said so, and is never brought up again (at least in the main movies, never saw the spin-offs).
Mitchell and Cameron in Modern Family where not only is their relationship introduced right away, but also used as an actual story element throughout the series.
Which one feels like it was a meaningful addition vs. a marketing gimmick?
That’s what shoe-horning is. It’s adding a trait to a character just to make them more marketable, or to make them seem deeper than a puddle of water, without ever eluding to that trait anywhere it actually matters.
If you’re going to make a character’s straightness an explicit character trait, then it should have impact.
Think “How I Met Your Mother” for example. You have three guys in the main cast (Ted, Marshall, and Barney), all of whom have their straightness pointed out right away, but pursue it throughout the series in different ways due to their other characteristics. Marshall the married man, Ted the hopeless romantic, and Barney the bachelor/player (ironically played by Neil Patrick Harris)
Or the James Bond movies, almost infamous for having heterosexual romantic subplots (lacklustre plots IMO, but still). Those subplots alwayd tend to have some impact on how the movie plays out - whether he gets tricked by her, has to rescue her, or is even rescued by her, his romance with the Bond girl always affects the story in some way or another.
Given we live in a hetero-normative society, of course most heterosexual romantic plots are going to focus purely on the romance aspect rather than the intricacies of being straight, but could you replace the Bond girl with a guy? In theory you could, but in reality Bond’s sexuality is so well defined in canon at this point, you would be told you shoehorned it in if you tried, as it has had not just an affect on the movies, but also people’s perceptions of Bond.
This is to say that a character’s sexuality is a fundemental trait of a person, something that paints their dynamic with other people (sometimes subtly, sometimes very unsubtly). Just tacking that sexuality on as an afterthought in such a way that you could take any and all mention of sexuality away and it’d have literally no affect on the character dynamics or the story being told is just bad storytelling no matter the sexuality being exploited for marketing.
It’s wild that you pick 2 of the most egregious, sexist womanizers in fiction as if that’s a meaningful precedent against the countless heterosexual characters and relationships that just exist, as homosexual characters and relationships should be allowed to. Sexuality can be an important trait of a character, but acting like it has to be is absurd.
One, I could give you that for James Bond, but are you really telling me you think How I Met Your Mother is sexist?
Two, I pulled two prominent examples out of my head, I apologise if they weren’t perfect examples by your definition.
You want other examples, pick basically any media where relationships are a thing:
Friends, exploring the on and off again dynamic between Ross and Rachel, the more stable relationship of Monica and Chandler, or the rather innocent bachelor lifestyles of Joey and Phoebe. The characters heterosexual traits have a huge effect on how the series pans out.
Superman, in almost every iteration of Superman, he falls in love with and pursues Lois Lane. Every iteration handles the dynamic differently, but him falling in love is nearly always subplot.
Spiderman, his first relationship with Gwen Stacy, or rather how it ends plays a large part in how Peter handles being Spiderman, and that’s without mentioning how MJ influences him in most iterations.
All three of these, the character’s heterosexuality is explicit and has an impact on the story.
When I say it has to have an impact on the story, I’m not saying it has to have a huge impact and be a deep introspection into being LGBT, I just mean that if you’re going to say a character is LGBT, it should have at least a minor impact on the character in the story, i.e. you should actually show them acting as such rather than mentioning it and going nowhere with it as if it’s just a throwaway line.
That’s not their heterosexuality having an impact, it’s their relationship with other characters. Literally all of those would be no different as same-sex relationships.
Regardless, they again don’t hold a candle to the countless hetero characters and relationships that just exist in fiction without being some big character trait. My point isn’t that romance can’t be important, it’s to question why an LGBT character has to justify themselves just existing in media when nobody holds heterosexual characters to the same standard.
And now you’re missing the forest for the trees. I could say exactly the same for any homosexual relationship in media… But it wouldn’t be the same, because someone’s gender/sex is also an important defining trait.
The dynamic between two men, two women, or a man and woman in a relationship, or the pursuit of one, will be different simply because of the different sexes involved.
I’ve given you examples to prove my point, give me examples where heterosexual character’s “just exist”, where their relationships have no effect on their story. You’ll struggle, because when a character’s relationships are pointed out, it almost always has some effect on the story.
Because when you define anything about a character, the audience rightfully expects the character to be shown expressing that defined trait, or for that trait to have some kind of impact on them.
It’s not just being LGBT that has to have some justification to it. It’s any explicitly defined trait a character has.
So if you point out that a character is LGBT, the audience will expect for that to bleed through in how the character acts, or for it to have an impact on the story - and it’s not like that doesn’t apply to straight people.
Without elaborating on that trait, it feels shoehorned in simply because it would’ve changed nothing if you simply never defined that trait in the first place. The trait was tacked onto the character, not made a part of them.
The arguement you just made about heterosexual relationships, while wrong in that specific instance, uses exactly the same logic that you’re fighting when I say it to justify the view that creating unelaborated, throwaway character traits is shoehorning.
Considering I’m talking explicitly about relationships that aren’t pointed out or are a key plot point, I’d say you’re the one “missing the forest”. Hetero-normative characters are just that - the norm. They aren’t pointed out because everyone will assume it already, and none of them apparently need intricate explanations to you to just be straight. But if a character is just gay, it’s all of a sudden something that needs to be justified? Get out of here.
Firstly, I find it hard to believe you could even provide me an example where a character is in a relationship without that relationship ever being pointed out.
Secondly, I didn’t say the relationship had to be a key plot point. In my examples they are, because those were the easiest for me to remember, but they don’t have to be.
The core of what I actually said is it’s shoehorning if you give a character a trait but never use it, or make that trait their only reason to exist in the story. It stinks of being added for marketing, and is bad story-telling.
That’s why my first example was a shoehorned in retcon that absolutely only exists because marketing, cause explain why else JKR never once touched upon it until that point.
As to hetero-normative people assuming a character’s sexuality. You are right, but that’s the same with literally any normative trait - race, relgion, gender, etc… If you don’t name it, people will assume it.
You get around that by defining that trait, and when you do define that trait, people will expect that your character affirms that trait in how they act.
You act like people want an essay for why an LGBT character is LGBT, when what most people want is just for the character to actually be seen acting like they are, and not for that to be the only reason they exist in the story.
I could say I’m the President of the United States, but if you never see me acting like it, I might as well have made it up - that’s the crux of it.
The difference between real life and fiction, is that real life doesn’t follow a story. Things happen because things happen.
But if you’re going to introduce an element into a story, it should have some kind of impact on that story - more than just a drive-by “I’m queer” that never gets elaborated on.
I used this as an example elsewhere, but tell me which feels more shoehorned in:
Snape and Dumbledoore supposedly being gay lovers despite it not being hinted at even once in the entire film’s chronology up to the point JKR said so, and is never brought up again (at least in the main movies, never saw the spin-offs).
Mitchell and Cameron in Modern Family where not only is their relationship introduced right away, but also used as an actual story element throughout the series.
Which one feels like it was a meaningful addition vs. a marketing gimmick?
That’s what shoe-horning is. It’s adding a trait to a character just to make them more marketable, or to make them seem deeper than a puddle of water, without ever eluding to that trait anywhere it actually matters.
Does “I’m straight” have to have an impact on the story?
If you’re going to make a character’s straightness an explicit character trait, then it should have impact.
Think “How I Met Your Mother” for example. You have three guys in the main cast (Ted, Marshall, and Barney), all of whom have their straightness pointed out right away, but pursue it throughout the series in different ways due to their other characteristics. Marshall the married man, Ted the hopeless romantic, and Barney the bachelor/player (ironically played by Neil Patrick Harris)
Or the James Bond movies, almost infamous for having heterosexual romantic subplots (lacklustre plots IMO, but still). Those subplots alwayd tend to have some impact on how the movie plays out - whether he gets tricked by her, has to rescue her, or is even rescued by her, his romance with the Bond girl always affects the story in some way or another.
Given we live in a hetero-normative society, of course most heterosexual romantic plots are going to focus purely on the romance aspect rather than the intricacies of being straight, but could you replace the Bond girl with a guy? In theory you could, but in reality Bond’s sexuality is so well defined in canon at this point, you would be told you shoehorned it in if you tried, as it has had not just an affect on the movies, but also people’s perceptions of Bond.
This is to say that a character’s sexuality is a fundemental trait of a person, something that paints their dynamic with other people (sometimes subtly, sometimes very unsubtly). Just tacking that sexuality on as an afterthought in such a way that you could take any and all mention of sexuality away and it’d have literally no affect on the character dynamics or the story being told is just bad storytelling no matter the sexuality being exploited for marketing.
It’s wild that you pick 2 of the most egregious, sexist womanizers in fiction as if that’s a meaningful precedent against the countless heterosexual characters and relationships that just exist, as homosexual characters and relationships should be allowed to. Sexuality can be an important trait of a character, but acting like it has to be is absurd.
One, I could give you that for James Bond, but are you really telling me you think How I Met Your Mother is sexist?
Two, I pulled two prominent examples out of my head, I apologise if they weren’t perfect examples by your definition.
You want other examples, pick basically any media where relationships are a thing:
Friends, exploring the on and off again dynamic between Ross and Rachel, the more stable relationship of Monica and Chandler, or the rather innocent bachelor lifestyles of Joey and Phoebe. The characters heterosexual traits have a huge effect on how the series pans out.
Superman, in almost every iteration of Superman, he falls in love with and pursues Lois Lane. Every iteration handles the dynamic differently, but him falling in love is nearly always subplot.
Spiderman, his first relationship with Gwen Stacy, or rather how it ends plays a large part in how Peter handles being Spiderman, and that’s without mentioning how MJ influences him in most iterations.
All three of these, the character’s heterosexuality is explicit and has an impact on the story.
When I say it has to have an impact on the story, I’m not saying it has to have a huge impact and be a deep introspection into being LGBT, I just mean that if you’re going to say a character is LGBT, it should have at least a minor impact on the character in the story, i.e. you should actually show them acting as such rather than mentioning it and going nowhere with it as if it’s just a throwaway line.
That’s not their heterosexuality having an impact, it’s their relationship with other characters. Literally all of those would be no different as same-sex relationships.
Regardless, they again don’t hold a candle to the countless hetero characters and relationships that just exist in fiction without being some big character trait. My point isn’t that romance can’t be important, it’s to question why an LGBT character has to justify themselves just existing in media when nobody holds heterosexual characters to the same standard.
And now you’re missing the forest for the trees. I could say exactly the same for any homosexual relationship in media… But it wouldn’t be the same, because someone’s gender/sex is also an important defining trait.
The dynamic between two men, two women, or a man and woman in a relationship, or the pursuit of one, will be different simply because of the different sexes involved.
I’ve given you examples to prove my point, give me examples where heterosexual character’s “just exist”, where their relationships have no effect on their story. You’ll struggle, because when a character’s relationships are pointed out, it almost always has some effect on the story.
Because when you define anything about a character, the audience rightfully expects the character to be shown expressing that defined trait, or for that trait to have some kind of impact on them.
It’s not just being LGBT that has to have some justification to it. It’s any explicitly defined trait a character has.
So if you point out that a character is LGBT, the audience will expect for that to bleed through in how the character acts, or for it to have an impact on the story - and it’s not like that doesn’t apply to straight people.
Without elaborating on that trait, it feels shoehorned in simply because it would’ve changed nothing if you simply never defined that trait in the first place. The trait was tacked onto the character, not made a part of them.
The arguement you just made about heterosexual relationships, while wrong in that specific instance, uses exactly the same logic that you’re fighting when I say it to justify the view that creating unelaborated, throwaway character traits is shoehorning.
Considering I’m talking explicitly about relationships that aren’t pointed out or are a key plot point, I’d say you’re the one “missing the forest”. Hetero-normative characters are just that - the norm. They aren’t pointed out because everyone will assume it already, and none of them apparently need intricate explanations to you to just be straight. But if a character is just gay, it’s all of a sudden something that needs to be justified? Get out of here.
Firstly, I find it hard to believe you could even provide me an example where a character is in a relationship without that relationship ever being pointed out.
Secondly, I didn’t say the relationship had to be a key plot point. In my examples they are, because those were the easiest for me to remember, but they don’t have to be.
The core of what I actually said is it’s shoehorning if you give a character a trait but never use it, or make that trait their only reason to exist in the story. It stinks of being added for marketing, and is bad story-telling.
That’s why my first example was a shoehorned in retcon that absolutely only exists because marketing, cause explain why else JKR never once touched upon it until that point.
As to hetero-normative people assuming a character’s sexuality. You are right, but that’s the same with literally any normative trait - race, relgion, gender, etc… If you don’t name it, people will assume it.
You get around that by defining that trait, and when you do define that trait, people will expect that your character affirms that trait in how they act.
You act like people want an essay for why an LGBT character is LGBT, when what most people want is just for the character to actually be seen acting like they are, and not for that to be the only reason they exist in the story.
I could say I’m the President of the United States, but if you never see me acting like it, I might as well have made it up - that’s the crux of it.
deleted by creator