| Angelus said: 2. I don't believe he was saying there needs to be a reason for characters to be male, or status-quo, just that there doesn't need be one to justify them NOT being that either. Which, tbh….it's a weird thing to say that any type of character doesn't need to be justified. All characters need to be justified via good writing, regardless of who they are. Though from the stand point of whether or not one needs extra justification for falling outside the status-quo of casting, I think we can all agree with that, if we're being reasonable. Unless the production in question is of a very specific nature, where it would be strange to see certain people represented, there is no reason to demand something beyond the scope of what we subject the status-quo representation to. |
Of course, a character's actions need to be justified, what that character does needs to be justified in order for it to be a believable character. What I'm saying is: there doesn't need to be an explanation to that character's ethnicity, gender or sexual preference. If that character is gay, so be it. There doesn't need to be a subplot of homophobia or something like that to justify why that character is gay. Diversity will only truly exist when writers stop only using gay characters to talk about homophobia or black characters to talk about racism. Minorities also live normal lives, you know?
A good example is How to Get Away With Murder. There is a gay character and two black ones in the main cast, and you know what? They have relationships, they party, they meet with their friends, they talk about anything and everything, they get sad, they get angry, they get happy, etc. Their existence isn't summed up by who they like or the colour of their skin. That's good writing: including without being cliché or stereotyping.
