a million times a trillion more (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
dolorosa_12) wrote2012-02-03 01:37 pm
dolorosa_12) wrote2012-02-03 01:37 pm
Entry tags:
Representation by the numbers
I've been wanting to do a sort of 'social justice by the numbers' post, where I wrote about how well the things about which I am fannish handle matters of representation. For those of you who think that representation isn't important, I would urge you to educate yourselves, and in particular listen to people who aren't often well-represented in the media when they talk about how it matters to them that they are represented adequately.
A quick word on my methodology. I've included a fandom/text in this post if it:
a) makes me behave in a fannish manner (that is, that I want to respond to it in some way, be it with fic or meta or discussing it with other fans); and
b) makes me want to revisit it again and again in order to find new things out about it.
For this reason, only books and television shows are included, since for some reason films seem to have less of a fannish effect on me. I've suspected this is because I mostly become fannish due to characters, and although many films have excellent characterisation, I usually find that two hours or so is not long enough for me to become truly attached to their characters.
I'm giving each fandom a Representation Score (for great social justice!). The way points are allocated is thus:
A text gets one point for simply including a character from an underrepresented group (eg, a female primary or secondary character, a queer character etc).
A text gets two points if such characters pass certain other tests (eg, if it passes the Bechdel Test, if a disabled character isn't there merely to teach the non-disabled characters a lesson about tolerance, etc - basically if they're not defined by their minority-ness).
A text gets five points if said characters occupy an equal amount of screen-time as those of comparable importance (for example, if there is a show with three main leads, one of whom is straight, two of whom are queer, all three must get roughly equal amounts of the story).
A text loses five points it has such characters, but resorts to stereotypes or handles their stories poorly (for example, if a character is Othered, if women are fridged).
Obviously, my interpretation of these things is going to be subjective, and if I mess up, tell me. I am female, but in every other aspect I have privilege: I am white, I am middle class, I am straight, I am cis, I am able-bodied and I am neurotypical. I won't change what I've written (as I believe if you screw up in things like this, you should own your mistakes and allow people to see them) but I will emend my post and include people's criticism. So, let's get to it!
(Note: there are spoilers for The Demon's Lexicon trilogy by Sarah Rees Brennan, the Romanitas trilogy by Sophia McDougall, Galax-Arena and the Space Demons trilogy by Gillian Rubinstein, the His Dark Materials trilogy and Sally Lockhart Mysteries by Philip Pullman, The Pagan Chronicles by Catherine Jinks, Pretty Little Liars, The Vampire Diaries, Avatar: The Last Airbender and Buffy The Vampire Slayer.)
Books
The Demon's Lexicon trilogy by Sarah Rees Brennan:
Female primary/secondary characters? Yes. Two protagonists (Mae and Sin), multiple secondary characters. 1 point.
Passes the Bechdel Test? Yes. Many, many times. 2 points.
Do they get an equal amount of screen time as the main male characters? Definitely. The first book has a male protagonist, then Mae and Sin each get one book where they are protagonists. 5 points.
Characters of colour? Yes. Sin, who is a protagonist, as well as her father and grandmother, who are secondary or tertiary characters in the third book. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? This is a little hard to answer. Sin's story is a little bit about people perceive her (how they see that she's a black woman and make certain assumptions) and how she has come to deal with and work around that, and so in this sense, it does have this theme. But her story is also about her struggle to control the Goblin Market, the war between the magicians and the Market and her relationships both romantic and platonic, so I'm going to so no, and thus give it 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? Yes. Sin gets a book where she is the protagonist, and in the other two books she gets a roughly equal amount of attention as the other secondary characters. 5 points.
Queer characters? Yes. Jamie, Seb (and possibly Gerald also?). 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Emphatically no. One of the things I love about this book is a conversation between Mae and her brother Jamie. Mae berates him for not telling her that he was practicing magic. 'You told me straight away when you were gay!' she says. He retorts that it's not the same situation, because while magicians in this universe are murderous and dangerous, his being gay doesn't hurt anyone. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen-time? Hmm. Hard to say. Jamie is one of the five primary characters, and he certainly occupies centre stage in the first two books, although his story occupies the background in the third. Of the five main characters, he is one of two who do not get a turn being protagonists. I'll give it 3 points rather than the full five.
Characters with disabilities? Yes, Alan. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Definitely not! Alan is a badass demon-hunter, a manipulator extraordinaire, and a loving brother. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? Like Jamie, he is one of the five main characters who does not get to be protagonist, so 3 points.
Working class characters?* Sort of. Nick and Alan are very poor, mainly due to the fact that teenage Alan is the main breadwinner of the family, but I'm not sure they'd necessarily perceive themselves as such. I'll give 1 point, but I don't think class is really explored much in this series.
Score: 30
The Pagan Chronicles by Catherine Jinks:
Female characters? Yes. Babylonne is the protagonist of the fifth book, and there is a scattering of female secondary characters throughout the series. 1 point.
Passes the Bechdel Test? Very rarely. No points.
Equal amount of screen time? Not really. It's a bit of a sausage fest, mainly because until the third book, its characters are Templars or monks. I'll give it 1 point for Babylonne.
Characters of colour? Yes. Pagan is an Arab, and Babylonne is multiracial. There are other secondary characters of colour. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Indeed no. 2 points.
Equal amount of time? Since all but one of the series' three narrators is a CoC, definitely. 5 points.
Queer characters? Yes. Jordan. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Unfortunately I can't give it this one.
Equal amount of screen time? No.
Characters with disabilities? Isidore (the protagonist of the fourth book) has epilepsy. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Not at all. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? One of three narrators? I'll give it the points. 5 points.
Working class characters? Yes. All of the narrators are, and most of the secondary characters too. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Not in the slightest. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? Yes. 5 points.
Total: 25 points.
Romanitas trilogy by Sophia McDougall:
Female characters? Hell yes. Una is a protagonist, and Makaria, Noriko, Lal, Ziye, Tancorix and Jun Shen are secondary characters. 1 point.
Passes the Bechdel Test? A thousand times over. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen-time? Definitely. Una is one of the four main characters, and the other characters share the secondary-character time equally with their male counterparts. One of my favourite things about this series is that in the end, it's a band of women and slaves who bring justice. 5 points.
Characters of colour? Many. Varius, Noriko and the other Nionians, Lal, Delir, Ziye, Jun Shen and the other Sinoans, with cameos from Native American and Indigenous Australian characters. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Hmm, again this is difficult. With some of them (Varius, Lal, Delir) not at all. For others, again, the story is to a certain extent about how Roman society Others them, how they are perceived (to the extent that when the Nionian women escape, they have to pretend to be prostitutes because Roman society can't conceive of any other reason why 'exotic' women would be travelling alone without men). I'm giving it 2 points.
Equal amounts of screen time? An emphatic yes. Varius is one of the four main characters. 5 points.
Queer characters? Yes, Makaria. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Certainly not. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? She's not a main character, and we only discover her sexual orientation in the final book, but she is well represented among the secondary characters. I'll give it 3 points.
Characters with disabilities? Yes, Dama. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Hmm, hard to say. Dama's disability is his arms and hands, which were injured by his being crucified. His anger at the Roman empire stems from his crucifixion, but it was present before that and so although his anger at his disability is a motivating factor, I would argue that his drive for (what he perceives as) justice is more important. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? Yes. 5 points.
Dispossessed characters? Yes. Two main characters (Una and Sulien) are escaped slaves, as are many of the secondary characters. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Difficult to say. A major motivating factor for Una and Sulien is their desire to escape their slave status and abolish slavery altogether, and certainly when other characters look at them, they see 'slave' first and 'person' a very distant second. But I'm giving it the full 2 points because McDougall is very careful not to let the free characters speak or act on behalf of the slaves. Ultimately, the slaves fight for abolition, rather than it being imposed benevolently upon them by a friendly emperor.
Equal amount of screen time? Hell yes. 5 points.
Score: 38
Galax-Arena by Gillian Rubinstein
Female characters? Yes. Its protagonist is female and the secondary characters are evenly split by gender. 1 point.
Passes the Bechdel Test? Over and over again. 2 points.
Equal screen time? Yes. 5 points.
Characters of colour? Yes. The cast of characters includes people from China, Mongolia, Latin America and Africa (although it's vague about where in Africa they come from). 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Definitely not. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen-time? White characters are in the minority here, although I could take issue with the fact that the protagonist is white. I'm going to give the book only 3 points here.
Queer characters? None.
Characters with disabilities? No.
Working class or otherwise dispossessed characters? Many. Since the theme of the book is basically how the wealthy of the West exploit the impoverished, dispossessed people of the Third World, that's to be expected. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? I'm going to say no. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time. As I mentioned before, the protagonist is a middle-class white girl, but the majority of the other characters are dispossessed PoC from the Third World, so I'll give it 3 points.
Score: 20.
Space Demons trilogy by Gillian Rubinstein:
Female characters? Yes. Elaine is a primary character in all books, while Midori is a primary character in the final book. There is also a wide range of female secondary characters.
Passes the Bechdel Test? In the best way possible. The first book fools you into thinking that the (stereotypically feminine) Linda is going to be an antagonist to (tomboyish) Elaine, but in the end they become good friends, basically giving voice to the idea that there is no 'right way' to perform femininity. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? Not really in the first two books, which have four primary characters, three of whom are male. The third adds two more primary characters, one male and one female, which doesn't really even things out. I'll give it a 2.
Characters of colour? Only in the third book, which is set partly in Japan and gives us Toshi and Midori as primary characters, and Midori's father and grandmother as secondaries. I can't give it a point if they're not consistently there in the whole series. 0 points.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Hell no. I would argue that Ben's encounter with Midori in the dream-world is basically an in-universe condemnation of the Othering of Japanese people by white Australians. A well-earned 2 points.
Equal amount of screen-time? Yes in the third book, not in the first two, so only 2 points here.
Queer characters? Not canonically, although I'm not sure if Ben's dream-world in Shinkei is alluding to this. I can't give the points if it's only subtext, though.
Characters with disabilities? No.
Working-class characters? I think Elaine and her dad are meant to be read in this way. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Certainly not. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen-time? Elaine is one of four, and then one of six, primary characters. I'll give it 2 points.
Total: 14
His Dark Materials trilogy by Philip Pullman:
Female characters? Yes! One of its two protagonists is female, and there is a wealth of well-written female secondary characters. 1 point.
Passes the Bechdel Test? Multiple times. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? For the primary characters, yes. For the secondaries, I'd say there are more male characters. 3 points.
Characters of colour? Yes. I think the Gyptians are coded this way. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Certainly not, although white society within the series' universe certainly defines them in this manner. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? In the first book, yes. Not in the others, though. 2 points.
Queer characters? In the second and third book, we have a pair of gay angels who are secondary characters. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness. Not at all. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? Yes. 5 points.
However, they lose five points because Pullman goes the Bury Your Gays route.
Characters with disabilities? No.
Working class characters? Yes. The whole point of the first book is that the powerful exploit the economically vulnerable. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? No, although the working-class children are kidnapped because they are working class and 'no one' will care about their disappearance. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? Yes, although some may interpret the fact that they have to be saved by the (upper-class) Lyra as problematic. I'll give it 3 points.
Total: 20
The Sally Lockhart Mysteries by Philip Pullman:
Female characters? Yes. Its protagonist is female, and there is a good complement of female secondary characters. 1 point.
Passes the Bechdel Test? Yes. In fact, I don't believe two female characters speak about a man (apart from if he is their antagonist) at all. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? Yes. If anything, they get more. 5 points.
Characters of colour: Here is where the series is not so strong. The first book Others characters of colour, although the reason it does this is that the series is a pastiche of Victorian penny-dreadfuls. Your mileage may vary with this as an excuse. The third book has many Jewish immigrant characters, who were certainly seen at the time the story takes place as being of colour. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? 1 point for the third book, but none for the others.
Equal amount of screen-time. Yes in the third book, not in the first two. 2 points.
Queer characters? No.
Characters with disabilities? No.
Working class characters? Yes. The whole theme of the third book is the exploitation of the working class in Victorian England. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? No. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen-time? Yes. 5 points.
I'm giving an extra five points for Dan Goldberg's speech about socialism, where he talks down an anti-Semitic mob.
Total: 25.
Television shows
Pretty Little Liars:
Female characters? Yes. All four protagonists are female, and there are many secondary female characters. 1 point.
Passes the Bechdel test? Pretty much all the time. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? Yes, as the protagonists are all female, they get the majority of the screen time. 5 points.
Characters of colour? Yes. One primary character, Emily, is Asian-American. Her girlfriend is African-American, and her parents are also given screen time. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Not in the slightest. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? The other three protagonists are white, and most of the secondary characters are also white, so no. I'll give it 2 points.
Queer characters? Yes. Emily is a lesbian, and her girlfriend Maya is bisexual. Emily has also dated another girl. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? I can't give it full points, as in the first season Emily's storyline was about coming out. I'll give it one point for the second season.
Equal amount of screen-time? No, for the same reasons mentioned in the characters of colour section. 2 points.
Characters with disabilities? Yes. Jenna is blind. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? I can't give them points here, as Jenna's primary motivation seems to be a desire to get revenge for her blindness.
Equal amount of screen time? She gets about the same amount of time as the other antagonists, yes. 5 points.
Working class characters? Yes, Caleb. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? No. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? He is one of the love interests of the protagonists, and he gets about the same amount of screen time as the other love interests. 5 points.
I'm taking five points away, though, as he basically is a walking stereotype - working-class kid whose parents abandoned him to the foster system, has to be rescued by wealthier characters.
Total: 26 points.
The Vampire Diaries:
Female characters? Yes. Its protagonist is female and it has a wide range of female secondary characters. 1 point.
Passes the Bechdel Test? Yes. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? Yes, as Elena is the protagonist and it seems to be fairly evenly split up for male and female secondary characters too. 5 points.
Characters of colour: Yes. Bonnie is African-American, and there have been many African-American secondary or tertiary characters. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness: I don't think so. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? Bonnie gets about as much as the other secondary characters, although one CoC among 10 or 15 secondaries isn't very good. Only 2 points.
This series also loses 5 points for the problematic undertone with regard to race implicit in the way that all black characters are witches or warlocks, and that despite being set in the South (with flashbacks to the Civil War era), there is no mention of slavery.
Queer characters? Only just. Caroline's dad is gay. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? No. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? No. No points.
Characters with disabilities? No.
Working class characters? No. This show exists in blissful WB-land, where everyone is upper middle class.
Total: 11
Avatar: The Last Airbender
Female characters? Yes. Two of its five primary characters are female, one of its two antagonists is female, and there is a host of female secondary characters. 1 point.
Passes the Bechdel Test? Yes, although more frequently in the second and third seasons, once Toph has joined the Gaang. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? I'd say it narrowly squeaks in, as the first season has only Katara as a female primary character. I'll give it 4 points here.
Characters of colour? All the characters are characters of colour! 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Definitely not. It's set in a fantasy version of Asia and the Pacific Rim. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? They get all the screen time. A well-earned 5 points.
Queer characters? No.
Characters with disabilities? Yes, Toph! 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? No. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? I have to abide by my own rules. She is one of five primary characters, so by default there is an imbalance here, but she gets about the same as the other primaries. I'll give it 3 points.
Working class characters? Not really.
Total: 21
Buffy The Vampire Slayer:
Female characters? Hell yes! 1 point.
Passes the Bechdel Test? In almost every episode. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? Yes. 5 points.
Characters of colour? Yes, but very few. Kendra, Mr Trick and Principal Wood are secondary characters, and the three past Slayers we see in dreams and flashbacks are all CoC, but they are voiceless. I'll give it 1 point, but barely.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Unfortunately I can't give any points here.
Equal amount of screen time? No points.
Furthermore, Buffy loses five points for being extremely problematic on matters of race. CoC are frequently Othered, it uses way too many Orientalist or 'Magical Negro' stereotypes and is just generally faily on matters of race.
Queer characters? Yes! Willow, Tara, Kennedy, Larry. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? I'm hesitant here, but I'd say no. 2 points.
Equal amounts of screen time? I'm going to say yes, although there could be more. 5 points.
Characters with disabilities? No, unless you count Xander's partial blindness, which only occurs mid-way through Season 7. I don't count it.
Working class characters? Yes, Faith. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Unfortunately the answer to this is yes. No points.
Equal amounts of screen time? This is another example of the WB middle-class paradise. No points.
Furthermore, it loses 5 points for the extremely problematic characterisation of Faith as being 'overly' sexual** and not being properly cared for by her (working-class) parents.
Total: 8 points.
I wasn't surprised that The Demon's Lexicon and Romanitas scored so highly. Their authors are very conscious of representation. In the case of Sarah Rees Brennan, her series' main focus is on identity and perception, while McDougall is concerned in Romanitas with power and dispossession. This is what McDougall had to say (in an interview with me) about representation:
If you want a future where fiction doesn’t routinely perpetuate harmful stereotypes and ignore everyone except the white people, (especially if you are white yourself) you probably cannot assume your unexamined muse and your good intentions are going to do all the work for you..
And this is what Rees Brennan said:
Here’s a problem: the role Nick, Mr. Tall Dark &c, plays in the series is a role played by a white guy with a bunch of issues: that’s a main role we get to see every day, a role that gets forgiven a lot of things, a role that if I didn’t get right a bunch of other people would. Let’s face it, “White Dude With Some Issues” could be the title of seventy per cent of movies and books out there. (We switch it to “White Dude With Some Issues (Who Is My Boyfriend)” I think we could make it to eighty per cent.)
I’m a girl, not a guy, and I’m white, not black, so in both cases I was writing from the point of view of someone I wasn’t. But there’s a lot more hurt to be inflicted if I got Sin wrong. And with writing, the chances of getting something wrong are high indeed. But it was something I felt I had to do. And it is something I feel like writers should do: write what they want and feel called to write, and write about the world the way it is. Writers should give every story in them a voice and a time to speak.
I think more authors and writers need to be conscious of these things. I believe representation is extremely important, and I think even those texts that I've singled out for praise or scored highly here have further to go. Why do the texts aimed at children have no queer characters? Why are there no trans* characters at all? These are questions that need to be asked, and we need to keep on asking them until things change.
_________________________________
*Note: in some of these texts, the category of 'working class' makes little sense. I'll categorise them differently when the need arises.
**Note: that's an in-show perception, and not a view I hold myself. There's no 'right' way to be sexual.
A quick word on my methodology. I've included a fandom/text in this post if it:
a) makes me behave in a fannish manner (that is, that I want to respond to it in some way, be it with fic or meta or discussing it with other fans); and
b) makes me want to revisit it again and again in order to find new things out about it.
For this reason, only books and television shows are included, since for some reason films seem to have less of a fannish effect on me. I've suspected this is because I mostly become fannish due to characters, and although many films have excellent characterisation, I usually find that two hours or so is not long enough for me to become truly attached to their characters.
I'm giving each fandom a Representation Score (for great social justice!). The way points are allocated is thus:
A text gets one point for simply including a character from an underrepresented group (eg, a female primary or secondary character, a queer character etc).
A text gets two points if such characters pass certain other tests (eg, if it passes the Bechdel Test, if a disabled character isn't there merely to teach the non-disabled characters a lesson about tolerance, etc - basically if they're not defined by their minority-ness).
A text gets five points if said characters occupy an equal amount of screen-time as those of comparable importance (for example, if there is a show with three main leads, one of whom is straight, two of whom are queer, all three must get roughly equal amounts of the story).
A text loses five points it has such characters, but resorts to stereotypes or handles their stories poorly (for example, if a character is Othered, if women are fridged).
Obviously, my interpretation of these things is going to be subjective, and if I mess up, tell me. I am female, but in every other aspect I have privilege: I am white, I am middle class, I am straight, I am cis, I am able-bodied and I am neurotypical. I won't change what I've written (as I believe if you screw up in things like this, you should own your mistakes and allow people to see them) but I will emend my post and include people's criticism. So, let's get to it!
(Note: there are spoilers for The Demon's Lexicon trilogy by Sarah Rees Brennan, the Romanitas trilogy by Sophia McDougall, Galax-Arena and the Space Demons trilogy by Gillian Rubinstein, the His Dark Materials trilogy and Sally Lockhart Mysteries by Philip Pullman, The Pagan Chronicles by Catherine Jinks, Pretty Little Liars, The Vampire Diaries, Avatar: The Last Airbender and Buffy The Vampire Slayer.)
Books
The Demon's Lexicon trilogy by Sarah Rees Brennan:
Female primary/secondary characters? Yes. Two protagonists (Mae and Sin), multiple secondary characters. 1 point.
Passes the Bechdel Test? Yes. Many, many times. 2 points.
Do they get an equal amount of screen time as the main male characters? Definitely. The first book has a male protagonist, then Mae and Sin each get one book where they are protagonists. 5 points.
Characters of colour? Yes. Sin, who is a protagonist, as well as her father and grandmother, who are secondary or tertiary characters in the third book. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? This is a little hard to answer. Sin's story is a little bit about people perceive her (how they see that she's a black woman and make certain assumptions) and how she has come to deal with and work around that, and so in this sense, it does have this theme. But her story is also about her struggle to control the Goblin Market, the war between the magicians and the Market and her relationships both romantic and platonic, so I'm going to so no, and thus give it 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? Yes. Sin gets a book where she is the protagonist, and in the other two books she gets a roughly equal amount of attention as the other secondary characters. 5 points.
Queer characters? Yes. Jamie, Seb (and possibly Gerald also?). 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Emphatically no. One of the things I love about this book is a conversation between Mae and her brother Jamie. Mae berates him for not telling her that he was practicing magic. 'You told me straight away when you were gay!' she says. He retorts that it's not the same situation, because while magicians in this universe are murderous and dangerous, his being gay doesn't hurt anyone. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen-time? Hmm. Hard to say. Jamie is one of the five primary characters, and he certainly occupies centre stage in the first two books, although his story occupies the background in the third. Of the five main characters, he is one of two who do not get a turn being protagonists. I'll give it 3 points rather than the full five.
Characters with disabilities? Yes, Alan. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Definitely not! Alan is a badass demon-hunter, a manipulator extraordinaire, and a loving brother. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? Like Jamie, he is one of the five main characters who does not get to be protagonist, so 3 points.
Working class characters?* Sort of. Nick and Alan are very poor, mainly due to the fact that teenage Alan is the main breadwinner of the family, but I'm not sure they'd necessarily perceive themselves as such. I'll give 1 point, but I don't think class is really explored much in this series.
Score: 30
The Pagan Chronicles by Catherine Jinks:
Female characters? Yes. Babylonne is the protagonist of the fifth book, and there is a scattering of female secondary characters throughout the series. 1 point.
Passes the Bechdel Test? Very rarely. No points.
Equal amount of screen time? Not really. It's a bit of a sausage fest, mainly because until the third book, its characters are Templars or monks. I'll give it 1 point for Babylonne.
Characters of colour? Yes. Pagan is an Arab, and Babylonne is multiracial. There are other secondary characters of colour. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Indeed no. 2 points.
Equal amount of time? Since all but one of the series' three narrators is a CoC, definitely. 5 points.
Queer characters? Yes. Jordan. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Unfortunately I can't give it this one.
Equal amount of screen time? No.
Characters with disabilities? Isidore (the protagonist of the fourth book) has epilepsy. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Not at all. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? One of three narrators? I'll give it the points. 5 points.
Working class characters? Yes. All of the narrators are, and most of the secondary characters too. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Not in the slightest. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? Yes. 5 points.
Total: 25 points.
Romanitas trilogy by Sophia McDougall:
Female characters? Hell yes. Una is a protagonist, and Makaria, Noriko, Lal, Ziye, Tancorix and Jun Shen are secondary characters. 1 point.
Passes the Bechdel Test? A thousand times over. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen-time? Definitely. Una is one of the four main characters, and the other characters share the secondary-character time equally with their male counterparts. One of my favourite things about this series is that in the end, it's a band of women and slaves who bring justice. 5 points.
Characters of colour? Many. Varius, Noriko and the other Nionians, Lal, Delir, Ziye, Jun Shen and the other Sinoans, with cameos from Native American and Indigenous Australian characters. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Hmm, again this is difficult. With some of them (Varius, Lal, Delir) not at all. For others, again, the story is to a certain extent about how Roman society Others them, how they are perceived (to the extent that when the Nionian women escape, they have to pretend to be prostitutes because Roman society can't conceive of any other reason why 'exotic' women would be travelling alone without men). I'm giving it 2 points.
Equal amounts of screen time? An emphatic yes. Varius is one of the four main characters. 5 points.
Queer characters? Yes, Makaria. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Certainly not. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? She's not a main character, and we only discover her sexual orientation in the final book, but she is well represented among the secondary characters. I'll give it 3 points.
Characters with disabilities? Yes, Dama. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Hmm, hard to say. Dama's disability is his arms and hands, which were injured by his being crucified. His anger at the Roman empire stems from his crucifixion, but it was present before that and so although his anger at his disability is a motivating factor, I would argue that his drive for (what he perceives as) justice is more important. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? Yes. 5 points.
Dispossessed characters? Yes. Two main characters (Una and Sulien) are escaped slaves, as are many of the secondary characters. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Difficult to say. A major motivating factor for Una and Sulien is their desire to escape their slave status and abolish slavery altogether, and certainly when other characters look at them, they see 'slave' first and 'person' a very distant second. But I'm giving it the full 2 points because McDougall is very careful not to let the free characters speak or act on behalf of the slaves. Ultimately, the slaves fight for abolition, rather than it being imposed benevolently upon them by a friendly emperor.
Equal amount of screen time? Hell yes. 5 points.
Score: 38
Galax-Arena by Gillian Rubinstein
Female characters? Yes. Its protagonist is female and the secondary characters are evenly split by gender. 1 point.
Passes the Bechdel Test? Over and over again. 2 points.
Equal screen time? Yes. 5 points.
Characters of colour? Yes. The cast of characters includes people from China, Mongolia, Latin America and Africa (although it's vague about where in Africa they come from). 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Definitely not. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen-time? White characters are in the minority here, although I could take issue with the fact that the protagonist is white. I'm going to give the book only 3 points here.
Queer characters? None.
Characters with disabilities? No.
Working class or otherwise dispossessed characters? Many. Since the theme of the book is basically how the wealthy of the West exploit the impoverished, dispossessed people of the Third World, that's to be expected. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? I'm going to say no. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time. As I mentioned before, the protagonist is a middle-class white girl, but the majority of the other characters are dispossessed PoC from the Third World, so I'll give it 3 points.
Score: 20.
Space Demons trilogy by Gillian Rubinstein:
Female characters? Yes. Elaine is a primary character in all books, while Midori is a primary character in the final book. There is also a wide range of female secondary characters.
Passes the Bechdel Test? In the best way possible. The first book fools you into thinking that the (stereotypically feminine) Linda is going to be an antagonist to (tomboyish) Elaine, but in the end they become good friends, basically giving voice to the idea that there is no 'right way' to perform femininity. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? Not really in the first two books, which have four primary characters, three of whom are male. The third adds two more primary characters, one male and one female, which doesn't really even things out. I'll give it a 2.
Characters of colour? Only in the third book, which is set partly in Japan and gives us Toshi and Midori as primary characters, and Midori's father and grandmother as secondaries. I can't give it a point if they're not consistently there in the whole series. 0 points.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Hell no. I would argue that Ben's encounter with Midori in the dream-world is basically an in-universe condemnation of the Othering of Japanese people by white Australians. A well-earned 2 points.
Equal amount of screen-time? Yes in the third book, not in the first two, so only 2 points here.
Queer characters? Not canonically, although I'm not sure if Ben's dream-world in Shinkei is alluding to this. I can't give the points if it's only subtext, though.
Characters with disabilities? No.
Working-class characters? I think Elaine and her dad are meant to be read in this way. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Certainly not. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen-time? Elaine is one of four, and then one of six, primary characters. I'll give it 2 points.
Total: 14
His Dark Materials trilogy by Philip Pullman:
Female characters? Yes! One of its two protagonists is female, and there is a wealth of well-written female secondary characters. 1 point.
Passes the Bechdel Test? Multiple times. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? For the primary characters, yes. For the secondaries, I'd say there are more male characters. 3 points.
Characters of colour? Yes. I think the Gyptians are coded this way. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Certainly not, although white society within the series' universe certainly defines them in this manner. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? In the first book, yes. Not in the others, though. 2 points.
Queer characters? In the second and third book, we have a pair of gay angels who are secondary characters. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness. Not at all. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? Yes. 5 points.
However, they lose five points because Pullman goes the Bury Your Gays route.
Characters with disabilities? No.
Working class characters? Yes. The whole point of the first book is that the powerful exploit the economically vulnerable. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? No, although the working-class children are kidnapped because they are working class and 'no one' will care about their disappearance. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? Yes, although some may interpret the fact that they have to be saved by the (upper-class) Lyra as problematic. I'll give it 3 points.
Total: 20
The Sally Lockhart Mysteries by Philip Pullman:
Female characters? Yes. Its protagonist is female, and there is a good complement of female secondary characters. 1 point.
Passes the Bechdel Test? Yes. In fact, I don't believe two female characters speak about a man (apart from if he is their antagonist) at all. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? Yes. If anything, they get more. 5 points.
Characters of colour: Here is where the series is not so strong. The first book Others characters of colour, although the reason it does this is that the series is a pastiche of Victorian penny-dreadfuls. Your mileage may vary with this as an excuse. The third book has many Jewish immigrant characters, who were certainly seen at the time the story takes place as being of colour. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? 1 point for the third book, but none for the others.
Equal amount of screen-time. Yes in the third book, not in the first two. 2 points.
Queer characters? No.
Characters with disabilities? No.
Working class characters? Yes. The whole theme of the third book is the exploitation of the working class in Victorian England. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? No. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen-time? Yes. 5 points.
I'm giving an extra five points for Dan Goldberg's speech about socialism, where he talks down an anti-Semitic mob.
Total: 25.
Television shows
Pretty Little Liars:
Female characters? Yes. All four protagonists are female, and there are many secondary female characters. 1 point.
Passes the Bechdel test? Pretty much all the time. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? Yes, as the protagonists are all female, they get the majority of the screen time. 5 points.
Characters of colour? Yes. One primary character, Emily, is Asian-American. Her girlfriend is African-American, and her parents are also given screen time. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Not in the slightest. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? The other three protagonists are white, and most of the secondary characters are also white, so no. I'll give it 2 points.
Queer characters? Yes. Emily is a lesbian, and her girlfriend Maya is bisexual. Emily has also dated another girl. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? I can't give it full points, as in the first season Emily's storyline was about coming out. I'll give it one point for the second season.
Equal amount of screen-time? No, for the same reasons mentioned in the characters of colour section. 2 points.
Characters with disabilities? Yes. Jenna is blind. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? I can't give them points here, as Jenna's primary motivation seems to be a desire to get revenge for her blindness.
Equal amount of screen time? She gets about the same amount of time as the other antagonists, yes. 5 points.
Working class characters? Yes, Caleb. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? No. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? He is one of the love interests of the protagonists, and he gets about the same amount of screen time as the other love interests. 5 points.
I'm taking five points away, though, as he basically is a walking stereotype - working-class kid whose parents abandoned him to the foster system, has to be rescued by wealthier characters.
Total: 26 points.
The Vampire Diaries:
Female characters? Yes. Its protagonist is female and it has a wide range of female secondary characters. 1 point.
Passes the Bechdel Test? Yes. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? Yes, as Elena is the protagonist and it seems to be fairly evenly split up for male and female secondary characters too. 5 points.
Characters of colour: Yes. Bonnie is African-American, and there have been many African-American secondary or tertiary characters. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness: I don't think so. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? Bonnie gets about as much as the other secondary characters, although one CoC among 10 or 15 secondaries isn't very good. Only 2 points.
This series also loses 5 points for the problematic undertone with regard to race implicit in the way that all black characters are witches or warlocks, and that despite being set in the South (with flashbacks to the Civil War era), there is no mention of slavery.
Queer characters? Only just. Caroline's dad is gay. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? No. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? No. No points.
Characters with disabilities? No.
Working class characters? No. This show exists in blissful WB-land, where everyone is upper middle class.
Total: 11
Avatar: The Last Airbender
Female characters? Yes. Two of its five primary characters are female, one of its two antagonists is female, and there is a host of female secondary characters. 1 point.
Passes the Bechdel Test? Yes, although more frequently in the second and third seasons, once Toph has joined the Gaang. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? I'd say it narrowly squeaks in, as the first season has only Katara as a female primary character. I'll give it 4 points here.
Characters of colour? All the characters are characters of colour! 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Definitely not. It's set in a fantasy version of Asia and the Pacific Rim. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? They get all the screen time. A well-earned 5 points.
Queer characters? No.
Characters with disabilities? Yes, Toph! 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? No. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? I have to abide by my own rules. She is one of five primary characters, so by default there is an imbalance here, but she gets about the same as the other primaries. I'll give it 3 points.
Working class characters? Not really.
Total: 21
Buffy The Vampire Slayer:
Female characters? Hell yes! 1 point.
Passes the Bechdel Test? In almost every episode. 2 points.
Equal amount of screen time? Yes. 5 points.
Characters of colour? Yes, but very few. Kendra, Mr Trick and Principal Wood are secondary characters, and the three past Slayers we see in dreams and flashbacks are all CoC, but they are voiceless. I'll give it 1 point, but barely.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Unfortunately I can't give any points here.
Equal amount of screen time? No points.
Furthermore, Buffy loses five points for being extremely problematic on matters of race. CoC are frequently Othered, it uses way too many Orientalist or 'Magical Negro' stereotypes and is just generally faily on matters of race.
Queer characters? Yes! Willow, Tara, Kennedy, Larry. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? I'm hesitant here, but I'd say no. 2 points.
Equal amounts of screen time? I'm going to say yes, although there could be more. 5 points.
Characters with disabilities? No, unless you count Xander's partial blindness, which only occurs mid-way through Season 7. I don't count it.
Working class characters? Yes, Faith. 1 point.
Not defined by their minority-ness? Unfortunately the answer to this is yes. No points.
Equal amounts of screen time? This is another example of the WB middle-class paradise. No points.
Furthermore, it loses 5 points for the extremely problematic characterisation of Faith as being 'overly' sexual** and not being properly cared for by her (working-class) parents.
Total: 8 points.
I wasn't surprised that The Demon's Lexicon and Romanitas scored so highly. Their authors are very conscious of representation. In the case of Sarah Rees Brennan, her series' main focus is on identity and perception, while McDougall is concerned in Romanitas with power and dispossession. This is what McDougall had to say (in an interview with me) about representation:
If you want a future where fiction doesn’t routinely perpetuate harmful stereotypes and ignore everyone except the white people, (especially if you are white yourself) you probably cannot assume your unexamined muse and your good intentions are going to do all the work for you..
And this is what Rees Brennan said:
Here’s a problem: the role Nick, Mr. Tall Dark &c, plays in the series is a role played by a white guy with a bunch of issues: that’s a main role we get to see every day, a role that gets forgiven a lot of things, a role that if I didn’t get right a bunch of other people would. Let’s face it, “White Dude With Some Issues” could be the title of seventy per cent of movies and books out there. (We switch it to “White Dude With Some Issues (Who Is My Boyfriend)” I think we could make it to eighty per cent.)
I’m a girl, not a guy, and I’m white, not black, so in both cases I was writing from the point of view of someone I wasn’t. But there’s a lot more hurt to be inflicted if I got Sin wrong. And with writing, the chances of getting something wrong are high indeed. But it was something I felt I had to do. And it is something I feel like writers should do: write what they want and feel called to write, and write about the world the way it is. Writers should give every story in them a voice and a time to speak.
I think more authors and writers need to be conscious of these things. I believe representation is extremely important, and I think even those texts that I've singled out for praise or scored highly here have further to go. Why do the texts aimed at children have no queer characters? Why are there no trans* characters at all? These are questions that need to be asked, and we need to keep on asking them until things change.
_________________________________
*Note: in some of these texts, the category of 'working class' makes little sense. I'll categorise them differently when the need arises.
**Note: that's an in-show perception, and not a view I hold myself. There's no 'right' way to be sexual.
no subject
no subject
As a woman, I notice when female characters aren't present, or aren't written well, and I can only imagine the need for representation is stronger, the more one is marginalised or ignored in mainstream fiction.
no subject