Romantic & Platonic Relationships in Hellboy & B.P.R.D.

[UnravThreads]

I'm sorry, but personally I don't feel to agree with that. It might not hurt. It could be to come up, but not necessarily I'd think.
Not sexuality or gender restrictions or preferences. Just like musical preferences.

Or I'd feel that leaving stuff open to interpretation would mainly be better.

In most cases, leaving it for interpretation is better, but I'll use an analogy. The author Malinda Lo was surprised to find out people assumed her characters in her novel Huntress were Caucasian because she hadn't directly specified otherwise. Why? Because we assume 'norms'. If you live in Europe or the US/Canada/Australasia, you're almost automatically going to assume a character is white. That happens with sexuality, too. You naturally assume a character is going to be straight unless told otherwise. Sure, in most cases you'll be right, but in literature there's few ways to tell if they're not. That's why it's more important to make it known.

[Middenway]

I think it's important to challenge those norms. It still really bugs me whenever Ged for the Earthsea series is portrayed white. We've an over-saturation of Caucasian characters in our fiction as it is. I love seeing different nationalities, especially in background characters when they could've easily just made them all white. It makes it feel more like the real world I know, where my friends are all very different from very different backgrounds.

[Kees_L]

I've literally never considered anything as being "our fiction".

And I never assume norms, although admittedly I kind of make a point of doing so, like I would consider such wise.

As for any literature or reading, even as being world-renowned, well. Jesus wouldn't or needn't be white. John the Baptist wouldn't or needn't be white, plus they'd both be like freethinking reactionary anarchists, like Occupy avant-la-lettre, as being pretty in-depth-characterised. I don't really feel sure about their gender preferences or restrictions too much, but that kind of feels exhilarating or full of promise.
Although many people might feel to expect otherwise. Which would be on them, I suppose.

(Who would be truely utterly white or black anyway? Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse would be. Plus maybe some clowns or mime-players. That's about it, I'd think. Whereas in the Simpsons everbody's yellow. But not controversially so it would appear.)

[Middenway]

I've literally never considered anything as being "our fiction".

By that I mean the fiction you are most likely to find in your local stores, the stuff you see in your day to day life. You and Unrav both being from Europe, myself being from Australia, and the comic itself coming from America, the fiction these places see is very Caucasian driven. It's something I find very frustrating, especially in Australian television programs. It doesn't reflect what I see around me at all.

And I never assume norms, although admittedly I kind of make a point of doing so, like I would consider such wise.

Then you are a very lucky person. But I think having casual references to this stuff does help without making a big deal of it. A subtle touch is usually the most effective, I find.

[Kees_L]

Then you are a very lucky person. But I think having casual references to this stuff does help without making a big deal of it. A subtle touch is usually the most effective, I find.

I'll certainly consider myself lucky for having gotten both as getting the chance to have and develop my own mindset, freely and under stable or encouraging circumstances. But EVEN AS SUCH I will still need to be keeping an open mind on things with not getting cocky or overconfident, or I'll run the risk of assuming things wrongly or worse: become potentially misinformed or discrimatingly or bigoted on any possible subject or stereotype!

Which is why I will consider keeping an open mind or informing myself instead of assuming things MORE important than anything.

People - either straight or gay - ethnical one way or another - minority or be it majority - political or not - religious or not - educated or less so - modern or conservative - old or young - urban or rural (andsoforth) - ANY those may get things wrong and should therefor be to keep an open mind with being to inform themselves. CONSTANTLY.

And to relate that to fiction and dynamics within such:

I'd say if stories are well at speaking to the heart, both as offering essential insightfulness and imaginativeness - as for instance showing how even darkness or monstrosities or scary seeming settings may either be evil OR good DEPENDING, not on stereotypes or genericness but on TRUELY ANYTHING - than such an openness or dependingness would be what's so good and strong about it.

It is not true that one's intellect or education or ones' gender or ones' skin-color necessarily helps (enough) to actually keep an open mind or be respectful or be righteous or any such.
People need to be managing that themselves, constantly and honestly.

I'd say it will be a mistake to think that just because of being gay or poor or colored or well-to-do - or knowing someone who is - that you'd be incapable of discrimination or bigotry or dis-acceptance or harm.

So that's why I would not agree that merely adding colored characters or designated gay characters would be beneficial necessarily or automatically.
Stories that show diversity and true imaginativeness as by keeping stuff OPEN would be beneficial far more rather, I'd believe.
Because such stories denote why keeping an open mind would be a good thing. And Hellboy-related stories excel at precisely that, majestically.

[Middenway]

Racial distribution in America:


Racial representation in YA American book covers:


This is why representation is important. When The Hunger Games film came out, there were people furious that Rue was dark-skinned (The silly thing is, if you read the book, she actually was dark skinned 9_9 ). These people had become so accustomed to seeing everything from a white point of view, that it had actually become offensive to show something otherwise to them.

Representing all kinds of people in popular media is important. For people with open minds, it grounds it in reality. For people with closed minds it challenges them.

I certainly don't want John Arcudi to start adding characters because he feels like he has to fulfil some sort of quota, but B.P.R.D. is very character driven, and at the right moment it could enhance a plotline. I'm not saying a definite homosexual character has to be in there, but I'd like to see it.

We're in a culture where a "white, heterosexual male" story is regarded as generic and can appeal to anyone, but make the lead person "Asian, homosexual female" and that story is suddenly regarded as specific, for a certain demographic, not for general consumption. That's very tragic and it's something that needs to be challenged.

There's a quote I like...


Let's take the story Seattle for example, in which at the end Giarocco looks at the horror of the world around her and says, "Makes me want to go home and hug my three-year-old-son." We're learning what's important to Giarocco here: her family. She could have just as easily said, "Makes me want to go home and hug my seven-year-old-daughter," or "Makes me want to go home and hug my husband," or even "Makes me want to go home and hug my wife." It doesn't weaken that character moment at all. My point is that you can introduce this stuff without the story revolving around it. But when you add specifics to a character, to make choices about what you're portraying. When John Arcudi wrote "...hug my three-year-old son," he made a choice to portray a strong mother that can totally kick arse. There's a reason why when I read Seattle I suddenly clicked with Carla Giarocco and that's it right there. She's awesome.

And in The Long Death #1 we got to see Carla, a Catholic, butting heads with Johann, an Atheist. I love these moments. I love how diverse and rich it makes the B.P.R.D. world.

LGBT characters need representation just like strong females need representation, because so many people have it in their head that the automatic traits of a character are automatically white, heterosexual male unless otherwise stated. "White, heterosexual male" is generic, everything else is specific. And it shouldn't be that way, which is why these characters need to be written and normalised.

[UnravThreads]

We're in a culture where a "white, heterosexual male" story is regarded as generic and can appeal to anyone, but make the lead person "Asian, homosexual female" and that story is suddenly regarded as specific, for a certain demographic, not for general consumption. That's very tragic and it's something that needs to be challenged.

Oddly enough, your example has a quite successful book related to it. Malinda Lo's Huntress has done fairly well, as far as I know, and often crops up in recommendations.

Let's take the story Seattle for example, in which at the end Giarocco looks at the horror of the world around her and says, "Makes me want to go home and hug my three-year-old-son." We're learning what's important to Giarocco here: her family. She could have just as easily said, "Makes me want to go home and hug my seven-year-old-daughter," or "Makes me want to go home and hug my husband," or even "Makes me want to go home and hug my wife." It doesn't weaken that character moment at all. My point is that you can introduce this stuff without the story revolving around it. But when you add specifics to a character, to make choices about what you're portraying. When John Arcudi wrote "...hug my three-year-old son," he made a choice to portray a strong mother that can totally kick arse. There's a reason why when I read Seattle I suddenly clicked with Carla Giarocco and that's it right there. She's awesome.

And in The Long Death #1 we got to see Carla, a Catholic, butting heads with Johann, an Atheist. I love these moments. I love how diverse and rich it makes the B.P.R.D. world.

LGBT characters need representation just like strong females need representation, because so many people have it in their head that the automatic traits of a character are automatically white, heterosexual male unless otherwise stated. "White, heterosexual male" is generic, everything else is specific. And it shouldn't be that way, which is why these characters need to be written and normalised.

That's it exactly. A few words changed and you explain that character, but not at the expense of anything.

I mean, let's use a B.P.R.D. example again. The issue I thought was War on Frogs #3 (It's not! It's... the Epilogue to The Black Flame) (Also: "omg stfu about that issue lol") - we have ambiguity with Ash. Her colleagues rib her, accusing her of having a thing for Liz. Is it denied? Not at all, although one can easily argue she never acknowledges it. Her 'friends' say "I didn't know you swung that way!" as a joke, but how do you read it? Is it the assumption she's Straight Until Proven Gay? Is it Ash not being gay but not dignifying it with an answer? Well, read on. Ash appears again, one of her first comments is to another colleague joking Liz turned him down for a date. Two references to Liz and dating. So, is it a coincidence? Well... considering how little talk of dating and stuff comes up, perhaps not.

And one could also say that if Ash had a little crush on her (which would explain why she persistently tries to talk to Liz, although it's not certain), Liz saving her life would contribute to it.

So, what can we imply? Anything. Ash might be gay, Ash might not. It's not confirmed nor denied. But all it takes is one word to clarify. One word.

I'M NOT OBSESSED :|

[Middenway]

I'M NOT OBSESSED :|

Sure you're not.

[Kees_L]

I can basically go along with a lot of what you are saying, except for how I think that leaving stuff open or depending to being far stronger and more meaningful, because actual acceptance always needs to get established particularly each and every time (or not).

I mean, it'll be nice if people may feel to be accepting and openminded or unbigoted for the funnybooks they read, but any such would hardly be all-encompassing, because what would be encompassing would be people their actual conduct and accepting amid actual life.

We're in a culture where a "white, heterosexual male" story is regarded as generic and can appeal to anyone, but make the lead person "Asian, homosexual female" and that story is suddenly regarded as specific, for a certain demographic, not for general consumption. That's very tragic and it's something that needs to be challenged.

This absolutely feels dreadful to me. Horrible. They should make viewings of any such "specific" movies or books to being obligatory in public schools, as from the age of 11.
So I do agree that some education or reading towards all there'd be to find and accept in the world to being quite important and beneficial, BUT it won't ever be all-encompassing because people can only be or become that themselves.

This is why representation is important. When The Hunger Games film came out, there were people furious that Rue was dark-skinned (The silly thing is, if you read the book, she actually was dark skinned 9_9 ). These people had become so accustomed to seeing everything from a white point of view, that it had actually become offensive to show something otherwise to them.

I feel that for "their (easy) entertainment" a lot of people actually become quite moronic easily. Like people going all pouty at creators for any little thing that would prevent the sweethearts from liking the stuff they'd be wanting to like so badly. Fans like that need to realize that stories are never theirs to obsess over, plus they need to learn to stop being moronic.

And "a white point of view" is funny, because any such cannot truely exist. Because ultimately people are just people, whatever their color or gender or preference.

LGBT characters need representation just like strong females need representation, because so many people have it in their head that the automatic traits of a character are automatically white, heterosexual male unless otherwise stated. "White, heterosexual male" is generic, everything else is specific. And it shouldn't be that way, which is why these characters need to be written and normalised.

To a degree, certainly. Preferably schools and parents or close relatives can be a good and stable factor therein.
But the best way to become acceptant or unbigoted is by doing so. It brings happiness literally.

Whereas people relating to any sort of minority or denomination or potential drawback (which is literally ANY people in actual fact) need to know and trust that for every new day the world DOES NOT need to be looking but inviting and welcoming completely or perfectly for any going outside and smelling the roses.

Life isn't gonna be perfect and soothing in any respect and it needn't. I mean look at Wallstreet cowboys, or 12-foot-cadillac millionaires, or any straight white promising ranchers having dropped their prize-pies or pumpkins to drivel: they'll be having it hard!

Know what happens when a jolly clown or pristine prom queen hits their head? (answer: it hurts.)


In short: I feel glad and furtunate and proud for however cool and deep or diverse the Hellboy-related books have been appearing. On any level.

[Kees_L]

I'M NOT OBSESSED :|

Hey, you're okay, silly! Deal with it, hah!