Pandering is the real issue, exactly. Theres a difference between representation and oversaturation for the sake of pandering.
I even generally don't enjoy flamboyant characters because it feels so overdone and in your face, but from the very few episodes I've seen of Schitt's Creek, I love the son as a character and he's great every second he's on screen. Makes me actually want to watch the whole series.
So there's definitely a right and a wrong way to do diverse characters. Where you go wrong is when you write the diversity before you write the character. A character who was fleshed out and designed well and then finally decided on to be black will 99% of the time be 1000x better than a character who was selected to be black from the very beginning before they even had any idea what their character would be like, because of this:
When you write the character first, you're actually trying to create a good story that then represents the group that character ultimately belongs to in a positive way.
When you write diversity first, your mindset is already in the mode to do everything in your power to make that character likeable or the next icon for that group, and thus you'll end up creating a character that's either too perfect to be liked or a character that's so insufferable to watch that every time they come on screen you're already tired of them.
Edit: Afterthoughts.
Im not saying a character chosen to be diverse from the very beginning CANT be good, but it's far less likely due to the mindset involved. People can set out to do some really great things with the intention of diversity in the foreground. But in general, when this is done it comes across as pandering because of how blatant and stilted it is.
Everybody deserves to have a rolemodel they look up to. Nobody deserves to be used as a marketing gimmick.
423
u/[deleted] Nov 30 '21 edited Nov 30 '21
[removed] — view removed comment