I want to try and talk about a slightly different concept: how is history made?
My initial answer is something to the effect of… The choices that we make every day are figurative words in the history book called “our lives.”
If we think about it that way, what would those words say in the future?
What do they say already?
That said, I do not believe “realism” and “quality” should be necessarily conflated with “historical accuracy.”
It is entirely possible to write a piece of 100% fiction that closely resembles an accounting of history.
Oh, but that’s just simply one way to write a novel, isn’t it?
For further reading:
Georg Lukács’s Theory of the Novel
Paul De Man
MLN
Vol. 81, No. 5, General Issue (Dec., 1966), pp. 527-534
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
DOI: 10.2307/2907976
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2907976
Page Count: 8
Topics: Irony, Novels, Inwardness, Temporality, Marxism, Philosophical realism, Classical Greek drama
You raise a good point. It’s something I’m struggling with myself. In fact, it’s the chief struggle I have right now, besides trying to determine whether I have enough text between choices in my work in progress. I know that is what I will mostly want feedback on at first if I ever get it in a state for being looked at, as I tend to trust my own views regarding story content (that’s always worked out well for people, right? ).
So, I’d like to talk about it, at the risk of ruffling a few feathers.
As I said, you’ve written a good post, I think.
This is part of my problem with today’s age and political correctness as I mentioned in the other thread. I say this jokingly and not so jokingly. I did also wonder if I should have used ‘black regiment’ earlier rather than ‘persons of color regiment’.
So, this is mostly what I want to touch upon. I have no facts to go off, just personal belief, whether right or wrong. Over the last number of years, transgender and gay people are becoming more and more prevalent, it feels like, in comparison to when I was at school. As for why they are more prevalent today, it’s probably best I don’t utter my thoughts on that. Heck, I have no problem with gay people and such anyway, as a whole. I used to know two gay men at work, and we got on fine. Particularly one of them, I found amusing. I remember walking into the back one day and I could hear him giggling like mad because he was being tickled by a female colleague. He wasn’t the ‘manly’ kind. Sorry if I offend with the ‘manly’ word by the way! Note: I am not manly. Many women could probably beat me in a arms-wrestling match.
Anyway, I digress. It’s my belief that in the olden days, gay people would have been even less prevalent than they were when I was a kid, whether right or wrong. As such, I want to include a sexuality option in my WIP, as I can imagine there being some gay people around. But I question if it’s worthwhile including the option when I view them as being a minority. I’m not going to shoe-horn someone in for the sake of it. The option would be nice for a feeling of ownership, which is ultimately what it’d be for, and to have some slight reactivity. I detest customisation options that ultimately do nothing, personally, story wise (even if there is a perceived difference). And I know that if I give a sexuality option, there will be people expecting romance options (otherwise why include a sexuality option?). The way I’m leaning, it’s not a story about romance anyway and it might even be hard to find a romance option for a straight character. It’s just a fact of life, you know? Not what the story’s about. But right now, nothing’s really planned. If I can find a suitable reason for including a gay character and an option for the player character to be of that persuasion, then I’m happy to do it. I’m just against ticking boxes for the sake of it.
Of course you’re allowed to do what you want, by and large, as a creator. That’s been my argument all along. But you’d think that, wouldn’t you, about not being in a thought-police society?
Hopefully my ramble has provided somewhat of an answer at least. You wouldn’t believe it, but I’m actually a short story writer by trade. I get by on making every word count. it just doesn’t work with non-fiction and forum posts.
PS: You know, I think all of this really can be summed up as ‘certain stories require certain things’. That is my short-story writer way of being concise.
No, thank you! It’s a bit intimidating to engage on these topics as without originating from a massively oppressed group it can be a little difficult to empathise with and understand their position correctly. Therefore discussion is a great path to increased understanding, and I’m grateful to everyone for participating so civilly and productively. I’m trying not to write a lengthy post but that went horribly wrong so here goes:
All in a day’s work! I have to ask… by humours do you refer to comedy or diseases?
This is a point you’ve illustrated really well in this post and others I’ve seen - there are many, many stories of history that are recorded but largely unknown in the mainstream. Thus while our assumptions / preconceptions may say “everyone hated gays and women were always victims,” actually, as yourself and others (thank you @ParrotWatcher!) have pointed out, the reality is much more nuanced and it’s likely that the historical record has been whitewashed due to the patriarchal nature of the Abrahamic religions.
Talking of which, thanks for providing the links above - the resource on female warriors was fantastic and quite inspirational.
Absolutely! I think we’re all in agreement that since we’re discoursing on fiction ultimately everything is fair game and reality is unimportant. Or rather, reality is there to provide source material and inspiration, not boundaries and limitations.
This is a different question to the one I was posing and attempting to answer. My perception was instead: “Do you want to write a story in which the NPCs treat the MC in a realistic manner, or a story in which everyone is treated equally because it’s good to be inclusive and accepting.”
I would immediately refute your notion that an LGBT player must play an LGBT character in order to enjoy the story, as this is subjective to the individual. People enjoy fiction in many ways for many reasons, and this often means putting our feet in someone else’s shoes. Otherwise, only women would like the female Ghostbusters film, and only men would like the male Ghostbusters film. We can’t be so small-minded as to only empathise with our own kind, although I accept that since I’m not from a hugely oppressed minority it’s easier for me to be philosophical on these matters.
Thanks for your final points on homosexuality in medieval Europe though - as @DavidGil has said the unheard histories of marginalised groups exist but must be intentionally sought out and researched; I’ve certainly never heard of such unions of brotherhood and would welcome any further information if you could link me some.
Thanks! I appreciate the vote of confidence - I’m not at all used to discussing such nuanced issues.
@Eiwynn gave this best response to this type of question I think, which was “research, research, then ask the people involved, then ask again.” I.e. don’t guess but dig around properly and get second and third opinions from educated parties. My line about ‘people of vaginal inclination’ was more a silly joke to break the tension of a long and relatively serious post rather than a statement intended to highlight the difficulties of political correctness in the modern age.
I’m afraid I must leave the majority of your post for a more competent person to respond to.
This is @ParrotWatcher’s argument I believe - it’s not for the sake of it, it’s so everyone can enjoy your story from their own perspective. That’s what inclusivity means, and that’s why it’s central to the CoG business principles.
Holy shit guys (in a nongendered way), I might have bit off more than I could chew when I posted here! Thanks so much for the considered and measured responses - not often I get to enjoy some thoughtful discourse on tricky topics like this. Time for a tea
I might have been suffering from a case of Amerrogance™. The biggest discussion we’re having in the US re: historicity is about Confederate statues, that is to say, historic traitors who supported slavery. I understand one or two, but there are dozens in Washington DC alone, and most of them were made during the Jim Crow era as a means of terrorizing minority communities, essentially. The most recent public statue I’ve seen of Robert E. Lee was made in the 90’s.
“Viking” is a pretty wide brush that includes Danes, Norwegians, Swedes, Geats (correct me if I’m wrong), Varangians (Norse settlers of Russia), Normans (again, not too sure here, but at least they were pre-Frankification), and Icelanders.
Saxons don’t count, but I mean, they are a sea-faring Germanic raiding culture.
This is how it usually goes. I’ve said I have no problem with people, yet I suddenly have to have my character challenged while I haven’t attacked anyone at all. At least you didn’t say what you have on your mind, but I would have actually appreciated it, as I appreciate bluntness. (if you were joking, apologies for taking it seriously. I do note you edited your post to remove what I’m responding to here as well.)
As an aside, I do respect everyone equally, unless they give me a reason not to. And I believe everyone deserves to be treated equally regardless of gender, sex and race.
Yet it is exactly that. And I have no problem with it, as long as I’m not always expected to conform. It’s why I don’t want to write for the official label, because I like my freedom and not everything has to be for everyone.
Ask yourself this: Not all games/stories/titles are like it, but how many actually have sufficient differences to account for sexuality and sex differences? Usually, though I could be wrong as I don’t play as a female or other genders, I’d wager the differences are more related to romance options. So, it amounts to box ticking. And it is a lot of work to actually provide differences. Something which some aren’t willing to do, and that’s totally fine.
(Actually, maybe I am slightly wrong, depending on how you want to define ‘for the sake of it’. If the author wants to do it because they do, and I wager many do, then ‘for the sake of it’ isn’t right. I guess I’m approaching it from a simple story angle. Often, the sexuality and sex aspect doesn’t make much difference. The difference is perceived if I’m making sense?)
As it stands, I don’t mind giving an option for male and female characters at all, as long as it makes sense. Likewise for sexuality. (So essentially, it’s good that both the Hosted Games and CoG labels exist. And I’m happy that people get to be represented. Just again, I’m not one for conforming.)
I’d say the two are equivalent: a game which has “realistic” levels of discrimination would not be as fun to play in my mind.
Well, I can’t speak for every LGBTQ individual, but I can speak for at least one, and I’ve stepped into the shoes of loads of straight protagonists over the years. Films, books, television, and (until quite recently) games. I have no intention of playing another straight protagonist if there’s an option to play gay. I would hope that that’s not small-minded and lacking in empathy.
There’s some stuff in wikipedia and posts like this and this. As I said, it wasn’t everywhere and all the time, and the ceremonies were technically not supposed to be sexual.
The problem I see everytime these subjects are brought up, is that we are discussing multiple questions and dichotomies that gets conflated into one subject.
Questions like:
Is realism realistic?
What are the actual historical facts?
Does creators/writers/artists have a social responsibility?
Realism vs Enjoyment
Realism vs Representation
Personal Freedom vs Social Responsibility
Which can get really chaotic and hard to keep up with.
Then, on top of that, people are talking about each question on different layers/levels/scopes, so we might see someone talking about whether the Author (in a more abstract or meta sense) have a social responsibility to help shape the future they want to see, and someone else comes along and interprete that as the first person saying that every single author must have complete representation in all their works, or else they’re a bad person (as they are viewing the subject in a more concrete way).
Gotta say. Groups with definite major differences in how they act or live are kind of at a disadvantage to “we’re just like you, but —” and it can definitely feel like box ticking to people who still aren’t included by those trying to be “inclusive” by going for a few groups.
Depends on the day. I remember repeatedly going for the southern white guy in COV because they had the starting stats I liked the most and I wound up not playing anything else because of the stats. I figured race played a card in the story when the KKK showed up and I hear one of the major characters (who’s normally decent) treats you worse as one of the other races. I wouldn’t immediately write off a game due to in setting discrimination even directed towards me. I actually love when things are personalized like that, it makes things not feel meaningless.
Black troops serving in French uniform actually contributed an enormous amount to the French war effort. During the dark days of '41 and '42, most Free French troops were actually colonial units who’d been caught outside of Metropolitan France when the government surrendered. It wasn’t until 1943 and early 1944, that Free French authorities began to integrate large numbers of defecting Vichy troops into their structure. When Free French formations landed in France, they were “whitened” by replacing veteran african units with ones made up of Vichy defectors which was not only kind of a dick move motivated mostly by racism, but also generated friction between those officers who’d never served Vichy (like Leclerc) and those who had and were given high rank in the new Free French Army (like De Lattre).
The state of the art when it comes to the History of Gender and Queer History often involves re-examining the close relationships of two people of the same gender. who lived in more homophobic times, or whose histories were written in more homophobic times. This sort of re-examination of relationships between say, King James I and the Duke of Buckingham, and Frederick II and Hermann von Katte implies that Queer relationships were certainly more common than popular history would have us believe.
I think it’s less that there are more LGBTQ+ people around today as it is the fact that publicly coming out carries less of a cost. Sodomy was a crime up in much of the West until a generation ago. Even up until a few years ago, it was pretty much universally legal to murder a trans person under certain circumstances. Given that kind of legal hostility, backed by societal hostility, Queer folk have historically developed signals, codes, ways of speaking to keep themselves hidden from us straights - codes which naturally, most straight historians (myself included) can’t pick out of a primary source, which leaves us with only a few open examples.
Of course, this is all in the modern Western tradition. Other cultures have different norms, Classical Greece and Feudal Japan both had prominent traditions of male homosexuality, for example.
That could certainly be so. Equally as valid as my own thoughts, I reckon, which I know I haven’t shared. One thing I do know for sure is it’s more accepted now and I imagine that, while it must still go on, the amount of ridicule received is less. It would make sense to me anyway, because like you said, there’s less cost to coming out.
I think homosexuality would have been more prevalent with the Romans too? I’m just guessing here though.
Putting aside the whole sexuality discussion for a moment, there would be an interesting story to be had in exploring the relationship of two straight people for instance who become closer under extraodinary circumstances (or you could leave the whole ‘straight’ part out). Captivity, that sort of thing.
This is something I would be open to doing myself. I should play Choice of the Vampire again. I never tried the sequel.
Oh absolutely colonial troops played a major role, especially with the Free French - as far as I know, Operation Dragoon was dominated by said colonial troops (though as you say, Free French contribution during Overlord was “whitened”, and that’s also often overlooked). I was more trying to point out the appearance of non-white troops in France in 1940, which are heavily overlooked in popular culture, and my perception was that the contribution of colonial troops to the Free French in North Africa was slightly more well-known.
Tubman didn’t really have an experience comparable to the average soldier in the trenches though, because of her background. She was also in a leadership role too, and that’s also different from fighting it out in the trenches.
To bring back a point touched on earlier, there are a number of notable female military leaders in the Medieval period, some who did it on a more regular basis than others. I suspect that the majority of these women, while significant in the leadership role, didn’t actually partake in the hand-to-hand combat as their male peers (or husbands) were expected to do. That being said, there were some who were more likely to have done so, like Jeanne de Clisson, whose flagship was apparently sunk under her.
Another slight detour but interesting in of itself: medieval medicine was based on the medical humors of: sanguine, choleric, phlegmatic and melancholic. There were additional humors related to things like a guy’s nightly discharge but the four main humors were the cornerstone of medicine at that time.
Absolutely, though the Romans had a very interesting view of male homosexuality especially: penetrating a man was considered to be virile and powerful, while being penetrated was seen as weak and despised. Oscar Wilde’s quote about “everything is the world is about sex, except for sex, sex is about power” really does apply here. For example, Gaius Julius Caesar’s enemies called him “Every woman’s husband, and every man’s wife”, accusing him of being an adulterer (and therefore depraved) and a bottom (and therefore weak).
Aha, I knew it! This was the reason for my comment about being philosophical - having not walked in the your shoes I wasn’t able to imagine how it feels, and as a result you’ve enlightened me. What you’ve said there is the whole point of the gender lock thread too, I see now. This has been a revelatory experience; I must thank you for your patience and guidance. Not sarcasm.
“The very existence of affrèrements shows that there was a radical shift in attitudes between the sixteenth century and the rise of modern antihomosexual legislation in the twentieth.”
Thanks for the links too! Though FYI the second link isn’t working. It’s incredible to know that there were Church-sanctioned same-sex marriages occurring in the middle ages.
@DavidGil I wasn’t joking but it certainly didn’t need saying, hence the removal. Everyone tries so hard to maintain a wholesome community here and I’m very glad to be a small part of that. Homophobia is a sensitive issue for me, as many of us, so I must ask you to forgive my hasty words. Thanks for taking the time to write a proper reply though - I’ve read all your words and it’s given me much to consider, particularly in conjunction with @ParrotWatcher’s response.
Anyway! I’m far outclassed by the quality of discussion here; thanks everyone for the inclusion.
Man, medieval people were nuts. Thanks for taking the time to explain, Eiwynn. We’re very lucky not to live in such an unenlightened time, I guess.
No problem and no harm done. I apologise if my words have been taken the wrong way. There is honestly not a racist or homophobic bone in my body. I may not understand certain things, but it doesn’t mean I feel any hate or whatever, though the reason I didn’t want to elaborate on my thoughts is I know they would be taken the wrong way and really, there’s no reason to cause anyone any distress. It wouldn’t be representative of how I feel either. I like to think I can get on with most people. Which incidentally can be a problem, given how anti-social I am. It’s just you hear certain things and it naturally colors your perceptions of a certain group, even though it is wrong. The worst thing is it’s not the majority to blame and they are fine. Hence the ‘as a whole’ and it wouldn’t be representative of me to think I do hate people. (Well, I am an anti-social bastard, but that’s about it.) I hope I make some sense at least. It is 11:55 pm here and I’m sweating.
So yeah, I simply approach everything from a story accuracy standpoint. If I can’t do something justice, I’d rather not do it. Out of curiosity though, was it something in the edits that you didn’t like? Or what I touched on above? I don’t think I said anything wrong in the post I’ve left up. If it was in what I’d originally posted before the edits, then I have an idea of what it might be and I was wrong to say that. Not wrong when it pertains to history and medieval times, but wrong when it comes to a blanket statement regarding not doing something at all. And I do get sex/gender/sexuality confused honestly. Part of the reason I made edits, as I deemed sex to be off-topic.
If you wish to discuss it further before I hop to bed, privately, I don’t mind. Like I said, no harm done. If you don’t swear at me, I won’t do it either. So, I’m sure it’s possible to have a civil conversation, like we have just done so now.
As always, some parts of the world were better off than others. Medieval Europe was kind of the “third-world shithole” of its day. I remember coming across a passage from an Arabic physician during the 12th century, who treated a woman for asthma with a compress, only to be overruled by a European doctor who proceeded to declare that the patient had a demon living inside her skull and immediately began to cut her head open.
).
But you’d think that, wouldn’t you, about not being in a thought-police society?
I have to ask… by humours do you refer to comedy or diseases?
Even if it does hurt.