I don't like most stories that have any kind of "messages" with regards to underlining political points. In general outside my defense of natural rights I don't really want to hear whatever other position you are pushing in your stories.
LGBT characters are fine, only if they are actually written well. Why? Because that's the rule with any type of character. I also don't have a problem with the idea of a character from a certain "special class" (at least according to some) is turned into a "bad guy", or is the "comic relief", or is the "annoying character". if it makes sense in a story. Creators shouldn't have to live in fear of the "easily offended".
I'm far to individualistic to really give a damn about any group outside of the "human" group. I think it's pretty stupid in general when one group is worried a story about witches and wizards will poison the minds of the kids and turn them into wiccans, well another group thinking that a funny gay character is going to make an entire generation into homophobes. Far to often when a creator goes in planning to set up a "message" they turn their characters strictly into symbols, and then you end up with an Ayn Rand type story.
Now many individualist love Rand, to some people she's the perfect "individualist" author. But to me she's far from it. All of her characters, just aren't characters they are symbols that often represent entire philosophical ideals and positions. They become less and less human and in the end get that label of a "Randian" character. Often her "ideal male" character are great businessman, great thinkers, and great philosophers, who lives are driven solely by the desire to do as they please, and to work however they want for their own value. What's wrong with that? As a philosophical symbol? Noting really, but as a character? Well you end up with people who when they aren't working on something, sit around and talk about their work and how their philosophical ideals dictate how they live their lives. They become less and less human.
Rand isn't the only creator who does this though. Now it's predominantly found on places like tumblr where the constantly annoyed and offended start complaining if something they believe in isn't treated with sanctimonious hands. A gay character who acts silly? The creator and actor must be homophobic. A redneck shown to be a bible thumping bigot? Left wing media is controlling the message and forcing people to hate religion.
And much like Rand these easily offended people then start excommunicating people from "the proper" movement. By the time Rand died her Objectivist movement basically feel into the hands of one guy... who got their because he never disagreed with Rand, and Rand had "excommunicated" her other follows for not living life "the right way" according to Objectivist Philosophy. Which covers multiple topics, for example Rand would belittle people who enjoyed types of music that she thought served no purpose and were not "rational".
Now today what do we have? We have a neo-victorinaism on the rise, where the people who once just asked to have the same ability to live their lives how they want, are now demanding that other people follow their beliefs, or be "excommunicated" from polite society. It's disgusting in my opinion, and the worst kind of group think that can affect people.
And what happens when you make characters that strictly fit into a supposed set of rules and standards? You end up with brilliant, beautiful, perfect people who do nothing but sit by the telephone and wait for work. Or in the case of many left wing ideals, they are brilliant, beautiful, perfect people, who do nothing but walk around fighting the good fight, which is often whatever the creator thinks is important.
It strips away the elements of good story telling. And honestly I'm less worried about the "awkward gay" character being around then I am the "little miss perfect" character.
Let's take the Naruto world for example. Let's start with Jiraya. Now to most of us he is just a funny, if somewhat pervy character who is part comic relief, and part father figure for the man character. I've already heard people complaining about how he is a "terrible character", because he "see's women as sex objects" and "is a bad role model for kids". Which is ridiculous. Jiraya's perverseness is one of his character weaknesses, it's there to serve a purpose in the story. Without it Jiraya would turn into... well brilliant ninja, who's damn near perfect, and does nothing but walk around fighting the good fight. But he isn't perfect, he's far from it. He has problems. He isn't an "ideal" he isn't a "symbol" his more of a character because he has a portion of humanity to him, which in this case is not just his past failures, but his daily ones that come from his personal weaknesses.
Now let's look at site wide hated character Hinata. What is she now? She's "beautiful", a "pure and perfect" person, who has "done nothing wrong", and besides yearning for Naruto has no other character drive. Her entire arc flows to the point, that in the end she is a 19 year old young woman, crying over the fact that the boy she likes is wearing a scarf (that his Mother made him) because she thinks it means he slept with a girl that wasn't her. She's less of a human being, and more of a symbol of pureness that wasn't rewarded. Her fans loved to say that Hinata "deserved" Naruto, not because she did anything human like to win his heart, but because she was loyal to him alone, and lived for him even when he didn't know she lived for him. She became nothing but a symbol, and as Kishimoto said he felt bad about the idea of "Sakura taking Naruto away from Hinata. Where would that leave her?" Well in Kishimoto's mind.... it would make her a failure because he doesn't see her as a human being. She's a symbol to him, and her purpose is to be rewarded for her duty bond desire to get in Naruto's pants. Such loyalty is good in Kishimoto's eyes and therefor must be rewarded, as such no matter what was built up before hand it must genuflect the the symbol he created, or else what would Hinata do?
So what do I think of "funny gay characters" that are shown to be awkward, and are made fun of? I'm not bothered by them if they are done right for the story that is being told, and it's logical for the characters to act like that. Far to many people though are concerned about turning characters (not just gay characters, any "group" character they want to identify with for whatever purpose) into symbols, which is why you hear things like "How does this reflect on the community?" Well frankly in my opinion it doesn't. The only think that should matter to use as consumers of the product, is how the character affects the story. I don't give a damn what outside "message" is being attacked. That kind of thinking lead Ayn Rand to declare in the Objectivist Newsletter that someone couldn't be anti-smoking and be a true Objectivist, why? Because she liked smoking, and she saw at as the perfect symbol of how man conquers the world because you hold "the sun in your fingertips" when you smoke. It's man "controlling" nature for his purpose. You don't agree? Your not a logical thinker, and you must be attacked as some kind of idiot. Which people in her movement back in the 60s did, before many of them were later kicked out themselves for disagreeing with her on different subjects.
I'm tired of this "offend first" sub culture that seemingly has been taking over more and more of our collective society, that has been created. When you put people like that in charge the easily offended start to make the rules, something we had back in the 19th century. We are constantly being more and more divided into groups not only because of things we can't control (skin color, right hand left hand, sexual orientation) but now over things that to many people just don't matter to them, but mean the world to others who vocally demand people submit, or change the way they are living their lives, or creating their work.
I want the characters I read about to be well thought out, and created to serve a purpose in the story. I don't want any damn outside message getting involved to prove some kind of point that has nothing to do with the damn story that is being told. I want them to have strengths and weaknesses, and I don't think creators should have to follow a flow chart because they are afraid about putting a type of character in their story, and how it might affect the people who lives are ruled by certain creeds or ideals and philosophies. Above all I'm tired of characters who's personalities have to be presented in a certain way, or else the creator is called "anti" whatever special class is supposedly under assault, all because some college kid who just took Sociology 101 wants to exercise some "class struggle" idea, often into a story that had nothing to do about it in the first place.
Their are places for philosophical novels like 1984, Animal Farm, Fahrenheit 451, War and Peace, and yes Atlas Shrugged, they are fine on their own. I have no problem with people enjoying them, and getting the feeling of positive enjoyment from them. My problem is when people apply the same standard to See Spot Run. Not every story should be viewed threw the lens of such tales, and frankly I think the push that stories should be viewed in such ways is destroying the creative juices of many people, and such complainers are a bigger problem then the things they complain about.
Stereotypes can work fine in a story if done right. What I want is a good story. Keep your damn messages out of them, and that goes to everyone left, right, and center. Sometimes I just want to read a Mickey Spillane story, and have the private eye bunch the bad guy, kill the killers, and get the girl, without worrying about what community is going to be offended.
You'll life will go a whole lot easier if you put your causes down when you decide to enjoy some entertainment, they will be there when you get back. And sure you can live in a bubble only reading, watching, and enjoying things that follow your ideals of what should be. I'm not saying you can't or don't have that right, but life isn't worth living if you try to be perpetually upset when something isn't perfect in your eyes because of a reason that has nothing to do with the story that is being told. Life is to short to be carrying a chip on your shoulder, everywhere you go. Just my long two cents.
