In the Shadow of Tolkein: 40k and Collaborative Fiction

[YorkNecromancer]

Many of the 40k novels and extra materials (FFG RPG books etc) are quite good at representing non-white non-dude people (or at least significantly better than they used to be), but the 40k universe as a whole is kinda terrible. The recent Eldar codex, aside from Jain Zar and the Banshees - my next band's name - only features three other depictions of female Eldar (two guardians in photos and a Harlequin in an art panel) - significantly less than the previous edition.

This.

This, this this.

FFG's roleplay products really are very good for mixed representations of gender actually (still really bad when it comes to race, though; in the artwork you're genuinely more likely to see a rainbow coloured face than a black one) - I wonder if the gender thing is because roleplaying has a larger female player base than wargaming? And I wonder if the increased female player base is due to White Wolf aggressively targetting women in the early-mid 90's (their suggested characters were a 50:50 male/female split, and a good 75% of the female characters weren't wearing bikinis. Plus all their books used "she" as the default pronoun, rather than "he" - a minor, but interesting change. I just liked it because it was different!) It's pure speculation, so I can make no comment either way. But I do remember the glory days of the World of Darkness -driven roleplay boom when for about a decade tabletop roleplay became art, rather than munchkin-driven murderfests.

Back on-topic, I think, as I have for years, that the lack of female representation really hurts the hobby. REALLY hurts the hobby, as it casually excludes all but the most dedicated female gamers, and allows the community to remain a "boys club" where some very toxic attitudes can fester.

It makes me sad that FFG can get it so right while GW refuse to.

[The Last Lamenter]

See that's where I am right at home. What little boy has never pretended to play war with sticks and dreamed of being a bad *** super soldier? I know it's not politically correct, but I'm sure that the Black Library ought to seek an actual woman's perspective instead of a man's interpretation of a woman's perspective. It feels presumptuous, unauthentic when a man writes a woman. You can always tell if you know what to look for. Maybe there are men and women out there who are really so talented as to make the character utterly convincing, I've found that there is a huge difference from someone writing from their experience and pain and someone writing from their interpretation of someone's experience and pain. Space marines aren't real but women are I can speak for something not real if ever so commissioned, but I can't speak for a woman. They have their own voice now. Isn't that part of what feminism is about? A woman having her own identity and voice. And minorities? I don't feel I've earned the right to speak from a Jim Crow era African American. I think there are some topics that should be treated with some level of refrain. I can deal with situation of women in my writing and talk about gender, but my wife would be the first to tell you that I've no business speaking for women, and if that means that I have no business writing, then I must respectfully disagree with you.

[Nabterayl]

I think you're construing character identity too narrowly. There are two questions here. Not every character trait needs to come through in every character's perspective. If an author adds a character whose only relevant trait is "down and out beggar," "cultist," "sergeant in the Imperial Guard," why shouldn't that character be non-male or non-white? That is one question. Whether an author can convincingly portray a non-male and/or non-white character is irrelevant when the character's gender and/or ethnicity don't need to be portrayed. Even moreso when the artist in question isn't an author. When a rulebook calls for an illustration of a down and out beggar, cultist, or sergeant in the Imperial Guard, we can't exactly explain a white male default by saying the illustrator couldn't convincingly draw a female beggar, non-white sergeant, or brown skinned female cultist.

An entirely separate question is whether an author's art is strengthened by restricting his or her characters to traits that are either within his or her personal experience or in no actual person's personal experience. I'd answer that question no, but apparently you disagree. I take it, then, (to take an example that is probably in our shared reading experience) that you think the characters of Alizabeth Bequin, Patience Kys, and Kara Swole should either have been changed to men or been deleted entirely?

[The Last Lamenter]

Okay so lets say that BB and GW are guilty of this undercurrent of sexism, which seems to be the greatest flaw within the universe of 40k. What do you propose? What should they do differently, where should they start? And how do we, as the players,readers, and customers fit into this? Im not being rhetorical, I really want to know what you suggest.

[YorkNecromancer]

Okay so lets say that BB and GW are guilty of this undercurrent of sexism, which seems to be the greatest flaw within the universe of 40k. What do you propose? What should they do differently, where should they start? And how do we, as the players,readers, and customers fit into this? Im not being rhetorical, I really want to know what you suggest.

1.) Get the community to admit that there is a problem.

Basically, first we need to get to a point where when someone talks about 40K's problematic aspects, the reaction isn't knee-jerk defense. We need to get the community to see that attacking aspects of something they love isn't an attack on them, or even on the thing they love, but a genuine desire to take something good and make it great. To see the critique as a positive step.

2.) Demand better from GW

It's that simple. We're customers and fans. GW has Games Day; if every single fan who speaks to a GW employee that day goes "Wow, I love your models, but seriously - what is up with your companies attitude towards women and people of colour? It's 2013 - you do know that it looks really, really weird to an outsider, right?"

Blogs help. Youtube videos help. The fact you are male helps - I guarantee you won't experience a backlash anything like the level of horror a woman making these complaints would ([url]http://tigerbeatdown.com/2011/11/07/why-are-you-in-such-a-bad-mood-mencallmethings-responds/[/url]). So there's that. Be aware, you will get horrible comments and people attacking you; maybe not as horrifically as Anita Sarkeesian, but it can be very nasty.

Bottom line, I've been saying these things online since 2007 and nothing has changed. You know what? I don't think it ever will. I genuinely think 40K will stay a little cultural backwater, where this kind of ugly prejudice (always and forever passed off by fans unaware of their privilege as "the natural order") will just continue, because... well, part of privilege is being unaware of it. I keep hoping it'll change, but it never does.

So I don't actually think you or I or anyone here can do anything. I mean, the fact I'm going to fail doesn't mean I'm going to stop. When you know something's morally right, you keep fighting, especially when the fighting takes the form of eating biscuits and typing words into a magical plastic box.

But yeah, I don't think you or I or anyone can change anything.

You could always try incorporating female characters into you fanfiction/blog. I wrote a fanfic a while back with a predominantly female cast purely for this reason. [url]http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?18835-Wherein-I-Attempt-to-Write-40K-Fanfic[/url]!

Also, my BoLS blog has characters written in the spirit of Not Just Being More White Boys Saving The Rest Of Us. I've even got some gay Tau in there. Of course, literally no-one has read my blog, so it's a wasted, worthless effort in that regard.

Still, I'm not stopping.

[Nabterayl]

As far as what GW itself could do, I think what I'd like to see is a move away from all one-dimensional characters having their incidental character traits be homogenous.

When a character is painted, for instance, I don't think the default should be for that character to look like he or she is from English stock. Sometimes there is a good reason for a given skin tone - a space marine chapter's geneseed seems to influence skin tone, for instance - but if there isn't, then let the skin tones we see have more variation.

When a character is illustrated, same thing. If the rulebook needs an illustration of an Ecclesiarchy priest, for instance, I think that by itself is adequate reason to draw a man. I don't think "Ecclesiarchy priest" automatically encodes "looks like an Englishman," though, in the same way that it codes "looks like a man." Tech-priests, we already know from books, are female just as often as male - but you wouldn't know it from the illustrations.

When a character is sculpted, same thing. Sometimes the character itself incidentally encodes certain information - an unhelmeted Blood Angel probably shouldn't have dreadlocks, for instance, simply by virtue of being a Blood Angel. An eldar guardian, tau fire warrior, or human soldier don't have the same coding of physical traits. I really appreciated the balance of sexes in the recent dark eldar kits, for instance.

When a character is written, same thing. If the protagonist of a Black Library novel meets an incidental character who could be male or female, let them be female as often as they are male. If there is a good reason for there to be gender imbalance in the incidental characters, put that in enough that the attentive reader can notice it. After all, the characters probably do - you'd notice if you were walking down a street in Manhattan and there were literally no women on the street.

As for how to achieve these things corporately, that depends in part on corporate structure and part on the attitudes of the artists themselves. For instance, let's say you tell Jes Goodwin that the next time he resculpts the Tau fire warrior kit there should be the option to create X many female fire warriors per box. If Jes is the kind of artist who would say, "No problem, that sounds great!" then all you needed to do is tell him. If he's the kind of artist who would say, "No way, no armies in 40K should have female models except Sisters and space elves" (not that I think he is), then nothing will change without some corporate coercion.

I think, though, that this sort of incidental sexism and racism in 40K art probably doesn't exactly stem from the artists themselves. I think it more likely that they know they're being paid to produce 40K art, they feel like the people who consume 40K art will consume less of it if it contains fewer white males, and they feel like their corporate patrons value 40K art that people will buy over 40K art that takes the milieu seriously. So I think what needs to change is the messaging from the people who pay the artists: Hey, we want 40K art to look like it draws from the entire human race, and not the male half of England. If there is a fan backlash against that, we will back you. In general, I think artists are happy when their corporate patrons invite them to stretch themselves and/or take their corporately sponsored art more seriously.

For me, that's what this comes down to - not fighting sexism, social change, or even engineering better attitudes in the 40K community. It comes down to taking the universe seriously. I love 40K, and I think it has the potential to be much more mature than it currently is (or has been in the past). I would love it so much more if it was more mature. I think a lot of 40K is dreck, but I don't think that because I think the source material is dreck. It's because the people who make 40K art don't take it seriously, and this is one way in which they don't.

[YorkNecromancer]

When a character is painted, for instance, I don't think the default should be for that character to look like he or she is from English stock. Sometimes there is a good reason for a given skin tone - a space marine chapter's geneseed seems to influence skin tone, for instance - but if there isn't, then let the skin tones we see have more variation.

When a character is illustrated, same thing. If the rulebook needs an illustration of an Ecclesiarchy priest, for instance, I think that by itself is adequate reason to draw a man. I don't think "Ecclesiarchy priest" automatically encodes "looks like an Englishman," though, in the same way that it codes "looks like a man." Tech-priests, we already know from books, are female just as often as male - but you wouldn't know it from the illustrations.

When a character is sculpted, same thing. Sometimes the character itself incidentally encodes certain information - an unhelmeted Blood Angel probably shouldn't have dreadlocks, for instance, simply by virtue of being a Blood Angel. An eldar guardian, tau fire warrior, or human soldier don't have the same coding of physical traits. I really appreciated the balance of sexes in the recent dark eldar kits, for instance.

When a character is written, same thing. If the protagonist of a Black Library novel meets an incidental character who could be male or female, let them be female as often as they are male. If there is a good reason for there to be gender imbalance in the incidental characters, put that in enough that the attentive reader can notice it. After all, the characters probably do - you'd notice if you were walking down a street in Manhattan and there were literally no women on the street.

Agree with all these ideas, although when it comes to painting, I would suggest changing the word "character" into the phrase "model with exposed skin".

nothing will change without some corporate coercion.

Yup. And we as fans have no power to do anything about that; no-one can convince me we can do a damn thing. What it would take is another company to aggressively pursue the as-yet utterly untapped female gamer market - which is definitely out there, but most likely turned off by the brutal "boys only" atmosphere of 40K.

Seriously GW, is it too much to ask to have a human female model who isn't in a corset?

I think, though, that this sort of incidental sexism and racism in 40K art probably doesn't exactly stem from the artists themselves.

I love the idea of racism and sexism being "incidental", like the total abscence of the vast majority of the spectrum of humanity is no big thing; everyone knows the future is for white guys only! Mild joking aside I think "unintended" might be a better word to use. And that's basically the patriarchy in action; it's people, going along with what they've always known, not thinking.

You could argue that if they're not thinking, they're, well... stupid. Because they have no thought in their head.

It's because the people who make 40K art don't take it seriously, and this is one way in which they don't.

I don't even know if it's taking the universe seriously, or just humanity.

It's like when people complain about "political correctness" limiting their vocabulary. If being "politically correct" means not making jokes about people based on their ethnicity, gender, sexuality and so forth... isn't that just another word for respect? Which we should all automatically extend to everyone? (You know, if we all want to be the friendly "Nice Guys" we imagine we are in our heads.) Political correctness has never once stopped me saying something I want to, but it's definitely helped make me a better person.

There's 7 billion people on this planet; we should just be polite to each other, and save our vitriol for the things that matter. Like 40K.

[The Last Lamenter]

A Gay Tau? never thought of that one. Gleehammer 40k "in the Grim darkness of the far future... Wait what are those Tau guys doing?" Only joking though, if you write fiction the way you write on here, I'm sure it's good, send me the link, i promise ill read it and i wont be troll about it.Seriously though, I can't do this, man. I'm not going to get in on this. If this is how its got to be, if we have to compel writers with literary affirmative action, I can't join you in demanding anything from the writers, except they keep producing good stuff. I don't see a grave enough error to warrant me having the right to demand anything or be angry. I would feel like I was complicit with a witch-hunt. I'm not going to join you in this fight, maybe the BB should hire more female writers. This isn't a fight for me, and I will continue to post threads celebrating and perhaps examining what i believe to be some philosophical and even legitimate scifi literature within the 40k universe. Good luck, you seem to have a very pure cause.

[Nabterayl]

Before you leave ... you never did answer my question about the ladies in Abnett's inquisitor books. Do you think the books would have been better with those characters as men, or deleted?

[The Last Lamenter]

Nah I don't like hypotheticals, if abnett stated it that way than it should be kept that way. Exactly the way he wrote it, and by that virtue alone, I think they're totally nessesary, but since we're talking about if, if I had to make an argument to keep them, here is what I'd say.

With Bequin, Eisenhorn had to have a posse, and he needed a foil, as a psyker, what better foil than a blank? Instead of someone who just disagrees with him. 40k has something of a tradition of portraying blanks as female, like in Nemesis, and the sisters of silence in HH.

I don't know about kys.

With Kara we have a love interest! Wouldn't go as far to call it romance. She's an acrobat, spy skilled in infiltration. I kind of see her as a femme fatale.