Update on my thoughts about "The Disability Test"--

[capri0mni]

So, last night, between a long, hot, shower and getting ready for bed, the question of this whole test clarified (as happens), and this is the revised version that's circling in my head, now, after sleeping on it.

jesse_the_k. lilacsigil, kittenmommy, elettaria, and prydera all disagreed with my inclusion of the criteria that the disability be "Actual" and "have consequences," since that would likely lead to "disability policing." And I see that point -- I also realized that, since "A Quest for Cure" is irrelevant in this test, "Cause" is also irrelevant. So that part is simply out.*

I realized that what makes the Bechdel Test so strong is that it is completely free of jargon -- using words that even those who never studied literature or writing get intuitively:

Stories have people who talk to each other about... stuff. The Bechdel Test point out: Unless those people are women.

I (and many folks in my circle) are comfortable with terms like "Conflict resolution," "story arc," and "motivation," but these terms are still jargon to many (and they have lots of syllables). elletaria also pointed out that it would be nice just to have random people with disabilities Show up in the background scenes whether or not they're actually part of the story. It's so rare that they're even in the background.

So-- this is the hot-water-drenched version:

1) There's a disabled person visible
2) Who wants something, and tries to get it,
3) Other than: Death, Cure, or Revenge.

(This might be the main character having story-type adventure, or it could just be someone in a wheelchair, in the crowd, buying a paper at the newsstand, while the lead couple make googly eyes at each other in the foreground)


*(Incidentally, I included "consequences" mostly as a note to myself. I originally wrote my NaNoWriMo novel as a script for ScriptFrenzy!, five and a half years ago, and back then, I only had my prince character suffer a missing eye and facial burns to break from the trope that the heroic prince is now and must always be "A Handsome Prince."

But, in revisiting the story this time around, I realized: "Oh, hey! having only one eye is going to change how he moves through his palace, isn't it -- especially all those steep, uneven, lit-by-torchlight, tower staircases? That's probably something I should address, and not have him capering up and down like he used to, when he was twelve..." [He's also relatively newly disabled -- within the last year -- and he hasn't, yet, gotten completely comfortable with his changed body])

Comments

[dharma_slut]

That could be the test for every non-normative character-- color, gender, ability, age... economic class...

That they not be defined by that deviance from the norm,
And not questing for normativity.

At least one, yanno...

[capri0mni]

Right. Start with one person, just existing. Then, after "folks" (aka The Shirts who Sell this Stuff for Advertising Dollars) get used to that, then we can get really bold and have two people. Once we blow past the "talk to each other" barrier, its anything goes...

:-/

[dharma_slut]

To the MOON! Pchoo!

[capri0mni]

LOL!

[sqbr]

Ooh, I like this one more. I was too tired to properly articulate my issues with the previous version, but part of it was that I don't have a problem in principle with character's problems being a result of their disability, as long as the SOLUTIONS aren't about CURING the disability.

[capri0mni]

*nod-nod*

Take real life, for example (imagine that!): my aide's other client is a six year old boy. The main conflict in his life, right now, is in trying to getting an education.

His cerebral palsy makes that an ordeal because the school officials simply cannot wrap their heads around the notion that he is a normal six year old boy who needs to learn the normal curriculum.

So in that sense, you might say that his C.P. is the cause of the conflict, but finding a solution to that conflict is not to sequester him in a hospital until he is cured.

For the record, I would not say his C.P. is the cause of his conflict: getting an education is a story that many, many children are familiar with. "School Days" is a popular genre of literature. But his C.P. is altering the course his story takes, as it unfolds...

[raze]

Digging this version better and I think later I need to have a look at some of my disabled characters (both central cast and supporting cast) and see how they score out. I know my main disabled character/narrator, Lucas, would pass the test as he is involved in almost everything from Vol 2 onwards, and the plot has never involved any of #3 for him. Honestly the closest it's come to even focusing on his disability is a sub-plot where his boyfriend tries to find him more effective pain management (not because Lucas can't/won't do so for himself, but being in a medical field, the beau has more resources at his disposal). *shrugs* Perhaps I'll make a post later dissecting some of my own cast to see where we stand.

Also: I have been reading and enjoying your blog but have been so lacking in spoons that I haven't replied much. I feel bad about that so I just figured I'd mention it.

[capri0mni]

*nods* I think I'm liking this version better, too -- primarily for the "no jargon" aspect, but also for the acknowledgement that even seeing a disabled person in a crowd scene in a movie or television (or comic book) is just about as rare as seeing a pink, purple-polka-dotted unicorn -- it's to the point where I cheer crowd scenes, now if someone does show up, even more than the main action...

Funny thing, too: In my experience, there's always at least one disabled person in every crowd I've been around, very often even three or four. ;-)

(And heck, don't worry about the spoons).

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>>It would be nice just to have random people with disabilities Show up in the background scenes whether or not they're actually part of the story. It's so rare that they're even in the background.<<

The term for that is "background parity."

I agree with you about consequences. Despite the "policing" argument, I think this stipulation is necessary. The disability must mean something. However, it doesn't have to be a big something. A person with glasses has to deal with the world a bit differently than someone with perfect vision, and it is preferable to acknowledge this other than by making a rude joke of it. A person using a wheelchair will have more and different challenges. The amount to which this is visible in a story will depend on the plot, setting, etc. but I really dislike cases where a disability is only claimed but never does anything. Even the ones where I have someone with a fully compensated disability, it's there in how they are compensating for it -- vision impairment fixed with glasses or a magical artifact, for instance.

Those tiny little details can make or break a story.

Re: Thoughts

[capri0mni]

The term for that is "background parity."

Thanks! It helps to have the right words, when it comes to changing minds. And, in some ways, I think background parity is more important than parity with primary and secondary characters. I've cheered background parity on screen before, only to have that seemingly "random" wheelchair user turn out to be the only person with the secret last piece of knowledge to resolve the plot. We need to be recognized as simply existing, too.

I agree with you about consequences. Despite the "policing" argument, I think this stipulation is necessary.

*nod* That was my gut feeling. Although, I think it's also important to keep this "test" as simple (and "low bar") as possible, if only to make the rarity of disabled characters more obvious. Plus, requiring consequences for those who want to past the test could very well lead to cringe-worthy moments in the hands of inexperienced writers.