Discuss the Inclusion of a Gay Character

[Terez]

Actually, @Terez, it was your own fault for quoting Brandon's blog post . The part about not giving the other side of the debate ammo to present all Mormons as fanatics resonated (is that the correct word?) with your comments regarding 'shattering the illusion'. My reaction to it was that objection to homosexuality isn't necessarily an 'illusion' to be broken. I don't have to agree with it to respect Brandon's right to it.

I'm not sure that 'homosexuality' as the 'illusion' really works, though...and neither does the idea that homosexuality is wrong, necessarily. As I said, I believe that religions can survive with these beliefs if they can learn not to project them onto society at large, and the projection itself - the idea that gay people should stay in the closet - is the illusion (though the idea that PDA should be avoided, for example, is a different debate entirely). Brandon is obviously better about this than most people in his faith by a long shot, but his stance on gay marriage remains to be such a projection. In order to make an argument for that, you have to come up with reasons based on logic and evidence why allowing same sex marriage would be a bad thing for society, rather than simply a violation of your personal religious codes. And while I would love to debate gay marriage with Brandon, I think I'd find a debate on the notion of absolute truth (especially as it relates to any given religion) to be far more interesting.

[dscott8]

If you believe that discussion here will alter such opinions as have already been expressed in this thread, have at it. I shall observe your progress with considerable interest. My own experience as uncle to a lesbian and as friend and co-worker of gay and transgendered people suggests that it would take something more immediate and personal than abstract debate over a fictional character to change adult minds on this issue.

I imagine you say that because the hardliners are both more common and more memorable, and if a mother of a lesbian can't change her mind out of love for her daughter (for example), then why should random people on the internet change their minds for an argument?

 

Actually, I say it because I've found that 95% of the arguments put forth are either:

 

1. Not based on logic. The religious arguments are most common, because if there were logic behind them, it would be science, not religion. When a person truly believes whatever Holy Writ is central to their views, no amount of reasoned argument will change their minds. They're on a different playing field, and their game has different rules. With adults, positions have hardened with age and are harder to give up. I'd expect a better chance of changing minds among a group of 7th-graders.

 

2. Not addressing the real issue. The central issue is not morality, or health, or political correctness, it is the fact that some people fall in love with others of the same gender. It has been happening since the dawn of recorded history, no matter what cultural views of homosexuality were at the time, and it's not going away. Telling someone in love not to love is a pointless exercise. Many of the arguments I see here are really ways for the person to avoid dealing with it -- which is why it's so difficult for some people when a sibling or child comes out. It's no longer abstract debate, it's family.

 

3. Full of selective argument. This is the curse of the Information Age, that it's so easy to find a million info-bits on any subject and "cherry pick" those that suit a particular position. This is exacerbated by the ability of any bozo with $14.95 per month to put up a web page full of their own prejudices dressed up as "facts". Some people see what they want to see, and others are willing to feed it to them.

 

4. Highly polarized, as is typical of modern public debate on emotional issues. We live in a culture that has been led to believe that there are only two sides to any issue, that each side falls into one of two "party lines" (so-called "conservative" or "liberal" -- and neither term, when used in recent public debate, means what it's supposed to mean), and that any opposition to one's own position is not simply another viewpoint, but wilfully evil or malicious. The politicians have done this to us deliberately -- they get the voting populace all fired up about gay rights, or abortion, or gun control, or prayer in schools, and use that emotion to generate campaign contributions and votes. Once elected, they gather in back rooms without regard to party affiliation, and divide up the public pie. We have gotten so used to this my-way-or-the-highway style of debate, we can't really deal with a free and open-minded exchange of viewpoints, and any suggestion that there is a middle ground is seen as treason by both sides of the debate.

 

Perhaps I shoud start a poll, "Has the debate on this thread changed your position on gay-related issues? If so, why?" Might be interesting.

[yoniy0]

Okay, first, we aren't debating the gay Cause, we're debating the inclusion of a gay character in AMoL. Such a poll as you offer wouldn't find its place in the WoTD boards, though you do have the general board to play in

Second, for several pages now I've ignored comments implying that the world begins and ends at the US border. It doesn't (no, I don't mean Hawaii). Ah, I feel better just getting that off my chest.

[Terez]

Perhaps I shoud start a poll, "Has the debate on this thread changed your position on gay-related issues? If so, why?" Might be interesting.

Why would you even bother? Just because you don't manage to convince anyone in one debate doesn't mean that you haven't given them something to think about, and it doesn't mean you shouldn't try again. Yes, debates like this are full of people who get their opinions from biased sources but that is the point of debating them. Some arguments just don't hold up in a debate like this, and while you might not be able to convince the person you're arguing with, chances are that the observers and lurkers will be influenced. For example, I know I managed to get yoiniy0 to think about a couple of different things in different ways, and that itself made the whole effort worth it (despite the fact that he's pretty much on my side).

 

I just don't find it all that helpful to have the attitude that arguments don't change anything. Debate has always been an important part of shaping public opinion. Just because the change happens at a snail's pace doesn't mean we should give up altogether. If you're looking for instant gratification, then you probably shouldn't bother, but I don't see any reason why you should try to discourage others from it.

 

Also, I didn't notice any US-biased comments. It might help if you pointed out such biases in the future.

[Aliriel]

Ok, well I just voted "NO" in, what I think is, the poll yoniy0 mentioned, but got ninja'd by Luckers while typing my reply. Just to break it down here because I can't be typing it all again. All of these points are IMO.

 

1) "Homosexual" characters = No big deal because RJ said they were already out there, just no screen time.

2) "Pillow Friends" = Moot point. Very few people. Close courtered, confined, strickly controled envronments.... bound to happen. Very few of participants continue on.

3) Indroducing "Homosexual" character = Long time in coming? Doesn't matter as long as he has a decient part to play to the story to justify all the fuss.

 

It's a story people! Made up, from some guys imagination... He could have thrown in any number of sexual themes into it had he wanted but he didn't so just get over it.

 

A.

 

EDIT: -Removed for false assumption-

[yoniy0]

No, actually it wasn't. I was referring to the general discussion board, not the general WoT discussion board, and to no specific thread. And if you do take it there, be sure to discuss rhetorics rather than the inclusion of the gay character (as you've seen, Luckers's keeping a tight lid on this one.

 

@Terez, perhaps I'll go over the topic later and collect comments. Could be fun.

[Aliriel]

No, actually it wasn't. I was referring to the general discussion board, not the general WoT discussion board, and to no specific thread. And if you do take it there, be sure to discuss rhetorics rather than the inclusion of the gay character (as you've seen, Luckers's keeping a tight lid on this one.

 

@Terez, perhaps I'll go over the topic later and collect comments. Could be fun.

 

My mistake then. Misunderstood the reply from Terez, to your previous post, as the poll she referenced was the one I voted in and believed it to be the one you were were talking about.

 

Also, as I said, I don't think it's a big deal... It's just another character to me. That's all I'm gunna say so taking it to another thread isn't gunna happen from me.

 

A.

[Terez]

@Terez, perhaps I'll go over the topic later and collect comments. Could be fun.

I went back and read the last few pages and the only one I noticed right off was the comment above about polarized debate and how it's typically two-sided. Aside from the nuances, I find that to be mostly true on internet debate regardless of the origin of the posters involved. There is a conservative/liberal contrast nearly everywhere even if the government is a multi-party system. On any given single issue the conservative/liberal opposition comes out. The 'party lines' comment is even applicable outside the US, as even parties in multi-party government have platforms, though they are not always relevant to every issue such as the two-party platforms in the US, and I think that party line or single party voters are less common outside the US (which is not to say uncommon). Other than that there was a discussion on the US constitution which was brought up by a non-US resident.

[Luckers]

Mmm. If you guys really want to, such a discussion belongs on the Debates and Discussions Board.

[Sharaman]

"He"'s a character in a fantasy saga.

Assuming that the "gayness" is useful either in world-building, or in moving the narrative, what's the beef?

World build wise, RJ stated flat out that male/female same-sex relationships were common and cool in WoTland - presumably in AoL as well.

Explicitly showing a character/relationship is in no way out of place; it may add to the "world-build" if it tells us something more specific about the circs/ attitude in which gay relationships occur.

If it adds to the plot, wonderful.

As to the morality, WoT narrates hundreds (thousands?) of incidents/attitudes that are immoral/ amoral in the context of WoTland. Reader attitude may vary from WoT morality as well.

I don't see that showing skinning, torture or slavery in what is obviously fiction in any way = author advocates skinning/ torture or slavery in RL.

 

So why get all het up one way or another about showing LGB(T) sexual attitudes? (The T is apparently near-impossible since WoT souls have genders).

A gay character in AMoL, no matter how he's depicted, neither advocates nor condemns sexual orientation in RL.

BTW I'd speculated in the locked thread that a gay could possibly combine the strength of saidin channelers with the skill of saidar channelers, thereby getting the best of both worlds. Thoughts?

[Puny]

 

BTW I'd speculated in the locked thread that a gay could possibly combine the strength of saidin channelers with the skill of saidar channelers, thereby getting the best of both worlds. Thoughts?

 

Why would a male gay character be able to combine the strength of saidin with the skill of saidar... you mean that he would be both strong and agile in the Power? Being gay would be a soultrait I think... thus the soul is male and gay. Even if the sexual orentation wasn´t attached to the soul I don´t think gayman would have access to anything saidarish just because he is sexually attracted to men. He would just be a saidin wielder as usual.

 

Or maybe I´m not understanding your question correctly?

[SethBaker]

 

BTW I'd speculated in the locked thread that a gay could possibly combine the strength of saidin channelers with the skill of saidar channelers, thereby getting the best of both worlds. Thoughts?

 

Why would a male gay character be able to combine the strength of saidin with the skill of saidar... you mean that he would be both strong and agile in the Power? Being gay would be a soultrait I think... thus the soul is male and gay. Even if the sexual orentation wasn´t attached to the soul I don´t think gayman would have access to anything saidarish just because he is sexually attracted to men. He would just be a saidin wielder as usual.

 

Or maybe I´m not understanding your question correctly?

 

I think he's arguing it based on the stereotype that gay men are effeminate.

 

You know, like this guy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gareth_Thomas_(rugby_player)

 

(I completely disagree with the idea.)

[Puny]

 

BTW I'd speculated in the locked thread that a gay could possibly combine the strength of saidin channelers with the skill of saidar channelers, thereby getting the best of both worlds. Thoughts?

 

Why would a male gay character be able to combine the strength of saidin with the skill of saidar... you mean that he would be both strong and agile in the Power? Being gay would be a soultrait I think... thus the soul is male and gay. Even if the sexual orentation wasn´t attached to the soul I don´t think gayman would have access to anything saidarish just because he is sexually attracted to men. He would just be a saidin wielder as usual.

 

Or maybe I´m not understanding your question correctly?

 

I think he's arguing it based on the stereotype that gay men are effeminate.

 

You know, like this guy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gareth_Thomas_(rugby_player)

 

(I completely disagree with the idea.)

 

Oh...well since I don´t think your sexual orientation has anything to do with how you wield the Power and seeing that just because a guy likes another guy he doesn´t have to be feminine at all I have to respectfully disagree on what Sharaman wrote.

[Sharaman]

You don't have to be respectful :) I disagree with it myself. Just trying to see if I can get anybody excited enough to flame away.

WoT does deal quite heavily in stereotypes and there is statistical evidence that people who are artistic, creative, yada-yada, tend to have a higher percentage of unusual sexual orientations.

We've been told that women tend to be more dexterous at weaving; We've not been told exactly why -so, it could be because they're more used/interested in delicate work like crochet, etc., that need a great deal of care. Avi suggested that needlework practice helped with at least one extremely difficult "unweave'.

Hence, an artistic gay who has feminine interests, may be more dexterous than most male channelers.

[Canis Rufus]

What is strange to me is that this is an issue at all. The story is about the select group of characters and their interactions and devel;opment with this metaphysical world and the insuing end of it. I do not see how the sexuality either enhances or distracts from the story. I get that people like to relate to personas in a book but then I do not define myself by my sexuality but rather my moral and ethical standing. Personally I relate to Mat not because the character flirts a lot but because the attitude and since of honor he carries towards his people. If Mat was gay I would still feel the same its Character the defines him not sexuality.

 

I believe the real issue here is that it is brought up at all. Too often I think that young people desperate to define themselves latch onto a group and seek to define themselves with that rather then look inward and understand who they are for a definition. So your gay/straight/Bi are you so narrow minded that you think every book must represent you? Or so conceited to think that any book should? And If you believe that strongly then I would recommend you start writing. Does it matter if David Copperfield grows up to be gay? No that’s not what the story is about. Just as here, this is not what the story is about. Looking for an issue does not make it an issue. It’s as silly as if you complained there are no heterochromia’s in the book just because you happen to be one. Then just because the author, in a fit to make a few more dollars adds it in, you want to know how it affects the grander picture of the world. Nothing personal but it doesn’t improve anything and only makes it worse, because now it’s a marketing ploy preying on insecure people that want other people to pay attention to them. Just my two cents.

[yoniy0]

Canis, are you following the discussion? The only poster who (to my knowledge) have said that such a character should exist beforehand was Terez, which is neither male nor homosexual.

[Canis Rufus]

Canis, are you following the discussion? The only poster who (to my knowledge) have said that such a character should exist beforehand was Terez, which is neither male nor homosexual.

 

 

"Just my two cents"

[Luckers]

BTW I'd speculated in the locked thread that a gay could possibly combine the strength of saidin channelers with the skill of saidar channelers, thereby getting the best of both worlds. Thoughts?

 

Can I make a request? Can we not use the phrase 'a gay'? 'A gay guy' or 'A gay girl' are fine. But 'a gay'... It sounds like all I have to offer is anal penetration and a slightly heightened sense of fashion.

[Nightstrike]

The women seem to be like each other regardless of orientation. Nynaeve, Lanfear & other OP-strong women are heterosexual. As far as I know, anyway. Egwene is strong in Fire & Earth...

[Goramier]

... and a slightly heightened sense of fashion.

 

My brothers best friend and a friend of mine is gay, and I asked him why he dresses like a slob and he said the gay-fashion thing is a lie, lol. He is more anti-fashion then any I have ever met.

 

 

 

From Cannis Rufus (edited to include this since for some reason the name wasn't in the quote)

 

What is strange to me is that this is an issue at all. The story is about the select group of characters and their interactions and devel;opment with this metaphysical world and the insuing end of it. I do not see how the sexuality either enhances or distracts from the story. I get that people like to relate to personas in a book but then I do not define myself by my sexuality but rather my moral and ethical standing. Personally I relate to Mat not because the character flirts a lot but because the attitude and since of honor he carries towards his people. If Mat was gay I would still feel the same its Character the defines him not sexuality.

 

I believe the real issue here is that it is brought up at all. Too often I think that young people desperate to define themselves latch onto a group and seek to define themselves with that rather then look inward and understand who they are for a definition. So your gay/straight/Bi are you so narrow minded that you think every book must represent you? Or so conceited to think that any book should? And If you believe that strongly then I would recommend you start writing. Does it matter if David Copperfield grows up to be gay? No that’s not what the story is about. Just as here' date=' this is not what the story is about. [b']Looking for an issue does not make it an issue. It’s as silly as if you complained there are no heterochromia’s in the book just because you happen to be one. Then just because the author, in a fit to make a few more dollars adds it in, you want to know how it affects the grander picture of the world. Nothing personal but it doesn’t improve anything and only makes it worse, because now it’s a marketing ploy preying on insecure people that want other people to pay attention to them. Just my two cents. [/b]

 

As to CR, I fully agree and have been making the same points, especially the bolded parts. That is exactly how I feel. It's making a non-issue an issue and basically trashing the gay community to pretend to be some sort of enlightenment for the rest of us, which is of course laughable. You can't honestly expect to trash a community of people and then pretend to be the one who is going to save them and enlighten everyone else. Its a joke.

 

But look at the replies. Its clear when a mind is made up and no-one can change it. Some believe what they want and are completely unable and unwilling to listen to anything else. This is not about any issue other then using (and I mean it "using" in the bad way) others for self gain. Its sad. I could keep arguing my points but its useless. Some people don't care about facts or truth or who they hurt so long as they think they are being some sort of a saviour. It's ultimately damaging to the community in question but they are unable to see it.

 

I think the best thing to do when unfortunate stuff like that happens is to just make your thoughts known and not dwell on it.

[SethBaker]

It is not damaging to the community (except that it offends bigots) to include homosexuals in the story. Yes, you might think it's pandering and think it's stupid, but if you don't have a problem with gay people, you'll probably just shake your head when you get to it and move on. If you don't have a problem, it won't substantially change the story for you at all.

 

What's damaging to the community is furthering an argument that homosexuals should be satisfied with not being represented when the author has made clear what he's going to do. RJ made his feelings on the matter clear, and Brandon decided what he was going to write. Belaboring the point and arguing that homosexuals should tolerate being excluded is what's damaging. That's my two cents.

[Goramier]

It is not damaging to the community (except that it offends bigots) to include homosexuals in the story. Yes, you might think it's pandering and think it's stupid, but if you don't have a problem with gay people, you'll probably just shake your head when you get to it and move on. If you don't have a problem, it won't substantially change the story for you at all.

 

What's damaging to the community is furthering an argument that homosexuals should be satisfied with not being represented when the author has made clear what he's going to do. RJ made his feelings on the matter clear, and Brandon decided what he was going to write. Belaboring the point and arguing that homosexuals should tolerate being excluded is what's damaging. That's my two cents.

 

This has nothing to do with the point I made so I hope this wasn't a reply to what I said. If this was a reply to what I said which it sounds like it is, then you and Terez really need to learn how to read what people are saying and reply without completely changing what was being said and making up an argument that the person your replying to was not making....and of course, we have another label being tossed around. Darn all those who don't fall in line with our thoughts! They are bigots! lol. The only "pandering" going in is the consistant and complete changing of what was said to fit it into something you can attack.

[SethBaker]

It is not damaging to the community (except that it offends bigots) to include homosexuals in the story. Yes, you might think it's pandering and think it's stupid, but if you don't have a problem with gay people, you'll probably just shake your head when you get to it and move on. If you don't have a problem, it won't substantially change the story for you at all.

 

What's damaging to the community is furthering an argument that homosexuals should be satisfied with not being represented when the author has made clear what he's going to do. RJ made his feelings on the matter clear, and Brandon decided what he was going to write. Belaboring the point and arguing that homosexuals should tolerate being excluded is what's damaging. That's my two cents.

 

This has nothing to do with the point I made so I hope this wasn't a reply to what I said. If this was a reply to what I said which it sounds like it is, then you and Terez really need to learn how to read what people are saying and reply without completely changing what was being said and making up an argument that the person your replying to was not making....and of course, we have another label being tossed around. Darn all those who don't fall in line with our thoughts! They are bigots! lol. The only "pandering" going in is the consistant and complete changing of what was said to fit it into something you can attack.

 

It's literally a reply to everyone. At the risk of oversimplifying, I still think that if someone opposes this, there are two possibilities. One, that person is a bigot, and doesn't like it because they don't want to get any homosexuality in their stories. Two, that person perceives this as some kind of PC pandering by the author in one way or another.

 

If you'd read my post, you'd realize that I was not implying that you were a bigot. Without completely twisting the meaning of what I said, I don't see how you could assume that I was both replying to you and calling you a bigot. I quite plainly was not.

 

No, I'm saying that if you're one of the people in the second group, this should not be such a big deal. The author's made clear what's going on. It won't hurt the story. It might make you shake your head when you read it, since you don't like pandering/forced-PC/tokenism, but it shouldn't detract from the story for you unless you have some problem with homosexuality.

 

I don't really care what people who have a problem with homosexuality think, just like I don't care what white supremacists or chauvinists think. RJ and Brandon both made clear how this world falls, and how it will be mentioned in AMoL. That's where the buck stops for me. I think it's overdue in the story, and RJ made it clear how the world is structured. In light of that, the fact that Brandon is making a conscious decision to include it is almost irrelevant. Brandon's motivations are not important to me unless he's actually CHANGING something. Which he's not.

[Canis Rufus]

. I think it's overdue in the story

 

 

Ok you are going to have to help me with this one. You think it’s overdue to have a gay Character in this story, Why?

[capuga]

. I think it's overdue in the story

 

 

Ok you are going to have to help me with this one. You think it’s overdue to have a gay Character in this story, Why?

 

Probably because RJ said that there were gay characters in the story. That its perfectly accepted. We have seen gay female characters. Why haven't we seen a gay male character out of the hundreds and hundreds that have been described? RJ said they are there so it makes sense for us to have seen one by now.