Discuss the Inclusion of a Gay Character

[Nightstrike]

I think it's pretty obvious to everyone that you wouldn't object to a heterosexual preference being revealed in AMOL. That's all we need to know about you.

You're not talking to me? I don't object to either kind of romantic story. To me it's just a story.

[Terez]

Nope, not talking to you. You just ninjaposted while I was posting.

[Canis Rufus]

Do you think he has the time or the plot room to add this into the story? You tell me, how this can be done in any way that suits the story and doesn’t come off looking like it was just cramped in there to be sensational.

In the same way it was done with Androl. Are you seriously saying that there's no place to introduce new characters in the course of a single book and get the reader involved with them? Or that it souldn't be done? That's just not consistent with the story until now. How big a role has Seane had? Are we not better off for having met her? Seriously, do read my post and reply to it. Is there a reason you haven't?

 

 

Yoniy0

I have read your post and my response is the same. Your point is has no new bearing on the topic. Would that character being gay really affect the story? Or would it just be sensational? Like I told Seth we disagree. I am sorry I assumed you would infer that from my other replies I didn’t mean to make you feel excluded. But we still disagree. I think this is a blatant case of people who are desperate for attention and unfortunately I fell pray and am giving it. I have made my point you may go and argue with everybody else now. Know that I read all the post in the topic I am in I just choose when I will reply, try to understand that. In the future consider my non-response to have a reason and you should perhaps read all of my post before you feel excluded.

[SethBaker]

Ok here we go again

 

First The Shienarans bath houses where to define a culture in as much to teach the reader the level of intricacy that they inter-depended on each other and the amount of trust that comes with that. He was doing what is known as "world building," and yes that is very different than what we are discussing. There was a new place and we were learning about a whole culture. If at this point we don't know thier Gay does it really affect the story? I ask you to go back over what talked about last time. A hero is still a hero...

 

 

Second you complain that people keep tossing out the same rebuttals well you keep ignoring the responses and posing the same question. Look I get it your mind is made up. I only posted to share my opinion an opinion you clearly are not willing to think about. I disagree with you, deal with it, it appears I am not the only one. I apperciate your opinion I think your blind to the bigger picture but hey you know what they say bout opinion's... (Ironic a bit)

 

 

Third, I think it is classless and wrong and I doubt RJ would have ever done the likes. These quotes have at best been bastardised to mean what you want them to mean. Sorry dude still a bean. At the end of the day RJ was saying it’s not really the story. Sadly you don’t get that. The point is that it doesn’t matter so then why cram it in. What else can it serve? You seem smart you can figure this out. At the end of the day someone is getting paid; more press more coverage, more coverage more books sold more books sold bigger pay day. Don’t be fooled by PC garbage to believe that someone is fighting for a cause they don’t have a dog in.

 

(1) You're making a false distinction in point one. Introduction of characters' sexuality and social responses thereto IS part of world building. RJ quite clearly considered homosexual activity to be acceptable in Randland.

 

(2) There will be many descriptions in AMoL that will not serve a greater plot purpose. The fact that you're singling this one out is troubling to me.

 

(3) You do not know whether or not this will serve a greater plot purpose. There are many, many plot threads that need resolving, and not all of them are related to Rand defeating the Dark One at Tarmon Gai'don. The fact that you're assuming it will serve no plot purpose despite absolutely no evidence to support that conclusion (and with circumstantial evidence favoring the opposite conclusion) is troubling to me.

 

(4) I understand your argument, but I'm not the one who's ignoring the larger picture.

 

(5) The Wheel of Time has sold roughly 44 million copies, and you're arguing that including some plot point related to a gay character (or maybe just a gay character) is somehow a ploy to increase sales? I think that's indicative of how much critical thinking you've put into your theory on this.

 

(6) What point can it serve? I've answered that question over and over. You're ignoring it, and trying to explain it away by making distinctions without differences. It's world building. It's character development. It may serve a plot purpose. And it will be handled well, given who is working on it. Ignoring all of that, you think it's going to be some kind of jarring, poorly-fitted play for sales with gay people. I hear your point, and it's completely absurd in light of who's working on it, and how he views the series. It's complete nonsense.

[Grig]

Your point is has no new bearing on the topic. Would that character being gay really affect the story? Or would it just be sensational?

 

Actually, no, the idea is that it is mundane. Realistic, but mundane. Just something that is. Somewhat like noting that he has golden-blonde hair, a clear complexion, and blue eyes. They have no bearing on how the Bore will be sealed, but they contribute to the character and the overall description of the world. You're the one getting all titillated and calling it sensational.

 

Sorry for being a little condescending re:replying to him. I know how bad SIWOTI can get...

[SethBaker]

At the end of the day RJ was saying it’s not really the story. Sadly you don’t get that.

 

It's cute how you think you get it better than Robert Jordan's wife, who needs to sign off on any of these things. He must have wrote the series just for you, right? Only you can properly interpret his masterpiece.

 

Why are people even responding to this?

 

Because sometimes people cast off [Removed] ideas if you point out how they're unreasonable.

[capuga]

Third, I think it is classless and wrong and I doubt RJ would have ever done the likes. These quotes have at best been bastardised to mean what you want them to mean. Sorry dude still a bean. At the end of the day RJ was saying it’s not really the story. Sadly you don’t get that. The point is that it doesn’t matter so then why cram it in. What else can it serve? You seem smart you can figure this out. At the end of the day someone is getting paid; more press more coverage, more coverage more books sold more books sold bigger pay day. Don’t be fooled by PC garbage to believe that someone is fighting for a cause they don’t have a dog in.

 

So including a character detail is "classless"? That's more than a little insulting to both Brandon and Harriet. People are "sad" because they don't see things the way you do? You think it's tokenism - fine, I can see how it could look that way. But try not to be so blatantly rude to Team Jordan and the people here who view the situation in a different way then you.

 

Putting aside your insulting hyperbole, I really doubt the motivating factor in this decision is money. It might be motivated by political correctness, but almost certainly not by money. First, a passing reference to a gay character is unlikely to increase sales amongst the gay community. Second, if Harriet really wanted to make more money, she would allow additional stories set in the WoT world like Star Wars has. She has already said she will not do that (with the exceptions being the possibility of the already planned Mat outriggers and 2 other prequels) because this is RJ's world and she respects his legacy and desire not to let anyone else play in his sandbox.

[yoniy0]

@Canis, I didn't ask that you reply to my post because I was feeling excluded. I read your posts and felt that you continuously ignored the points I've made in it. I was hoping you'll quote it and then I could read your concrete counterarguments. Well, I'll have to quote it myself then:

The part that bugs me is how some people insist that it's been 'forced' into the story. Why assume that? Brandon's been writing parts of the story himself for two years now, and in the process he's invented more than one character and included some of their thought process. One of those characters, which - as chance has it - was pushed to AMoL based on editing considerations (recall that these three books are still basically all part of the original AMoL), happens to be gay. Brandon was reminded of that fact during a Twitter conversation and mentioned it to those he was conversing with. What detail in this story screams 'tokenism' or 'pandering'? I think some people are simply fearful that such motivations might have led Brandon to that choice, and reluctant to let him have the benefit of the doubt until they can read the book and judge on their own. I can't see how someone can claim that for fact though. That very nearly amounts to slander, I think.

And here's what you said:

Your point is has no new bearing on the topic. Would that character being gay really affect the story? Or would it just be sensational? Like I told Seth we disagree. I am sorry I assumed you would infer that from my other replies I didn’t mean to make you feel excluded. But we still disagree. I think this is a blatant case of people who are desperate for attention and unfortunately I fell pray and am giving it.

I don't feel that you've really addressed anything I wrote. You repeat that you don't see it having any bearing on the story. Well, as I've pointed out, Brandon has had to invent several character and include them in his book/s. Each may very well play a role until the story is over. For example, we knew nothing of Androl's motivations until ToM (an example I've already mentioned). Why insist that this gay character will be alone in having no import at all? That the way he thinks will be irrelevant to events in the book? Can you really substantiate that claim? And here we come to the second point I've made. How can you make any of this judgement now?

 

It is naturally your right to chose which points to argue. You can leave a discussion at any point you chose. That doesn't change the fact that I'm posting this in the hopes of changing your mind, as I am willing to change mine if anyone makes a point I didn't think of. I share your regret that RJ didn't finish the series. I'm not happy with everything Brandon did, although such criticism is a bit unfair. More importantly, I'm very grateful to Brandon for what he's doing and generally pleased by his performance (as I am with his own books).

[Diederichos]

I don't know how to read the first post, it says that he included a gay character in TofM. If that's the case, who is it, and why does it need to be mentionned? RJ included lesbians but I don't think he ever went out of his way to say that he included them, admittedly, I came to WoTdom late.

[Grig]

I don't know how to read the first post, it says that he included a gay character in TofM. If that's the case, who is it, and why does it need to be mentionned? RJ included lesbians but I don't think he ever went out of his way to say that he included them, admittedly, I came to WoTdom late.

 

For like the 20th time, it wasn't a grand press relief from TOR. It was something mentioned in a conversation with a couple fans. There were no spotlights, no copy editing, no grand plan for revealing an amazing upcoming plot development. It was simply a factoid thrown out to a fan as part of a discussion. As for who it is, we don't know and apparently the information was shifted to AMoL.

 

This mention was even less formal than when Jordan came out and mentioned that pillow friends get all hot and sweaty in an official blog post, fwiw. But somehow the fanrage was less strong back then. Go figure.

[SethBaker]

His position makes perfect sense if you subscribe to heteronormativity. If hetero is the usual, and homosexuality is an aberration (even an acceptable aberration), then Brandon's decision begins to look questionable.

 

This is why "bigotry" is getting thrown around a lot. Because there's a lot of heteronormative assumptions being made by Canis (and other people arguing on his side). And they're groundless assumptions that have absolutely no bearing in a world where homosexuality is considered normal, acceptable, and unremarkable.

 

Canis, that's the short of why you're wrong.

[capuga]

I don't know how to read the first post, it says that he included a gay character in TofM. If that's the case, who is it, and why does it need to be mentionned? RJ included lesbians but I don't think he ever went out of his way to say that he included them, admittedly, I came to WoTdom late.

 

He wrote it while writing ToM, but it didn't make it into that book. He plans to include the scene in aMoL.

[yoniy0]

His position makes perfect sense if you subscribe to heteronormativity.

I don't think that it does, for exactly the reasons I've already mentioned. Though truth be told, if you define 'norm' by what is common, isn't heteronormativity a given in both worlds (or rather, times )?

[Diederichos]

Except homosexuality isn't normal. Please don't flame me without letting me explain.

 

Normal is taken to mean common enough and in some ways common to a majority of people. If I remember my high school physed classes well enough, homosexual was somewhere around 10% of the population, maybe 15%? So clearly it is anything but normal in the sense that it isn't common, it isn't a 'default' setting/choice(whatever word you prefer). In Scandinavia, black people aren't normal and in East Africa(where I'm from), white people aren't. So the inclusion of either group in media with a grounding in Scandinavian or East African culture really is abnormal.

 

Any UK fans of a show called Misomer Murders will know what I mean. It's set in the English country which is anywhere from 90%+95%+ white, so it is jarring if unconsciously to see a black or Indian person in that millieu. However, when a producer of the show said that it was a conscious effort on their part to keep the completely white, that goes beyond stating the obvious and keeping things normal to being racist.

 

So, given the fact that homosexuality is abnormal, going out of your way to show it is not normal. Not showing it is however quite normal because heterosexuality is the default sexuality, but making a conscious decision of not showing homosexuality is bigoted

 

Btw, what's up with this distinction between gay and lesbian, isn't that basically the same thing? The WoT already has gay characters.

[SethBaker]

His position makes perfect sense if you subscribe to heteronormativity.

I don't think that it does, for exactly the reasons I've already mentioned. Though truth be told, if you define 'norm' by what is common, isn't heteronormativity a given in both worlds (or rather, times )?

 

That's not what heteronormativity is. It assumes that two discrete genders with heterosexual activity is the DEFAULT (natural state), and that anything else is unnatural.

 

If the issue here were just portraying something that's uncommon, it wouldn't be a big deal. Strangely, the incidence of channeling in the general population is supposed to be 2-3%, which is about the same as open homosexuality in our world. We've seen hundreds and hundreds of channelers, and no gay people, despite the fact that there's no forces keeping them in the closet (unlike in our world). It just does not add up, and heteronormative assumptions are not just out of place here, they are approaching bigotry. Again, that's why the word's getting thrown around.

[SethBaker]

Except homosexuality isn't normal. Please don't flame me without letting me explain.

 

Normal is taken to mean common enough and in some ways common to a majority of people. If I remember my high school physed classes well enough, homosexual was somewhere around 10% of the population, maybe 15%? So clearly it is anything but normal in the sense that it isn't common, it isn't a 'default' setting/choice(whatever word you prefer). In Scandinavia, black people aren't normal and in East Africa(where I'm from), white people aren't. So the inclusion of either group in media with a grounding in Scandinavian or East African culture really is abnormal.

 

Any UK fans of a show called Misomer Murders will know what I mean. It's set in the English country which is anywhere from 90%+95%+ white, so it is jarring if unconsciously to see a black or Indian person in that millieu. However, when a producer of the show said that it was a conscious effort on their part to keep the completely white, that goes beyond stating the obvious and keeping things normal to being racist.

 

So, given the fact that homosexuality is abnormal, going out of your way to show it is not normal. Not showing it is however quite normal because heterosexuality is the default sexuality, but making a conscious decision of not showing homosexuality is bigoted

 

Btw, what's up with this distinction between gay and lesbian, isn't that basically the same thing? The WoT already has gay characters.

 

(1) Heteronormativity makes assumptions beyond the statistical level of the mode. Simply stating that there's a heterosexual mode does not support the arguments that we're seeing. You have to make heteronormative assumptions.

 

(2) Heterosexuality is not a default sexuality, it's just the most prevalent one. There's a world of difference. And that's the distinction between talking about a heterosexual mode and making heteronormative assumptions.

 

(3) Gay is generally slang for homosexual, and can apply to both men and women, but it's usually used (at least in the United States) to refer to homosexual men, while lesbian refers to homosexual women. Hence GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered) refers to male homosexuals, female homosexuals, male and female bisexuals, and people who identify with a different gender than their biological sex, in that order.

[Capering Capers]

I don't care one way or the other about the open inclusion of a gay.

 

 

I hate political correctness with a passion, however, and would be very much against the inclusion if Brandon Sanderson is doing it to pander to the crowds or otherwise push an agenda. If he is not, then it is no issue whatsoever to me. In either case it is not the story I worry about.

 

 

Also, completely off-topic; Terez and UGAshadow you should not refer to 'Western Religions' when discussing Christianity, since it is middle eastern, as are Judaism and Islam. This is relevant since they share the same anti-gay root (Sodom, Gomorrah) and this is thus not something particular to 'Western' religion. If anything, 'Western' religions are concerned with Zeus and Hera or Odin and Frig and their respective compatriots. I am not sure about the Germanic myths, but I know you'll find it hard to make a case for homophobia in the Greek mythology.

[Puny]

Could it be that this is such a big issue for some (mostly men?)...cause it´s a homosexual char and not a lesbian one? Still today there is more acceptance towards female gays then male ones. So scenes that hint or portray lesbian activity is viewed as cool, hot and interesting while said scene or hint with male homosexuality is considered gross, unnatural and repulsive?

 

Diederichos:

Your analogy with homosexuality not being normal cause in Scandinavia there aren´t that many black people (which is true, im from Sweden and most darker color people we have are from Turkey, Serbia etc (as my parents are from) mediteranian, mid europe) doesnt work.

The reason that there aren´t many blacks in Sweden is due to climate, (fairskinned swedes) that Sweden is way up north so most darkskinned people maybe go to other places closer to their country then Sweden and so on.

Homosexual people on the other hand exist in every country regardless of race, gender, and even if said country claims that there are no homosexuals there. Homosexual people are in a minority (15% of people) but that doesn´t mean that they are not normal because the majority of people doesn´t fall in love with samesex gender.

[SethBaker]

Also, completely off-topic; Terez and UGAshadow you should not refer to 'Western Religions' when discussing Christianity, since it is middle eastern, as are Judaism and Islam. This is relevant since they share the same anti-gay root (Sodom, Gomorrah) and this is thus not something particular to 'Western' religion. If anything, 'Western' religions are concerned with Zeus and Hera or Odin and Frig and their respective compatriots. I am not sure about the Germanic myths, but I know you'll find it hard to make a case for homophobia in the Greek mythology.

 

Western religion was not defined in 100 AD. Western religion is inclusive of European Christianity.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_religion

 

E: vvv Better than no back-up at all.

[Capering Capers]

Also, completely off-topic; Terez and UGAshadow you should not refer to 'Western Religions' when discussing Christianity, since it is middle eastern, as are Judaism and Islam. This is relevant since they share the same anti-gay root (Sodom, Gomorrah) and this is thus not something particular to 'Western' religion. If anything, 'Western' religions are concerned with Zeus and Hera or Odin and Frig and their respective compatriots. I am not sure about the Germanic myths, but I know you'll find it hard to make a case for homophobia in the Greek mythology.

 

Western religion was not defined in 100 AD. Western religion is inclusive of European Christianity.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_religion

 

Western religion was not defined in 100ad, really? And your backup is a generic link to the wiki of western religion? Seems a bit weak to me. If I go with this 'western religion was not defined in 100ad' I would argue it is not now either. In any case that is not the point, the Western label is inaccurate, because the trait is derived from a shared origin and hence it is not western religion that is anti-gay, but the Abrahamic religions that are. It is weird to claim the Abrahamic religions to be 'Western'. I do not like the 'Western' label full-stop, but that would be another off-topic topic within an off-topic topic ;-).

 

Edit: I read in the wiki that Abrahamic religions are 'western' when compared to for instance taoism. So if we consider 'Western Religions' to mean 'Abrahamic Religions' I'll admit I was wrong. So if that is what you all meant with 'Western', then Terez, UGA and Seth my sincerest apologies for being a smartass :-)

[Grig]

This is relevant since they share the same anti-gay root (Sodom, Gomorrah) and this is thus not something particular to 'Western' religion.

 

And here I thought the Gospels said Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they broke the custom of Sacred Hospitality (although I admit I'm not sure of the term the Hebrews of the OT and Greeks of the NT used). But then, fanfic is much older than Kirk/Spock slash I guess, and has brought certain ideologies in painful directions (and why Christians don't think they need to persecute people that enjoy shellfish with the same vigor as those of differing sexuality, I'll never know).

[Sharaman]

I don't see that Brandon will necessarily introduce a new character - he may flesh out somebody who's already been mentioned and quite possibly invented by RJ. The character in question could very likely, be somebody who's been around for several books - it might be Talmanes (as somebody said) or Flynn, Taim, Moridin, Guybon--. There are dozens of male characters in WoT whose sexual orientation is unknown because we've never had PoVs from them and we've never been told about their partners/ who they found attractive.

If it happens to be a known and perhaps, sympatico character, would learning that he's gay, change reader attitudes about him?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

One stylistic thing that RJ started, which Brandon has held to. Almost everything is described from somebody's PoV.

Another stylistic thing - RJ (consciously?) avoided steamy sex scenes. So does Brandon (so far).

If AMoL is consistent to that, the gay character will either be revealed via his own PoV, or be described from somebody else's PoV, and there will be not be any explicit descriptions of actual sexual action.

Third stylistic point: sexual acts/ attitudes in WoT have been described because they had either plot significance or world building significance. Usually the former. RJ/ Brandon are not prone to throwing in random sexual stuff just to keep readers interested.

Given AMoL is going to be tying up multiple plot threads, I'd guess whatever sexual activity/ attitude is described or referred to in AMoL, be it Avi-Rand, Mat-Tuon, Nyn-Lan, Faile-Perrin, Galina-Therava, Cadsuane-Flynn, or random gay guys having it off with each other, will be directly plot-related.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

Incidentally, does anyone suspect that RJ was heterophobic because the GLoD's alter-ego Shaidar appears to be hetero in his tastes?

[Grig]

Incidentally, does anyone suspect that RJ was heterophobic because the GLoD's alter-ego Shaidar appears to be hetero in his tastes?

 

Or homophobic, because not even the GLotD is evil enough to sink to sexual relations with another man? Or that he's misandrist because he chose to make the GLotD a male rather than a female? What kind of question is that? I hope it's a joke, but there's been so much false "balance" in this thread that I have trouble reading it that way.

[IAmTheDragonReborn]

Ok I for one am tired of trying to be edgy and make waves to draw attention to something. For instances, after all was said and done in the Harry Potter series, Rowling comes out and says oh yea.. btw.. Dumbledore is gay by the way. It added nothing to depth of character for him. Rowling didnt write anything in the books to even really hint at it.

 

Nothing against gays or anything.. But unless this actually affects the story in some way... why even put it in. Yes this is supposed to be a new era of acceptance and blah blah blah.. I dont get it.. Maybe its just to spark up a conversation/blog about it. For the sake of discussion on DM about the topic to get us talking about it.

 

All I gotta say it better make sense, and not be .. Oh, BTW WoT fans.. Mat is actually just trying to mask his homosexual feelings for Rand and Perrin by chasing and objectifying women all the time. Hahah Gotcha!

[SethBaker]

All I gotta say it better make sense, and not be .. Oh, BTW WoT fans.. Mat is actually just trying to mask his homosexual feelings for Rand and Perrin by chasing and objectifying women all the time. Hahah Gotcha!

 

You know very well that it's not going to be that.