Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY

Discuss the Inclusion of a Gay Character


Luckers
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

 

The sarcasm seems to have escaped you, but yes I do know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 518
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

 

The sarcasm seems to have escaped you, but yes I do know that.

 

There are some people in this thread that I think honestly believe it's going to be that absurd and jarring. When you're sarcastically staking out a position that isn't that far from what some other people think, I tend to just assume you're telling the truth.

 

Baker's Law of the Internet: If someone jokingly makes a ludicrous claim on a forum, it's likely that someone somewhere has made the same claim unironically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a gay male. Openly gay. I have never once thought the lack of openly gay males characters was a slight. The story is epic and engaging and without a political agenda. In this world I doubt openly gay characters would be well received so i assumed they were deeply closeted and we would catch glimpses at best. I am interested in the character noe however... Will he be a caricature or a normal guy with alternative sexual preferences.

 

In this thread, we discuss RJ and BWS's quotes on topic. Randland is completely accepting of homosexuality. People don't have a reason to be closeted there.

 

I think he'll quite clearly be handled sensitively (treated as a normal guy with an alternative sexual preference).

 

EDIT: vvv Ha! Beat you!

Edited by Seth Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a gay male. Openly gay. I have never once thought the lack of openly gay males characters was a slight. The story is epic and engaging and without a political agenda. In this world I doubt openly gay characters would be well received so i assumed they were deeply closeted and we would catch glimpses at best. I am interested in the character noe however... Will he be a caricature or a normal guy with alternative sexual preferences.

 

Hopefully after you originally formed your opinion on how a gay character would be received in this world, you've since read through this thread and noticed the quote from RJ stating that there are gay characters and homosexuality is just accepted as a matter of course. There is no reason for the characters to be closeted in the WoT world.

 

Edit: Yep, ninja'd by Seth Baker

Edited by Mark Grayson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a gay male. Openly gay. I have never once thought the lack of openly gay males characters was a slight. The story is epic and engaging and without a political agenda. In this world I doubt openly gay characters would be well received so i assumed they were deeply closeted and we would catch glimpses at best. I am interested in the character noe however... Will he be a caricature or a normal guy with alternative sexual preferences.

 

Hopefully after you originally formed your opinion on how a gay character would be received in this world, you've since read through this thread and noticed the quote from RJ stating that there are gay characters and homosexuality is just accepted as a matter of course. There is no reason for the characters to be closeted in the WoT world.

 

Jordan's reply is the best. Gays are naturally accepted in WOT world as it should be in our world. There is no need to create special gay characters just to emphasize this. Being gay is like being black or tall --whatever... All too normal. I really don't think gays would need or appreciate positive discrimination. They would not ask coddling or special treatment. If I was gay I would only ask acceptance, nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet it is odd that we haven't seen anyone in that "category" yet. I think it's good that's being seen to now. If another relatively common group of people had been this underrepresentated, then I would like that corrected as well. Jordan said that it was because we'd "only been in the minds of Aes Sedai" yet (or something like that). I bet we will see many more Asha'man in the last book. So it's a natural "cause and effect", as well as part of the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet it is odd that we haven't seen anyone in that "category" yet. I think it's good that's being seen to now. If another relatively common group of people had been this underrepresentated, then I would like that corrected as well. Jordan said that it was because we'd "only been in the minds of Aes Sedai" yet (or something like that). I bet we will see many more Asha'man in the last book. So it's a natural "cause and effect", as well as part of the story.

 

If they are underreprepsented that should be corrected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not an expert, so I don't know how correct wiki is on this subject. Anyway, here's what it says:

In the modern West, according to major studies, 2% to 13% of the population are homosexual.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] A 2006 study suggested that 20% of the population anonymously reported some homosexual feelings, although relatively few participants in the study identified themselves as homosexual.[19]

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

Edited by Nightstrike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

The lack of gay men in WoT has been noted by fans for many years. It wouldn't have been a big deal if there weren't so many lesbians. Luckers and I were basically continuing an ongoing conversation about the casual sexism in WoT and it was natural for Brandon to mention it at that point.

 

Except homosexuality isn't normal.

Aside from what Seth said, don't you think that the percentages cited make it strange that we've never seen a gay man in WoT? Certainly adding one gay male to the story doesn't amount to over-representation.

 

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

As has already been mentioned upthread, this terminology is a little bit offensive. Gay is an adjective, not a noun.

 

I hate political correctness with a passion

Why? What's to get passionate about? Political correctness is just an offensive way of saying 'polite'.

 

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.

Regardless of origin, Christianity would just be another forgotten cult without the rather insistent endorsement of the Roman Empire. Aside from that, it was marketed to Westerners by the Jerusalem Church.

 

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

No. We had a petition in for Demandred to be Shaidar Haran's next sextoy but Brandon went for this instead for some reason.

 

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.

She did, actually.

 

Nothing against gays or anything..

Love it when comments are prefaced like this.

 

But unless this actually affects the story in some way... why even put it in.

Wrong question. You should be asking yourself, why not?

 

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.

The conversation has been going on for a while now, most especially at tor.com recently. So I doubt Brandon was trying to do that either. Why is everyone ascribing all these motives for him? Why can't it just be Brandon doing his part to flesh out the characters realistically?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, to summarise, there is a gay male character in aMoL and people are split into the following groups:

 

1. I'm all for it.

2. For it as long as it doesn't seem shoe-horned into the plot.

3. Against it as it isn't what RJ originally intended but with no underlying homophobic intentions.

4. Leviticus 18:22. Yawn.

5. Meh.

 

I am team 2.

 

And for those who 'hate political correctness with a passion', I say this, the right-wing and the right-wing mouthpiece press in particular, are prone to using extreme examples to attack things they dislike.

What is wrong with calling a homosexual person a gay person, or a lesbian, or bisexual or transgender? It's pretty easy to say and isn't insulting.

Political correctness came into being to prevent offensive terms being used, originally it was to do with racism/anti-semitism but has also now encompasses homophobia and sexism. I do think some names could with some work as they don't exactly roll off the tongue - but hey, that's my problem, kids.

 

Thankfully, the days of 'puff' and 'dyke' are disappearing now - hence why there is a need for political correctness, or politeness as Terez succinctly put it.

 

I do hope this isn't overmoderated, by the way :bela:

Edited by macaroni
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much discussion here of "normal" and "abnormal", which to me seem judgemental terms. Approximately two percent of humans have naturally red hair -- that makes RAND "abnormal". Was he described as a redhead out of "political correctness"? Did Robert Jordan have a secret redhead agenda?

 

Forget averages, percentages and "normality". People are people, not statistics, and we are all different from each other. Besides, normality is boring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much discussion here of "normal" and "abnormal", which to me seem judgemental terms. Approximately two percent of humans have naturally red hair -- that makes RAND "abnormal". Was he described as a redhead out of "political correctness"? Did Robert Jordan have a secret redhead agenda?

 

Forget averages, percentages and "normality". People are people, not statistics, and we are all different from each other. Besides, normality is boring.

 

Although I used the term "normal" only to indicate that I don't think being gay is wrong or something that needs to be cured I totally agree with you :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing against gays or anything.. But unless this actually affects the story in some way... why even put it in.

 

Oddly enough, you're not raising a stink about the myriad straight relationships in the books that don't affect the story (the plot significant ones can be counted on one hand, whereas the number referred to is at least an order of magnitude higher), nor the titillating pillow-friend relationships that also do not affect the story. Just like everyone else that's protesting so much, with maybe one or two exceptions. It's just the gay males that have the burden shifted to positively moving the story (yet the complaints would be so much worse if male homosexuality did move the story), instead of simply world-building. How can so many people lack any shred of introspection on this point?

Edited by Grig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing against gays or anything.. But unless this actually affects the story in some way... why even put it in.

 

Oddly enough, you're not raising a stink about the myriad straight relationships in the books that don't affect the story (the plot significant ones can be counted on one hand, whereas the number referred to is at least an order of magnitude higher), nor the titillating pillow-friend relationships that also do not affect the story. Just like everyone else that's protesting so much, with maybe one or two exceptions. It's just the gay males that have the burden shifted to positively moving the story (yet the complaints would be so much worse if male homosexuality DID move the story), instead of simply world-building. How can so many people lack any shred of introspection on this point?

 

I'm quoting this, and bolding the important parts to make sure that people really read it. Important post.

 

With many, many other relationships, traits, characteristics, and quirks, we're willing to just accept it as making rounded, interesting characters.

 

In the context of the fullness of the character base, a discussion about the strange lack of homosexual men ensued. Brandon mentioned that ToM/AMoL includes a gay character.

 

Any other trait, we just take it as world building. But here, people are demanding that it contribute to the story (though I think Grig makes a good point that if it actually moved the story, people would be more aghast). It's a disparate treatment, and, I agree with Grig. It's because they lack introspection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a disparate treatment, and, I agree with Grig. It's because they lack introspection.

It's because it's introduced for introduction's sake. You both mention the other relationships and point out that people single out the homosexual relationship while disregarding the fact that the other relationships were in from the start, so to speak.

 

If the books had no romance and the author stated that he was gonna shove in some for the last book, people would also bitch about it.

The fact that this particular kind of relationship has been a hot topic IRL does not help in the least , especially when it's after a dozen books and added in just for kicks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read all the replies but my two cents: RJ clearly had a penchant for a little BDS&M, particularly among attractive women. All the bare bottomed spankings and naked antics among female characters oft described at beautiful, breathtaking, gorgeous, etc. The male on male variety, yeah, not so much.

 

So in keeping with RJ's possible wishes on the subject I say:

 

Lesbianism - good, as long as the lesbians are hot, Hollywood variety lesbians

Male Homosexual - best not talked about or mentioned

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a disparate treatment, and, I agree with Grig. It's because they lack introspection.

It's because it's introduced for introduction's sake. You both mention the other relationships and point out that people single out the homosexual relationship while disregarding the fact that the other relationships were in from the start, so to speak.

 

If the books had no romance and the author stated that he was gonna shove in some for the last book, people would also bitch about it.

The fact that this particular kind of relationship has been a hot topic IRL does not help in the least , especially when it's after a dozen books and added in just for kicks.

 

Your assumption. And I'll be interested to see if people are complaining if Brandon adds a passing reference to a previously unmentioned, not there from the start hetero relationship in the last book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your assumption. And I'll be interested to see if people are complaining if Brandon adds a passing reference to a previously unmentioned, not there from the start hetero relationship in the last book.

Correct.If that's the case then people gripe it about, if it isn't and it DOES have storyline impact, then considering that Brandon decided to add it in, he's imposing his own on RJ's work and people have something new to complain about.

 

As for your second sentence please read my post again.

Edited by Zentari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's because it's introduced for introduction's sake. You both mention the other relationships and point out that people single out the homosexual relationship while disregarding the fact that the other relationships were in from the start, so to speak.

 

Jordan has always maintained that homosexual relationships (including male/male) are seen as normal and mundane in the WoTverse. They've been referred to in roundabout ways, arguably.

 

This whole "shoving in late" argument is silly. It was five whole books before Taim was a player on-screen. Was there rioting because he should have been introduced earlier if he was going to be mentioned? Same with Cadsuane. It was eight or nine books until we had a woman cheating on her husband with another woman. Did the defenders of detail minimalization say that was "introduction for introduction's sake"?

Edited by Grig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I go away for one little board-game convention, and this thread expands by thirteen pages... I've just re-read the entire conversation, and I have noticed a few things:

 

1. We're getting a bit circular. People are jumping in who have obviously skipped past the first ten pages or so, and this conversation could go on forever. I really appreciate the mods: it seems like hard, thankless work.

 

2. The thread is actually serving a purpose. I'm surprised at this realization. Around pages 8-13 I was just about ready to punch myself in the face repeatedly. However, there has been some progress in getting people to recognize the position of the other side (myself included,) even if there is a bit of unnecessary vehemence in parts. This is good.

 

3. I had no idea how powerful the emotional reaction to homosexuality can be. I'm a liberal arts Seattleite, and I've also spent a good part of my life in Europe. I get that admitting that automatically negates my opinions to certain sets, but I bring it up because I've never lived in the type of environment where getting worked up over a fictional character being gay would be (how not to be unintentionally offensive?) not seen as being overly sensitive, at the least. To be blunt, I didn't expect that this would be prevalent in fans of fantasy literature. I'm not trying to be offensive, it's just that fantasy literature is all about enjoying alternative realities which expand and diverge from the real world, and I assumed that it both required and fostered a sense of inclusiveness concerning different identities and lifestyles; it's like meeting a season-ticket holder who goes to all the games but hates the sport, you know?

 

4. No-one has actually asked those who are opposed to a gay character exactly what the negative consequence of including one would be. I think this is an oversight. The appeals against it are certainly vigorous enough, not even considering the time people must have taken out of their day to make them, to suggest that people who make them find something serious at stake. There is apparently something to be lost or won. I have no idea what that could be (well, discounting actual homophobia, and discounting the fear of WoT becoming responsible for an increase in sexually transmitted diseases, which was addressed quite expertly.)

 

5. There is a section of 'oppositionists' who disapprove on the grounds of "pandering", "appeasement", and similar terms. Several of the posters arguing from this position also argue against "political correctness". I'm not quite sure which culture this language comes from (the stab in the dark is talk radio, but I'm not really sure.) What strikes me about these posts is how absolute they are on this issue. The inclusion of a dark-skinned or overweight character seems to cruise beneath their radar, but including a gay man is somehow an innately provocative, and political, act. I won't be flippant, but I see no substance to any of these arguments, and the overwhelmingly solid counter-argument needs to be repeated each time this language is reused. It seems to me like there's some outlet which has propagated these notions and buzz-words so often that they just get established as some kind of common-knowledge truth over time. I'm not dancing around the obvious, it sounds like American right wing talk, but I haven't heard this line since the early nineties so I won't assume (libertarianism, perhaps?)

 

The long and short of it is that you can't "pander" or "appease" fourteen books into a fourteen book series. It's impractical beyond reason (as has been pointed out.) Saying so smacks of "safety-talk", as if it's a high horse from which one can disdain freely with open palms and an innocent smile, assuming no-one will notice (or will walk into a trap calling it out.) The author of a book wants to include a gay character. Everyone's free not to read books with gay characters (or thin characters, or whatever,) but acting as if the author has transgressed some line of "authorial integrity" by doing so looks a certain way, on which point no-one can claim ignorance.

 

The inescapable truth of the situation is that the indignation is restricted to homosexuality. It was asked "why not include a disabled character (etc.)?" I think it's clear that no-one who is welcoming of a gay character is against that, of course, but the two implications of this statement are clear: it's assumed that an author will include gay characters only as tokens, and as such preferring a gay character to a disabled one is a sign of capitulation to some kind of pressure or lobby. The first point, of course, completely dehumanizes all gay people. The second is an appeal to impartiality. If you truly feel that including a character with a speech-impediment or with heterochromatic eyes would be tokenism, and should therefore be on Brandon Sanderson's "DO NOT INCLUDE AT ALL COSTS" list, say so. I find the arguments against a character in a wheel-chair and a gay one equally trivial, but if you don't, it's clear that you ascribe a special importance to homosexuality (which each of these posters has said is not true,) and any argument on the grounds of impartiality is nonsensical.

 

Anyway, this line of thinking defeats itself. The argument is that the author should concern himself with craft, and not include characters for the sake of appeasing a certain group or lobby. If that's true, then the author should equally not disinclude characters or themes to appeal to a certain group. I haven't seen anyone threatening not to read tWoT if a gay character doesn't appear in AMoL; I have seen the opposite. For all it is a very minor point in a very epic series, Brandon is taking a risk by including a gay character. There are people for whom this is a sacred cow, and he's butchering it (more like looking at it from across a field, but whatever.) Fortunately, the author is not looking to appease any polemical groups, and is simply trying to write the best book that he can.

 

I'm not posting this to restart the argument, just to point out that it will never be resolved in this format. These posters appear to me to be "on message", and if that message could be debunked easily it would have been done so in the cultural discourse by now. I recognize that several of the posters coming from this angle are articulate, and seem to be reasoned and well-read. If someone with this opinion reads this... well, at least for me, that argument flat-out makes no sense, and I'm assuming it won't for others unless they are familiar with the context and culture that originated it. It's hard to argue against something for which you don't know the foundational premises, and if you spell those out you might get friendlier replies.

 

6. I do get the argument that gender relationships have been addressed in tWoT, but not sexual preference, and adding that as a whole new area of exploration this late in the game seems odd. I'm of the opinion that it would be fruitful, but probably won't end up being referenced in more than a couple paragraphs. I can see how people would fear it expanding to justify its inclusion. I see this as completely distinct from the "anti-PC" argument in point number five, though.

 

7. Not to question the mods, but the thread title "Discuss the Inclusion of a Gay Character" is quite leading in and of itself. It almost suggests that it's a topic for which contention is justified. Even "Discuss the Inclusion of a Cross Eyed Character" sounds a bit like there's going to be some after-school-special importance to having a cross-eyed tailor or whatever. I do think there's been more trolling on the side opposing a gay character, but the title does invite it, and will make it recur every time someone jumps in for a lark in the future. It's not my business to decide, but while we have learned a lot, I think it might be a good idea to close this one out before something uglier happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS, hating anything PC is so radical and cool man! It's so unfair that those minorities get special treatment, when what they really should get is special punishment.

 

No, they should get neither. They, and everyone, should be seen as individuals valuable in their own right, not avatars for various socio-political causes. And they, and everyone else, should never seek to control what topics can be the subject of reasoned discourse.

 

randsc, I very much agree with you.

 

As a person interested in American constitutional law (especially human righs and freedoms, not institutional stuff) I was under the impression that looking at certain rights from group perspective, rather than individual perspective, was a characteristical feature of American democracy. I wonder what other people think about it.

It is somewhat relevant to the topic, since we are talking about representing a certain group in a book.

 

 

Lord this forum is moving fast!

 

Actually re: American Constitutional Law, you have is (basically) backwards. From administrative due process, to freedom of speech and religion, to gun ownership, American constitutional law is much more concerned with individual than collective rights than say, German "human rights" law. The situation is a little more complicated when it comes to equal protection jurisprudence (race based discrimination is more heavily disfavored, for example) but 1) that should properly be seen as outlawing certain TYPES of unequal treatment (which affects individuals) and 2), to the extent 1 fails as an explanation, the post civil war amendments (like the 14th) were rather unusual in terms of our overall constitutional structure--concerned as they were with limited states rights (the others protected states) and protecting emancipated slaves.

 

randsc: Unsurprisingly, I think you are making a valid point here. By consciously including a male gay character (or identifying one, I guess) Sanderson is making a "correction" to, at least, the style of writing (given that Randland apparently DOES have gay men) or internal consistency of the series. I think the difference between you and me is that I think Sanderson has some strengths as a writer than RJ didn't share (although RJ was obviously a better writer in certain areas as well), and I think stylistic improvements that are not major or distracting alterations are a good thing. I thought that, despite (because of?) some differences in style and tone, TGS was one of the better books of the series. But I also understand wanting to keep the series as inviolate as possible.

 

Terez (If you are still here): TheBigCheese already mostly covered this (in his excellent post), but I'm not sure you are using the term "rational" carefully, or at least clearly. Rational means a lot of things to a lot of people, and is used in a number of different ways in epistemology. It would be nice to see you define what you mean by "rational" and "irrational." I prefer the standard economic usage myself, where "Rational" means capturing as many of my ends as possible with as little cost as possible, given my other ends, and "irrational" means deviation from that strategy. You appear to be using "irrational" when you really mean "arational" (without reasons). Not looking both ways to cross the street is irrational, having a negative aesthetic response to broccoli is arational. So, in fact, assuming it is costly (or impossible) to change how I react to the taste of broccoli, avoiding eating them is probably rational, despite their nutritive value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's because it's introduced for introduction's sake. You both mention the other relationships and point out that people single out the homosexual relationship while disregarding the fact that the other relationships were in from the start, so to speak.

 

Jordan has always maintained that homosexual relationships (including male/male) are seen as normal and mundane in the WoTverse. They've been referred to in roundabout ways, arguably.

 

This whole "shoving in late" argument is silly. It was five whole books before Taim was a player on-screen. Was there rioting because he should have been introduced earlier if he was going to be mentioned? Same with Cadsuane. It was eight or nine books until we had a woman cheating on her husband with another woman. Did the defenders of detail minimalization say that was "introduction for introduction's sake"?

Out of the books, in them , there was no reference (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

 

What book was Taim introduced in ? What book is the gay character about to introduced in ? Nice example there.

 

The last one is just icing on the proverbial cake.We are not in the 10th book,we are in the LAST one and the one to supposedly tie the whole thing up (the whole "there will be loose ends" statement doesn't help the least either).

 

Finally, before anyone else jumps at me, please take the time to read my post instead of skimping over it, specifically the last sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read all the replies but my two cents: RJ clearly had a penchant for a little BDS&M, particularly among attractive women. All the bare bottomed spankings and naked antics among female characters oft described at beautiful, breathtaking, gorgeous, etc. The male on male variety, yeah, not so much.

 

So in keeping with RJ's possible wishes on the subject I say:

 

Lesbianism - good, as long as the lesbians are hot, Hollywood variety lesbians

Male Homosexual - best not talked about or mentioned

 

Except that's just not what he said. He clearly said that homosexuality (implicitly including male homosexuality) is commonplace, acceptable, and unremarkable.

 

Brandon is not pandering. You all keep ignoring the context in which this character was mentioned. Please stop assuming it's pandering. It is NOT.

 

Many of you are complaining about introducing something new in Book 14. I think we can all agree there. There should be absolutely no new information in Book 14. No new characters, no new information about existing characters, and no new plot threads. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your assumption. And I'll be interested to see if people are complaining if Brandon adds a passing reference to a previously unmentioned, not there from the start hetero relationship in the last book.

Correct.If that's the case then people gripe it about, if it isn't and it DOES have storyline impact, then considering that Brandon decided to add it in, he's imposing his own on RJ's work and people have something new to complain about.

 

As for your second sentence please read my post again.

 

I did read your post. This was the argument/point I got from it - A gay relationship should not be introduced at this point in the series because it's not part of the resolution of the series, which I presume you feel the last book should be all about. You then make a point that the other romantic relationships in the book have been around since the beginning, or least for awhile, so it would be OK for the last book to discuss/spend time on these relationships (Rand marrying his 3 girls for example). So your argument is that you don't oppose the inclusion because the character is gay, but because it spends valuable book time on a new relationship that hasn't been around until the end.

 

My response to this was - we'll see if people actually complain when Brandon writes about a previously unknown Asha'man casually thinking about his previously unknown wife while fighting for his life in Black Tower. Since this type of passing reference is all I expect from this gay character. My guess is that nobody will care, or even think twice, about the Asha'man thinking about his wife as he's about to die. But if the thought is the Asha'man thinking about his male lover, this will have been a waste of words that should have been used on plot resolutions.

Edited by Mark Grayson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's because it's introduced for introduction's sake. You both mention the other relationships and point out that people single out the homosexual relationship while disregarding the fact that the other relationships were in from the start, so to speak.

 

Jordan has always maintained that homosexual relationships (including male/male) are seen as normal and mundane in the WoTverse. They've been referred to in roundabout ways, arguably.

 

This whole "shoving in late" argument is silly. It was five whole books before Taim was a player on-screen. Was there rioting because he should have been introduced earlier if he was going to be mentioned? Same with Cadsuane. It was eight or nine books until we had a woman cheating on her husband with another woman. Did the defenders of detail minimalization say that was "introduction for introduction's sake"?

Out of the books, in them , there was no reference (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

 

What book was Taim introduced in ? What book is the gay character about to introduced in ? Nice example there.

 

The last one is just icing on the proverbial cake.We are not in the 10th book,we are in the LAST one and the one to supposedly tie the whole thing up (the whole "there will be loose ends" statement doesn't help the least either).

 

Finally, before anyone else jumps at me, please take the time to read my post instead of skimping over it, specifically the last sentence.

 

In case my sarcasm in the post after yours is not direct enough, the writer is allowed to introduce new information, even in the last book of a series. Nobody complained about only meeting Denethor in the Return of the King. Or of only meeting the Vampire in the middle of the Dark Tower. Again, I ask for introspection. Are you going to have this negative of a reaction if a new heterosexual relationship is introduced? If a new character is introduced? (Probably not.) If not, why are you making a big deal about a homosexual male relationship? What makes it different? (The answer is not about the book - it's about the reader.)

Edited by Seth Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...