Discuss the Inclusion of a Gay Character

[SethBaker]

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.

 

I think it's more likely that it'll be something like an Asha'man or soldier kissing his lover before the Last Battle begins. Or something like that. Not past tense, not reflection, just a passing mention of something that is (in the Wheel of Time) and should be (in our world) unremarkable and perfectly acceptable. Not jarring, not pandering, just part of the story.

[Grig]

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 ?

 

The last book of the series at the time.

 

Is your position truly that any series should stagnate and not generate any additional information around the world at a certain point? When should details stop being provided about old or new characters? 30% in like Taim? 60% like Cadsuane? 90% like the Saldaean captain who basically committed treason to protect the Domani?

 

If you want a realistic world, there is always new information, new characters, new information about old characters, etc. If you want something etched in stone with no new details to learn, don't read a work in progress.

[Zentari]

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.

I will make it plain then.My argument is that ALL the factors COMBINED make for the backlash that exists in this thread.There, that's my argument.Tell me if I need to extrapolate further.

 

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.)

Here's my short list,as simple as it gets:

1)Homosexuality is a touchy subject IRL.That's all I'm gonna say about it.

2)The introduction comes last minute for dubious reasons.

3)BS has admitted that he himself decided to do so, not RJ (even if RJ said that such relationships exist in WoT).

 

Any of them on their own are not enough to warrant backlash.All of them combined do.

 

Also, I enjoy how you practically answer your own questions.My personal stance is this: I don't care.Never did, never will.What I find funny is how both "sides" take a stand based on their own pick from the list while disregarding the other ones.

[Swithin]

Here's my short list,as simple as it gets:

1)Homosexuality is a touchy subject IRL.That's all I'm gonna say about it.

2)The introduction comes last minute for dubious reasons.

3)BS has admitted that he himself decided to do so, not RJ (even if RJ said that such relationships exist in WoT).

 

Any of them on their own are not enough to warrant backlash.All of them combined do.

 

Also, I enjoy how you practically answer your own questions.My personal stance is this: I don't care.Never did, never will.What I find funny is how both "sides" take a stand based on their own pick from the list while disregarding the other ones.

 

Hi Zentari. I hope you don't feel like I'm jumping in uninvited, but maybe I can ask you to further explain points two and three?

 

2)The introduction comes last minute for dubious reasons.

 

I'm wondering what makes the reason "dubious".

 

3)BS has admitted that he himself decided to do so, not RJ (even if RJ said that such relationships exist in WoT).

 

What do you think Brandon's relationship to the book he is writing should be?

[Suttree]

3)BS has admitted that he himself decided to do so, not RJ (even if RJ said that such relationships exist in WoT).

 

On repeat at this point but since people don't seem to be reading the whole thread.

 

Uhmm isn't that BS's job at this point in finishing the series? It's a detail to make the world more realistic, nothing more. Do you truly believe Harriet would allow something like this into the story if it went against RJ's whishes or cheapened the series in any way?

[Grig]

3)BS has admitted that he himself decided to do so, not RJ (even if RJ said that such relationships exist in WoT).

 

Is your position that BS should not write anything that is not explicitly called out in the notes? Because if that is the expectation, then significant swathes of TGS and TOM need to be removed, and the last three books will mostly resemble an outline with a few sections fully written. Where were you to fight the good fight when Brandon wrote and incorporated characters named after charity donors? That's something "he himself decided to do, not RJ".

[Zentari]

Hi Zentari. I hope you don't feel like I'm jumping in uninvited, but maybe I can ask you to further explain points two and three?

 

2)The introduction comes last minute for dubious reasons.

 

I'm wondering what makes the reason "dubious".

 

3)BS has admitted that he himself decided to do so, not RJ (even if RJ said that such relationships exist in WoT).

 

What do you think Brandon's relationship to the book he is writing should be?

Well, I'll be, someone with more than common courtesy.

 

2)That it's not explained sufficiently.All we got was a "I'm gonna throw that in". Because of what? Pressure ? Catering ? Or simply because he thought it needed ? Personally, I have no problem with the last and I'm not particularly against the other two but if they are valid , that also leads validity to some of the more ridiculous counter arguments ("what about handicapped people?" for example)

 

3)He should be allowed more flexibility.Who knows , he might help patch things up a little.That is however one opinion that I doubt many here share.

 

 

On repeat at this point but since people don't seem to be reading the whole thread.

 

Uhmm isn't that BS's job at this point in finishing the series? It's a detail to make the world more realistic, nothing more. Do you truly believe Harriet would allow something like this into the story if it went against RJ's whishes or cheapened the series in any way?

I HAVE read the whole thread, which is why I post here since I find both sides to be insufferable.

On to the answers: yes it is.As for Harriet,my personal opinion of her varies greatly from the one here at the site.But no , I don't think she would allow it.The part about the reason of the insertion however is HIGHLY debatable.

 

3)BS has admitted that he himself decided to do so, not RJ (even if RJ said that such relationships exist in WoT).

 

Is your position that BS should not write anything that is not explicitly called out in the notes? Because if that is the expectation, then significant swathes of TGS and TOM need to be removed, and the last three books will mostly resemble an outline with a few sections fully written. Where were you to fight the good fight when Brandon wrote and incorporated characters named after charity donors? That's something "he himself decided to do, not RJ".

My position is clear.

[Suttree]

The part about the reason of the insertion however is HIGHLY debatable.

 

So to be clear you are saying BS is being disingenuous in why he has chosen to add this detail?

[capuga]

As for Harriet,my personal opinion of her varies greatly from the one here at the site.But no , I don't think she would allow it.

 

I'm going to assume that you are referring to your opinion of her work as editor and not of her personally. In which case I will say that I feel she could of done a little better at editing the series and tightening things down. Possibly she indulged RJ because he was her husband. But what do I know, I'm not a professional book editor. But I will say that for this type of thing I will follow her lead. In terms of what RJ wanted and what he would have done, she certainly knew his personality, desires, and vision for the series better than anyone both personally as his wife and professionally as his editor from the start of the series. So if she thinks that including a gay male character is not out of place or contrary to RJ's vision and desires, then I will be fine with it.

[Zentari]

The part about the reason of the insertion however is HIGHLY debatable.

 

So to be clear you are saying BS is being disingenuous in why he has chosen to add this detail?

Yes.Which gives people more reason to debate here.

 

Gonna state what my position is simply.Both pro and against arguments have merit but they disregard other factors:

The "against" side , the fact that if it wasn't about a gay relationship,chances are it wouldn't warrant so much attention.

The "pro" side on the other hand completely disregard the last minute addition of it and the general reason of insertion as well as it being inserted by someone other than the original author.

 

Personally, I don't care as long as it isn't face rubbing.

 

@Mark: We agree on something at least.

[Annia]

Probably doesn't matter overall but BS just lost one reader.

 

Seriously? You chose to read WOT up to this point and decided to stop now because of a gay character? What kind of a fan are you?

[Nightstrike]

As for Harriet,my personal opinion of her varies greatly from the one here at the site.But no , I don't think she would allow it.

 

I'm going to assume that you are referring to your opinion of her work as editor and not of her personally. In which case I will say that I feel she could of done a little better at editing the series and tightening things down. Possibly she indulged RJ because he was her husband. But what do I know, I'm not a professional book editor. But I will say that for this type of thing I will follow her lead. In terms of what RJ wanted and what he would have done, she certainly knew his personality, desires, and vision for the series better than anyone both personally as his wife and professionally as his editor from the start of the series. So if she thinks that including a gay male character is not out of place or contrary to RJ's vision and desires, then I will be fine with it.

I agree with Mark Grayson. The quote from RJ's blog would also indicate what he thought of this.

[Swithin]

Thanks for replying so quickly, Zentari. I hope you don't mind if I keep our conversation going, we seem to be doing it right. :)

 

Hi Zentari. I hope you don't feel like I'm jumping in uninvited, but maybe I can ask you to further explain points two and three?

 

2)The introduction comes last minute for dubious reasons.

 

I'm wondering what makes the reason "dubious".

 

 

2)That it's not explained sufficiently.All we got was a "I'm gonna throw that in". Because of what? Pressure ? Catering ? Or simply because he thought it needed ? Personally, I have no problem with the last and I'm not particularly against the other two but if they are valid , that also leads validity to some of the more ridiculous counter arguments ("what about handicapped people?" for example)

 

Did you read the explanation for this thread, where it stated that Brandon mentioned this casually to Luckers/Terez in conversation? He didn't plan for this information to make it to us in this way, but he did make his reasoning clear in that conversation (which Terez compiled and posted in its entirety, IIRC): he felt that the Wheel of Time needed to close this gap for its own good and its own completion, and that given the social circumstances of the day he believed RJ would have done the same thing.

 

The reason Brandon said it was alright for us to be told in advance was that he thought we'd get a kick of trying to figure out who it will be. Do you think Brandon would have to defend this decision if nothing was said, and people found out some character was gay while reading AMoL?

 

Also, not to self-promote (kind of the opposite, actually,) but I wrote a rather... rushed reply to the whole "equivalences" idea in my large post on the last page (under number 5.) I certainly wasn't as polite as I'd like to be; you might not say I have that much courtesy if you read it.

 

3)BS has admitted that he himself decided to do so, not RJ (even if RJ said that such relationships exist in WoT).

 

What do you think Brandon's relationship to the book he is writing should be?

 

3)He should be allowed more flexibility.Who knows , he might help patch things up a little.That is however one opinion that I doubt many here share.

 

The reason I ask is that there seems to be a lot of faith in Brandon writing a portion of the Wheel that exceeds a million words, but a potential passing reference to a character being gay concerns people that Brandon will "change" RJ's work. I think he's already been given a lot of flexibility (the plot wasn't even completely outlined, and he's writing the end of the Wheel of Time, right?) so I'm trying to figure out where the line on what is potentially taboo and what's not is. It seems people have an expectation of Brandon to emulate Robert Jordan's sensibilities if not his style, and while that's fair after an eleven book investment in RJ, I'm trying to figure out exactly the scope of that idea. Naming one gay character (since we're told there are already plenty who remain anonymous) doesn't seem like its on par with choosing whether people's favorite minor characters live or die, but no-one seems to have expressed doubt in passing that responsibility to Brandon.

 

Without stirring up the pot, homosexuality is a hot issue for those who are sympathetic and for those who don't like it, but what's starting to fascinate me more is the readers who don't have an extreme emotion in either direction but seem to dislike its inclusion in AMoL precisely because it is a contested issue. You seem to fall about in the middle there. It seems to me that the only strong reaction this decision will stir up is precisely this one: the only people who will really care one way or another are the people who are already here, discussing it in this thread (or people much like them.) I'm just curious, since you're not really won over by either side in the pro- or anti-camp (and seem to be reasonably annoyed by them by now,) and given that having a gay character doesn't really make much of a difference outside this specific thread and fandom... what motivates your reaction? I'm not trying to lead you into saying something about your opinion of gay people, I'm legitimately curious.

[SethBaker]

Here's my short list,as simple as it gets:

1)Homosexuality is a touchy subject IRL.That's all I'm gonna say about it.

2)The introduction comes last minute for dubious reasons.

3)BS has admitted that he himself decided to do so, not RJ (even if RJ said that such relationships exist in WoT).

 

Any of them on their own are not enough to warrant backlash.All of them combined do.

 

Also, I enjoy how you practically answer your own questions.My personal stance is this: I don't care.Never did, never will.What I find funny is how both "sides" take a stand based on their own pick from the list while disregarding the other ones.

 

I think this is the short version of people's problems with it. Good. Easier to dispose of without having to go intod etail.

 

1) I don't care. If bigots and religious fanatics hate homosexuals, that's their business. If more moderately religious people don't mind homosexuals, but oppose homosexuality, I still don't care. Keeping a gay character out to satiate the people who are complaining based on this issue actually IS positive censorship, and it IS pandering.

 

2) You don't know the reasons. Either you haven't read the discussion in question, or you misread it. He didn't give his reasons. We were discussing sexuality in the Wheel of Time, and Brandon proffered it as a bit of information. Nothing more. He didn't write it in because of those of us he was having the discussion with. I don't know why he wrote it in. More importantly, neither do you, nor does anyone else on this site, unless they've had a separate private discussion with Brandon and/or Harriet. In light of that, everyone needs to stop assuming they know what he's doing, and why he's doing it.

 

3) Brandon has the privilege to do so. Harriet decided on him to finish the series. He clears things with her. He's working with an outline, and a world that RJ created. RJ explicitly said their are homosexuals. If it didn't fit RJ's outline, and the world that RJ built, Harriet would not allow it (and frankly, Brandon wouldn't write it, because he's a better fan than you or I). Brandon has to write all sorts of things for AMoL that weren't directly penned by RJ, because he left an outline. Following that outline and only connecting the dots would complete the story, but it wouldn't feel right. It needs to be fleshed out. It needs to be given the life that the other books have. That requires taking some liberties (that he clears with Harriet). And that is what he's doing here.

[Zentari]

Thanks for replying so quickly, Zentari. I hope you don't mind if I keep our conversation going, we seem to be doing it right. :)

Sure, np.

 

Did you read the explanation for this thread, where it stated that Brandon mentioned this casually to Luckers/Terez in conversation? He didn't plan for this information to make it to us in this way, but he did make his reasoning clear in that conversation (which Terez compiled and posted in its entirety, IIRC): he felt that the Wheel of Time needed to close this gap for its own good and its own completion, and that given the social circumstances of the day he believed RJ would have done the same thing.

If he was pressured into anything it's doubtful he would ever admit so.Personally I also find the above statement ludicrous.I always assumed that there were gay men just like there were lesbian women in WoT even before I read the quote from RJ , so I can't help but ask how does including a gay character close a gap,which I personally did not even consider it existed.So yeah, I do consider this to be just fan-service so to speak.

 

The reason Brandon said it was alright for us to be told in advance was that he thought we'd get a kick of trying to figure out who it will be. Do you think Brandon would have to defend this decision if nothing was said, and people found out some character was gay while reading AMoL?

Brandon doesn't have to defend himself to anyone bar Harriet for his decisions on WoT.Frankly, if he had slipped it under the radar it would have been preferable if only because threads like this one didn't exist.

 

 

Also, not to self-promote (kind of the opposite, actually,) but I wrote a rather... rushed reply to the whole "equivalences" idea in my large post on the last page (under number 5.) I certainly wasn't as polite as I'd like to be; you might not say I have that much courtesy if you read it.

Weird, can't find it.As far as THAT debate is concerned I find This post by Dahr to be blunt and to the point.I would also like to add that in the general guise of things women are stronger (while they need men to make rings with more than 13, they can start a ring anytime they want) while men get a few extra stuff to help out (not binded by oath road, can't hold for long on leash).

 

 

 

The reason I ask is that there seems to be a lot of faith in Brandon writing a portion of the Wheel that exceeds a million words, but a potential passing reference to a character being gay concerns people that Brandon will "change" RJ's work. I think he's already been given a lot of flexibility (the plot wasn't even completely outlined, and he's writing the end of the Wheel of Time, right?) so I'm trying to figure out where the line on what is potentially taboo and what's not is. It seems people have an expectation of Brandon to emulate Robert Jordan's sensibilities if not his style, and while that's fair after an eleven book investment in RJ, I'm trying to figure out exactly the scope of that idea. Naming one gay character (since we're told there are already plenty who remain anonymous) doesn't seem like its on par with choosing whether people's favorite minor characters live or die, but no-one seems to have expressed doubt in passing that responsibility to Brandon.

If Brandon went with a kill-them-all gainax ending for WoT, he would get a white gold statue of himself, in front of his door, the next day from me.

On a more serious note , people have a lot of expectations.As long as it's decent, there's no reason to gripe, is there?

 

 

Without stirring up the pot, homosexuality is a hot issue for those who are sympathetic and for those who don't like it, but what's starting to fascinate me more is the readers who don't have an extreme emotion in either direction but seem to dislike its inclusion in AMoL precisely because it is a contested issue. You seem to fall about in the middle there. It seems to me that the only strong reaction this decision will stir up is precisely this one: the only people who will really care one way or another are the people who are already here, discussing it in this thread (or people much like them.) I'm just curious, since you're not really won over by either side in the pro- or anti-camp (and seem to be reasonably annoyed by them by now,) and given that having a gay character doesn't really make much of a difference outside this specific thread and fandom... what motivates your reaction? I'm not trying to lead you into saying something about your opinion of gay people, I'm legitimately curious.

Annoyance mostly.Out of all the interesting threads here THIS one got to page 19.Tell me that's not depressing. Both sides seem to have valid arguments which neither one wants to admit and on and on it goes.

 

 

 

I think this is the short version of people's problems with it. Good. Easier to dispose of without having to go intod etail.

 

1) I don't care. If bigots and religious fanatics hate homosexuals, that's their business. If more moderately religious people don't mind homosexuals, but oppose homosexuality, I still don't care. Keeping a gay character out to satiate the people who are complaining based on this issue actually IS positive censorship, and it IS pandering.

Calm down, no one accused you of anything or attacked you.

 

 

2) You don't know the reasons. Either you haven't read the discussion in question, or you misread it. He didn't give his reasons. We were discussing sexuality in the Wheel of Time, and Brandon proffered it as a bit of information. Nothing more. He didn't write it in because of those of us he was having the discussion with. I don't know why he wrote it in. More importantly, neither do you, nor does anyone else on this site, unless they've had a separate private discussion with Brandon and/or Harriet. In light of that, everyone needs to stop assuming they know what he's doing, and why he's doing it.

Neither do you , in fact, which leaves us both in the dark with our assumptions.Hence, "dubious reasons".

 

3) Brandon has the privilege to do so. Harriet decided on him to finish the series. He clears things with her. He's working with an outline, and a world that RJ created. RJ explicitly said their are homosexuals. If it didn't fit RJ's outline, and the world that RJ built, Harriet would not allow it (and frankly, Brandon wouldn't write it, because he's a better fan than you or I). Brandon has to write all sorts of things for AMoL that weren't directly penned by RJ, because he left an outline. Following that outline and only connecting the dots would complete the story, but it wouldn't feel right. It needs to be fleshed out. It needs to be given the life that the other books have. That requires taking some liberties (that he clears with Harriet). And that is what he's doing here.

A better fan huh ? Based on who's scales ? Yours ? If your argument is based on authority calling someone a better fan doesn't help.You should have went instead with : he's a writer, you are not etc. Still ad hominem but a more valid one at that.

You also put forth the fleshing out as a sufficient reason.I don't consider it to be so.Care to extrapolate on what you said ? Before you get into another "you don't know anything" allow me to remind you that you put that argument up thus it's your responsibility to back it up .

[Grig]

so I can't help but ask how does including a gay character close a gap,which I personally did not even consider it existed.

 

I assume there are Sharans in the WoT. I think we've even seen one. Would him placing a Sharan character in the narrative close the gap in the lack of openly Sharan characters in the WoT? If not, why not? If so, how does this differ from there being a gay male on-screen as opposed to "implied to exist somewhere"?

 

Also, not everyone makes the same assumptions as you do. Just because you personally don't see a gap doesn't mean nobody else does. Sanderson noticed that one on his own, and decided on his own to remedy it. He truly has no reason to lie about that. After you come straight out and say that you'd vote against gays' right to marriage for their own good, you're kind of out in the open as someone who isn't going to mince words about your beliefs or where they come from. That isn't intended as an insult towards the man.

 

Frankly, if he had slipped it under the radar it would have been preferable if only because threads like this one didn't exist.

 

Gay male characters are fine as long as nobody notices. Got it. Sounds familiar, oddly enough. Except it's not only used in literature critiques.

 

So yeah, I do consider this to be just fan-service so to speak.

 

Complaining about fanservice in the WoT? I think we're about 15 all-nude female meetings late to call fanservice. Where were the complaints then?

 

Sanderson wrote ToM over a year ago. This was well before any current fan discussion on the issue, anyway. There's no real grounds to call it fanservice - he's not writing explicit sex, so it's not like it's supposed to excite gay males (or straight females who enjoy slash), and even handholding in an affectionate way would probably get more negative PR than he'd like. He said he was writing a gay character, not gay scenes -- so unless you think he's going to be described as wearing something like Kuja, it hardly sounds like fanservice (and if he managed gay fanservice, it would be pretty blatant fan disservice for the majority of the readers, and the author knows it). The author himself said he noted an imbalance in written scenes that didn't jive with what the original author stated of his world, and made a token effort to fix it. Without fan pressure. The Gay Agenda didn't have a letter-writing campaign.

 

Neither do you , in fact, which leaves us both in the dark with our assumptions.Hence, "dubious reasons".

 

"In the absence of evidence, straightforwardness and dubiousness are equally likely"? Classy. Talk about your false equivalence. But I guess that's what you expect from someone who feigns neutrality and points out how "both sides make good points", while oddly enough just happening to agree with the status quo.

[Zentari]

I assume there are Sharans in the WoT. I think we've even seen one. Would him placing a Sharan character in the narrative close the gap in the lack of openly Sharan characters in the WoT? If not, why not? If so, how does this differ from there being a gay male on-screen as opposed to "implied to exist somewhere"?

No it wouldn't.We still know next to nothing about Sharans.Add that to others reasons and one can't help but ask "Sharan ? Ok, kinda cool but why?".

 

 

Also, not everyone makes the same assumptions as you do. Just because you personally don't see a gap doesn't mean nobody else does. Sanderson noticed that one on his own, and decided on his own to remedy it. He truly has no reason to lie about that. After you come straight out and say that you'd vote against gays' right to marriage for their own good, you're kind of out in the open as someone who isn't going to mince words about your beliefs or where they come from. That isn't intended as an insult towards the man.

Actually, one could also see this as an attempt to calm the waters but sure, feel free to go with whatever you want.

 

 

Gay male characters are fine as long as nobody notices. Got it. Sounds familiar, oddly enough. Except it's not only used in literature critiques.

Nice snide remark completely missing my point, while also validating said point.Cool.

 

 

 

 

Complaining about fanservice in the WoT? I think we're about 15 all-nude female meetings late to call fanservice. Where were the complaints then?

 

Sanderson wrote ToM over a year ago. This was well before any current fan discussion on the issue, anyway. There's no real grounds to call it fanservice - he's not writing explicit sex, so it's not like it's supposed to excite gay males (or straight females who enjoy slash). The author himself said he noted an imbalance in written scenes that didn't jive with what the original author stated of his world, and made a token effort to fix it. Without fan pressure. The Gay Agenda didn't have a letter-writing campaign.

Which is what the 'so to speak' part is for ,and I can't help but notice how the immediate reaction is that he didn't write anything pornographic, as if fanservice means only ranchy sex.What does ToM have to do with anything ? I thought the inclusion was supposed to happen in AMoL.

 

"In the absence of evidence, straightforwardness and dubiousness are equally likely"? Classy. Talk about your false equivalence. But I guess that's what you expect from someone who feigns neutrality and points out how "both sides make good points", while oddly enough just happening to agree with the status quo.

Because one MUST pick a side right ? FOR or AGAINST! No middle ground, no survivors!!! No just roll with it option.

 

Nice attack there but I can't help but ask based on what evidence ?

[capuga]

Which is what the 'so to speak' part is for ,and I can't help but notice how the immediate reaction is that he didn't write anything pornographic, as if fanservice means only ranchy sex.What does ToM have to do with anything ? I thought the inclusion was supposed to happen in AMoL.

 

Because he said it was written with the ToM material but just didn't make it into that book. So it will be included in aMoL. I think they were trying to show that this was written well before this recent fan "pressure" or discussions. Making it less likely that this is just pandering to the PC police.

[Zentari]

Which is what the 'so to speak' part is for ,and I can't help but notice how the immediate reaction is that he didn't write anything pornographic, as if fanservice means only ranchy sex.What does ToM have to do with anything ? I thought the inclusion was supposed to happen in AMoL.

 

Because he said it was written with the ToM material but just didn't make it into that book. So it will be included in aMoL. I think they were trying to show that this was written well before this recent fan "pressure" or discussions. Making it less likely that this is just pandering to the PC police.

Ah, I see.Thank you for clearing it up, was kinda confused for a moment there.

[SethBaker]

 

I think this is the short version of people's problems with it. Good. Easier to dispose of without having to go intod etail.

 

1) I don't care. If bigots and religious fanatics hate homosexuals, that's their business. If more moderately religious people don't mind homosexuals, but oppose homosexuality, I still don't care. Keeping a gay character out to satiate the people who are complaining based on this issue actually IS positive censorship, and it IS pandering.

Calm down, no one accused you of anything or attacked you.

 

I'm perfectly calm. I just have absolutely no concern for whether or not other people "feel comfortable" with homosexuality. I care about it as little as I care about how people feel about interracial relationships, atheism, or any other historical social taboo. Your first point is completely unimportant.

 

2) You don't know the reasons. Either you haven't read the discussion in question, or you misread it. He didn't give his reasons. We were discussing sexuality in the Wheel of Time, and Brandon proffered it as a bit of information. Nothing more. He didn't write it in because of those of us he was having the discussion with. I don't know why he wrote it in. More importantly, neither do you, nor does anyone else on this site, unless they've had a separate private discussion with Brandon and/or Harriet. In light of that, everyone needs to stop assuming they know what he's doing, and why he's doing it.

Neither do you , in fact, which leaves us both in the dark with our assumptions.Hence, "dubious reasons".

 

I never said I did. I, however, am not making presumptive claims. I'm not talking about how it's unrelated to the narrative (unknown). I'm not talking about how it's pandering (not clear).

 

Given that I was involved in the conversation, I know the context, beyond even what was quoted. I don't know his reasons or how he chose to write it. And neither does anyone else, so your second point was invalid.

 

3) Brandon has the privilege to do so. Harriet decided on him to finish the series. He clears things with her. He's working with an outline, and a world that RJ created. RJ explicitly said their are homosexuals. If it didn't fit RJ's outline, and the world that RJ built, Harriet would not allow it (and frankly, Brandon wouldn't write it, because he's a better fan than you or I). Brandon has to write all sorts of things for AMoL that weren't directly penned by RJ, because he left an outline. Following that outline and only connecting the dots would complete the story, but it wouldn't feel right. It needs to be fleshed out. It needs to be given the life that the other books have. That requires taking some liberties (that he clears with Harriet). And that is what he's doing here.

A better fan huh ? Based on who's scales ? Yours ? If your argument is based on authority calling someone a better fan doesn't help.You should have went instead with : he's a writer, you are not etc. Still ad hominem but a more valid one at that.

You also put forth the fleshing out as a sufficient reason.I don't consider it to be so.Care to extrapolate on what you said ? Before you get into another "you don't know anything" allow me to remind you that you put that argument up thus it's your responsibility to back it up .

 

There are two issues here. (1) I say he's a better fan because he was the ideal writer that Harriet could find. End of story. (2) Absolutely, fleshing out the world is a perfectly acceptable and sufficient reason. With every other character trait and description, it's considered so. Like was said two pages ago (or so), the people who think they're not prejudiced against gay people really need to look at their own thoughts and feelings if they think it's completely okay to describe most features of a person's appearance and activity, but not when those features are homosexual. It's indicative of a deep-seated discomfort with, or animosity towards, homosexuality (if not homosexuals themselves).

 

It's on YOU to back it up. You're the one arguing that we should NOT trust the motivation and judgment of Harriet and BWS. You're the one saying that it's NOT an acceptable writing choice, despite the fact that Brandon has a solid track record, good judgment, and good taste. No, my argument is, "Trust the author and the editor. Trust Team Jordan. And if you have a problem with homosexuals, get bent." I have patience for people who just are not inclined to be introspective. But don't try and turn the burden of proof around on me, because YOU'RE the one who's making a claim about why what you haven't read yet and know nothing about is going to be unsuitable.

[SethBaker]

That does remind me though, I think it's tokenism and pandering to include Mat and Tuon, an interracial couple. That didn't happen until close to the end of the series either. Why isn't everyone else up in arms about this? [/veiled racism]

[HighWiredSith]

I think it should be mentioned that, if memory serves, the first four, possibly five books were explicitly sex free very nearly to a fault, with men blushing at ladies bared ankles and the horrific prospect of mutual baths. Maybe a little involving Lanfear, but that was it. Then Rand and Avienda got it on through the portal and it was like BAM, all the characters starting having all this sex. Like many things that changed in the series, for good or worse, around LoC, the inundation of romantic and sexual relationships suddenly became commonplace.

[Swithin]

If he was pressured into anything it's doubtful he would ever admit so.Personally I also find the above statement ludicrous.I always assumed that there were gay men just like there were lesbian women in WoT even before I read the quote from RJ , so I can't help but ask how does including a gay character close a gap,which I personally did not even consider it existed.So yeah, I do consider this to be just fan-service so to speak.

 

Ok. Personally, I don't see the lack of gay men as some kind of injustice or anything, but it was noticeable that RJ gets into the heads of straight men and women, and makes the effort to at least incorporate a few lesbians, but no homosexual men. I'm still a bit self-conscious when writing female POVs, and a gay POV hasn't popped up in my writing yet. If there is any hesitation on my end, it's more that I'm nervous about "getting it right", I don't have the appropriate level of familiarity to make a gay perspective different enough to be worth highlighting, without knowing how much of the difference from a straight POV would be realistic and how much the wrong kind of cultural osmosis. I'd just write a straight guy who likes men. It wouldn't be offensive, but it wouldn't offer any insight either. This isn't a choice about the audience I'd like to have, or how I feel as a person, it's just an area where I need to grow and improve as a writer. I sort of assume the same of RJ: since he's included so much else, it seems obvious to me he would have written a gay character if the moment were right and he felt confident doing so. As such, I don't see it as "fan service" but as "closing the loop"; Brandon isn't looking to rewrite tWoT to integrate a gay experience in a way that doesn't make sense, but he's willing to try to show what being gay in Randland means for at least one character, something that's been shown for many real world cultural characteristics, personality types, and social roles, through analogues.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't see it as fan-service because I don't picture Brandon writing in a gay character for a cheap smile, or a sense of "he's writing this character for me and mine", as we sometimes see in other works. I think he's writing one in because it's good for the series, it adds one more perspective that we don't have, one that I assume would have been included if RJ had been comfortable writing it in. We get many of these per book, so I don't see why having a gay character is all that different from having a haughty officer, a self-defeating serial monogamist, or a headstrong-but-emotionally vulnerable teenager.

 

Brandon doesn't have to defend himself to anyone bar Harriet for his decisions on WoT.Frankly, if he had slipped it under the radar it would have been preferable if only because threads like this one didn't exist.

 

I'm torn on this. If people have been completely legit in this thread, I've seen people take positions I hadn't seen before. On the other hand, there's been some poor communication that's been painful to read.

 

Also, not to self-promote (kind of the opposite, actually,) but I wrote a rather... rushed reply to the whole "equivalences" idea in my large post on the last page (under number 5.) I certainly wasn't as polite as I'd like to be; you might not say I have that much courtesy if you read it.

Weird, can't find it.

 

I guess it looks like I meant on page five, I meant page eighteen. Here it is.

 

As far as THAT debate is concerned I find This post by Dahr to be blunt and to the point.I would also like to add that in the general guise of things women are stronger (while they need men to make rings with more than 13, they can start a ring anytime they want) while men get a few extra stuff to help out (not binded by oath road, can't hold for long on leash).

 

Actually, I think that post is a good sign of a problem inherent in conversations like this. There is a place for discussions about gender and power structures like that, and those discussions are important. Our media both reflect and shape our cultural beliefs and biases. The thing is, there's actual training for participating in these discussions, and it takes experience to make them useful. In an academic setting: great! You learn how to dissect a novel or a film, peek into its inner workings, examine the cultural context it came out of, and the ways it sneaks in claims and associations. You also learn how to separate your enjoyment of a piece of art from your analysis, you learn how precious a naive reading is. It makes you a better audience and a better writer. I feel this every day. I majored in Creative Writing, Comparative Literature, and Cinema Studies, and it made me realize that I need to watch a lot more movies, read a lot more books, and read a lot more criticism (not that I agree with most of it) to see how all the pieces have been falling together through the ages, not to mention how sophisticated audiences have become and how intricate the intertextuality and subtexts are becoming alongside them.

 

The problem arises when you go to an internet fan site's message boards and start using the coded academic language that works perfectly well when talking with other lit-crit folks, without realizing that the majority of the words you're using mean something completely different to fifty percent or more of the people who will read what you write. Even worse are posters who are politicized and have some agenda. It invariably gets ugly, accusations of elitism get thrown around, feminism and Marxism now mean one thing in theory and criticism and a thousand different things to a thousand different people on the internet.

 

Don't cross the streams! I think this disconnect is the reason a lot of people believe that academics resent the work they examine. From what I've seen, they study a medium because they love it. They also love taking it apart, it's like play. It just doesn't end well when someone points what is ultimately a squirt-gun at another person's head in anger.

 

If Brandon went with a kill-them-all gainax ending for WoT, he would get a white gold statue of himself, in front of his door, the next day from me.

On a more serious note , people have a lot of expectations.As long as it's decent, there's no reason to gripe, is there?

 

Yeah, but people are griping. This conversation ceased to be about AMoL and became about people's feelings on gay characters in fantasy fiction at the title of the thread. I'm saddened and perplexed by a lot of what I've seen, but it has been... educational, I guess?

 

And since you might get this reference, I've actually thought that an anime adaptation of the Wheel of Time directed by Tomino Yoshiyuki would be awesome. Maybe not my first pick, but if you want character deaths...

 

... what motivates your reaction? I'm not trying to lead you into saying something about your opinion of gay people, I'm legitimately curious.

Annoyance mostly.Out of all the interesting threads here THIS one got to page 19.Tell me that's not depressing. Both sides seem to have valid arguments which neither one wants to admit and on and on it goes.

 

There are some depressing aspects to it (infuriating ones, too.) At least the discussion is gaining a bit of awareness of itself. I just don't like seeing the same basic points repeated ad infinitum.

 

Wow. I can't believe how much I just wrote, and just how pompous it makes me sound. Well, it's what was in my head, I'll leave it as-is. On that note, you're being really nice about all this. I don't get why my "side" is hounding you right now.

[Guest PiotrekS]

 

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.

 

Wow, thank you Basically I made this point about the US Constitution on a spur of the moment and shouldn't have done that in this thread. Sorry!

 

Still I'm very grateful to you, Seth Baker and randsc for your kind and informative replies

 

And I'm amazed how long this thread has become. I'm a little guilty myself, seeing as I wrote a few posts about my own quibbles, but I have never thought that this issue would generate so much discussion.

 

This gay character will have only minimal, if any, importance to the plot,. His inclusion IMHO will not influence the quality or character of the story and will be in line with what RJ said on the subject.

 

The inclusion of a gay male character, I think, doesn't need to be justified any more than the inclusion of any other kind of person. Such decision lies within the creative freedom of the writer. The only problem might come from the fact that Brandon is finishing somebody else's work and is not given creative freedom to change it any way he pleases. But these concerns, at least for me, were dealt with many pages ago.

[Zentari]

I'm perfectly calm. I just have absolutely no concern for whether or not other people "feel comfortable" with homosexuality. I care about it as little as I care about how people feel about interracial relationships, atheism, or any other historical social taboo. Your first point is completely unimportant.

I can't help but imagine you saying that with a red face full of rage.Also, I beg to differ, just because you are ok with it does not mean everyone else is too.In fact , if they were , we wouldn't be having this delightful 19 page convo, would we ?

 

 

I never said I did. I, however, am not making presumptive claims. I'm not talking about how it's unrelated to the narrative (unknown). I'm not talking about how it's pandering (not clear).

So it's somehow integral to the fleshing out.Allow me to remain skeptical.

 

Given that I was involved in the conversation, I know the context, beyond even what was quoted. I don't know his reasons or how he chose to write it. And neither does anyone else, so your second point was invalid.

Feel free to give me more depth then.Also, what you said does not make my point invalid in anyway.

 

 

There are two issues here. (1) I say he's a better fan because he was the ideal writer that Harriet could find. End of story.

At least we are getting somewhere.I know what you are trying to say but saying he's a better fan is not the correct way to say so.

For example by that logic someone could say that Christopher is the best Tolkien fan that ever was and ever will be.

 

(2) Absolutely, fleshing out the world is a perfectly acceptable and sufficient reason. With every other character trait and description, it's considered so. Like was said two pages ago (or so), the people who think they're not prejudiced against gay people really need to look at their own thoughts and feelings if they think it's completely okay to describe most features of a person's appearance and activity, but not when those features are homosexual. It's indicative of a deep-seated discomfort with, or animosity towards, homosexuality (if not homosexuals themselves).

For the last time, HOW SO?

 

 

It's on YOU to back it up. You're the one arguing that we should NOT trust the motivation and judgment of Harriet and BWS. You're the one saying that it's NOT an acceptable writing choice, despite the fact that Brandon has a solid track record, good judgment, and good taste. No, my argument is, "Trust the author and the editor. Trust Team Jordan. And if you have a problem with homosexuals, get bent." I have patience for people who just are not inclined to be introspective. But don't try and turn the burden of proof around on me, because YOU'RE the one who's making a claim about why what you haven't read yet and know nothing about is going to be unsuitable.

I'm arguing that none seems to know WHAT these motivations are.Can you claim otherwise ? Didn't think so. Even IF you could, your own statements discard your validity.

 

Also, I'm not arguing with Team Jordan , I'm arguing with YOU and since you have already admitted that you have no idea what they are trying to do or even HOW , it's on you to back the claim that it's integral to characterization or fleshing out.Granted , it might be but I just don't see how it could be, something else that you avoid elaborating on.