Discuss the Inclusion of a Gay Character

[SethBaker]

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.

 

I'm not saying it's integral, I'm saying it doesn't HAVE to be integral. I AM saying that it IS fleshing out the world, and it doesn't need to be justified any more than any other kind of trait or description.

 

People are demanding too much of it, BECAUSE it's male homosexuality. With any other trait, people wouldn't demand that it be integral to the part, used in wrapping up the story, or some other arbitrary factor.

 

What it boils down to is that the default presumption based on what we've seen should be that it will be dealt with well, it will be handled fairly. Anyone making alternative claims, basing them solely on the fact that this is male homosexuality, is doing so based on a bias AGAINST homosexuality, whether conscious or subconscious.

[Zentari]

I'm not saying it's integral, I'm saying it doesn't HAVE to be integral. I AM saying that it IS fleshing out the world, and it doesn't need to be justified any more than any other kind of trait or description.

Aha.So all in all , just another trait ? That seems good enough to me.Easier to understand someone when they explain,no?

 

People are demanding too much of it, BECAUSE it's male homosexuality. With any other trait, people wouldn't demand that it be integral to the part, used in wrapping up the story, or some other arbitrary factor.

Perhaps my use of the word was incorrect.Still, it's the that , combined with the fact that it's thrown in at last minute that makes people edgy, or to be precise gives them reasons to moan about.

 

What it boils down to is that the default presumption based on what we've seen should be that it will be dealt with well, it will be handled fairly.

Now that's something that comes way too strong even if I personally happen to agree with it.

[David Selig]

I'm not saying it's integral, I'm saying it doesn't HAVE to be integral. I AM saying that it IS fleshing out the world, and it doesn't need to be justified any more than any other kind of trait or description.

 

People are demanding too much of it, BECAUSE it's male homosexuality. With any other trait, people wouldn't demand that it be integral to the part, used in wrapping up the story, or some other arbitrary factor.

Exactly.

 

I find the notion that the gay male character and his plotline has to be integral to merit inclusion really bizarre especially when we are talking about a series like WoT which includes thousands of pages about non-integral stuff of all kinds. And so what if it will be in the last book? What difference does that made? Initially it was planned to be included in the second to last book. Would that have made it better somehow?

[yoniy0]

I'd like to take this opportunity to ask everyone again not to repeat points already made. If you're new to the discussion and would like to give us an idea of where you stand on the issue, by all means. But please let's not argue the same arguments over and over again, okay?

[Elan Tedronai]

I have no problems with sanderson introducing more lesbian characters. We need more lush women like arangar in the books. Too many dried up people like lini are taking over. we need balance. ISn't that what the books are about?

[Terez]

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.

Isn't everything? An example that came to mind recently is the fact that fans used to complain quite a bit about the fact that RJ never mentioned people going to the bathroom, which is of course quite unrealistic. Now, obviously RJ's original opinion on the matter was that it was completely and totally unnecessary to mention it, and that no one out there had any real desire to read about it, and that everyone would understand that people in the WoT world really do go to the bathroom and that he just didn't bother to tell us about it for our own sake.

 

In books 1-9 (which is well over half of the series), RJ mentioned 'privy' and 'privies' once each, both in TDR. In fact, he never used the word 'privy' to mean 'in the know' until COT. He mentioned chamber pots once in TGH, 4 times in LOC, and twice in ACOS, but no one ever uses the chamber pots, or the privies in all 9 books.

 

So, fans complained, and I imagine RJ was rather amused. The first reference to someone maybe actually using the privies is in COT, when Anaiya is killed. Chamber pots are also mentioned 3 times in that book. Then, RJ added two references to privies in the novel adaptation of New Spring (they weren't in the original novella). The first one was a nice diarrhea reference. The second was this:

 

Alys' bowl sat empty on the table where she had been sitting, but there was no sign of the woman herself. Lan's eyebrows rose in admiration in spite of himself. He had not heard a sound of her leaving.

 

Scraping his bench back noisily, Ryne rushed to one of the arrowslits and peered out. "Her horse is still there. Maybe she is just visiting the privy." Lan winced inwardly at the crudity. There were matters one spoke of and matters one did not.

Which clearly states RJ's views on the subject. But he did it anyway. Did he do it just to make the fans happy, or did he do it because he agreed it made his world more realistic?

 

Aeldra had the honor of being the first person to actually use a privy in the series, but Tuon was second. Their conversation was a little more liberal-leaning than Lan's thoughts on the subject in New Spring:

 

At the table, he held her chair for her, but she remained standing, looking at him. “You may do very well in Seandar,” she said finally, thrusting her nearly empty mug at him. “Guard this until I return.”

 

He straightened in alarm. “Where are you going?” He trusted her not to run away, but not to stay out of trouble without him there to pull her out of it.

 

She put on a long-suffering face. Even that was beautiful. “If you must know, I am going to the necessary, Toy.”

 

“Oh. The innkeeper can tell you where it is. Or one of the serving women.”

 

“Thank you, Toy,” she said sweetly. “I’d never have thought to ask.” She waggled her fingers at Selucia, and the two of them walked toward the back of the common room having one of their silent talks and giggling.

 

Sitting down, he scowled into his winecup. Women seemed to enjoy finding ways to make you feel a fool. And he was half-married to this one.

Certainly there is no real discomfort on the part of either of them. RJ seems to have set up a generational contrast on the subject between Lan and Mat/Tuon. The Mat/Tuon conversation is slightly awkward, but nothing like Lan's thoughts on the subject. Perhaps it's his way of explaining why he hadn't included bathroom talk before.

 

The next mention, however, was pure genius on RJ's part:

 

Not long after midmorning, Melfane Dawlish appeared and had Essande and Neris strip Elayne to the skin so she could be weighed in a huge, wooden-armed balance scale the midwife had brought along, a daily ritual. The brass pan was padded with a blanket, thank the Light! The stout little woman listened to her heart though a hollow wooden tube pressed to her chest and back, thumbed back her eyelids to examine her eyes, and smelled her breath. She had Elayne make water, then held the glass jar up to the light of a stand-lamp to study it. She smelled that, too, and even dipped a finger in and licked it! It was another daily ritual. Elayne averted her eyes, pulling her flower-embroidered silk robe tight around her, but she still shuddered. This time, Melfane noticed.

 

“I can tell some sickness from changes in the taste, my Lady. Anyway, there’s worse things. My boy Jaem, the one who carried the scale for me, his first paid job of work was mucking out in a stable. He claimed everything he ate tasted like—” Her round belly shook with laughter. “Well, you can imagine, my Lady.” Elayne could, and was glad she was not prone to nausea. She shuddered again anyway.

It's his way of saying, "Oh, so you want to hear about that, do you? Well then!"

 

But nevertheless, he responded to the fan criticism with good humor, just as he responded to the fan criticism about man-hating lesbians and 'lesbians until graduation'. He probably didn't respond to the criticism about the lack of gay men because writing about gay men made him uncomfortable. I bet he thought about it a lot, though, and I bet he even tried to write it (with little success). And I bet Harriet knew his thoughts.

 

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.

You're right that the attitude toward homosexuality IRL doesn't help. That much is clear from this thread. But is that Brandon's fault, or ours? Brandon, despite being more or less on the side of the detractors in this thread, decided it didn't matter and he was going to do it anyway. His post on Dumbledore makes it clear that he thinks this way because he believes that authors should try to represent the world as it is rather than through a heteronormative perspective. That goes for his own work. For RJ's work, he has RJ's declaration that homosexuality is a matter of course in WoT. Therefore, Brandon feels a responsibility to get past his own tendency to write from a heteronormative perspective. There are a number of details he has to fill in to finish the series, so it makes sense to bring a balance to the issue of homosexuality in Randland while the ball is in his court. Harriet probably told him that RJ wanted to include a gay man and could not get past the awkwardness of writing it. Yes, that is pure speculation, but it's logical speculation - don't expect an announcement on the subject because Harriet would not want RJ to be remembered as being homophobic. We have hints of that in the WoT text (and it makes sense considering his generation), but saying it outright is another thing entirely. Brandon can get past the awkwardness, so he is writing it.

 

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.

I already addressed this a number of posts back, which I'm guessing you missed. His original objection was to the word 'irrational' being included in Wikipedia's definition of homophobia in the first place. In his opinion, the word has no real meaning at all. That's a fair objection, but not all that helpful in the context of the debate as it essentially amounts to a red herring, so I suggested replacing it with 'illogical' instead (but TBC has taken the high road out of this debate, so I have no idea what he thinks about that).

 

I will make it plain then.My argument is that ALL the factors COMBINED make for the backlash that exists in this thread.

This is true. That doesn't mean that the backlash is particularly justified, or that Brandon should relent in the face of it.

 

 

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.

The first point explains backlash but does not warrant it. There is a difference. The second point is extremely subjective, and the third ignores the fact that it's highly unlikely that Brandon made this decision without first discussing it with Harriet, and the fact that Harriet likely knew RJ's thoughts on the subject quite well.

 

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)

Or alternatively, 'what about people going to the bathroom?'

 

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.

Because before, they were invisible.

 

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 don't find it either depressing or surprising. As you said, it's a hot topic, and it's healthy to have reasoned debates on hot topics if for no other reason than to familiarize oneself with the way the 'other side' really thinks. I find it far more depressing that, out of all the topics in the Structured subforum, none of the many threads came anything close to the 185-page-long Asmodean thread.

 

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.

So long as you allow us to remain skeptical about your reasons for remaining so.

 

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.

I don't believe anyone ever claimed that homosexuality was 'integral' to characterization (though I could be wrong). We (in general) only claim that it should not be a big deal that Brandon chose this detail to flesh out a particular character because it was established by RJ that homosexuality is a matter of course in Randland. One of RJ's greatest aims with WoT was to make it logically consistent, and he outshines most authors in the field by a rather large margin when it comes to that. As noted above, he was responsive to fan criticism when it came to logical consistency, even in matters far more trivial than this; there are many examples of similar things. Brandon's motives are pretty clear, I think, if you read the Dumbledore essay and the transcript of the conversation where this detail was mentioned. Considering that the particular detail he chose to flesh out this particular character is logically consistent with RJ's world, and considering that Brandon would never make a choice like this without Harriet's approval, then the backlash is I think rather unjustified. Brandon sympathizes with the detractors, but he still feels like it's the right thing to do, and with good reason.

 

I'd like to take this opportunity to ask everyone again not to repeat points already made. If you're new to the discussion and would like to give us an idea of where you stand on the issue, by all means. But please let's not argue the same arguments over and over again, okay?

I try to bring something new to every post. Sometimes it helps to repeat certain points in different contexts.

[HighWiredSith]

I have an idea. Instead of trying to shock us all by introducing an openly gay character (yawn), why not really shock us and actually kill one of the main characters off and I mean really dead, not fall through a tangreal may be dead may not be.

[SethBaker]

I have an idea. Instead of trying to shock us all by introducing an openly gay character (yawn), why not really shock us and actually kill one of the main characters off and I mean really dead, not fall through a tangreal may be dead may not be.

 

What? He's not trying to shock anybody?

[Zentari]

 

Isn't everything? An example that came to mind recently is the fact that fans used to complain quite a bit about the fact that RJ never mentioned people going to the bathroom, which is of course quite unrealistic. Now, obviously RJ's original opinion on the matter was that it was completely and totally unnecessary to mention it, and that no one out there had any real desire to read about it, and that everyone would understand that people in the WoT world really do go to the bathroom and that he just didn't bother to tell us about it for our own sake.

 

In books 1-9 (which is well over half of the series), RJ mentioned 'privy' and 'privies' once each, both in TDR. In fact, he never used the word 'privy' to mean 'in the know' until COT. He mentioned chamber pots once in TGH, 4 times in LOC, and twice in ACOS, but no one ever uses the chamber pots, or the privies in all 9 books.

 

So, fans complained, and I imagine RJ was rather amused. The first reference to someone maybe actually using the privies is in COT, when Anaiya is killed. Chamber pots are also mentioned 3 times in that book. Then, RJ added two references to privies in the novel adaptation of New Spring (they weren't in the original novella). The first one was a nice diarrhea reference. The second was this:

 

Alys' bowl sat empty on the table where she had been sitting, but there was no sign of the woman herself. Lan's eyebrows rose in admiration in spite of himself. He had not heard a sound of her leaving.

 

Scraping his bench back noisily, Ryne rushed to one of the arrowslits and peered out. "Her horse is still there. Maybe she is just visiting the privy." Lan winced inwardly at the crudity. There were matters one spoke of and matters one did not.

Which clearly states RJ's views on the subject. But he did it anyway. Did he do it just to make the fans happy, or did he do it because he agreed it made his world more realistic?

 

Aeldra had the honor of being the first person to actually use a privy in the series, but Tuon was second. Their conversation was a little more liberal-leaning than Lan's thoughts on the subject in New Spring:

 

At the table, he held her chair for her, but she remained standing, looking at him. “You may do very well in Seandar,” she said finally, thrusting her nearly empty mug at him. “Guard this until I return.”

 

He straightened in alarm. “Where are you going?” He trusted her not to run away, but not to stay out of trouble without him there to pull her out of it.

 

She put on a long-suffering face. Even that was beautiful. “If you must know, I am going to the necessary, Toy.”

 

“Oh. The innkeeper can tell you where it is. Or one of the serving women.”

 

“Thank you, Toy,” she said sweetly. “I’d never have thought to ask.” She waggled her fingers at Selucia, and the two of them walked toward the back of the common room having one of their silent talks and giggling.

 

Sitting down, he scowled into his winecup. Women seemed to enjoy finding ways to make you feel a fool. And he was half-married to this one.

Certainly there is no real discomfort on the part of either of them. RJ seems to have set up a generational contrast on the subject between Lan and Mat/Tuon. The Mat/Tuon conversation is slightly awkward, but nothing like Lan's thoughts on the subject. Perhaps it's his way of explaining why he hadn't included bathroom talk before.

 

The next mention, however, was pure genius on RJ's part:

 

Not long after midmorning, Melfane Dawlish appeared and had Essande and Neris strip Elayne to the skin so she could be weighed in a huge, wooden-armed balance scale the midwife had brought along, a daily ritual. The brass pan was padded with a blanket, thank the Light! The stout little woman listened to her heart though a hollow wooden tube pressed to her chest and back, thumbed back her eyelids to examine her eyes, and smelled her breath. She had Elayne make water, then held the glass jar up to the light of a stand-lamp to study it. She smelled that, too, and even dipped a finger in and licked it! It was another daily ritual. Elayne averted her eyes, pulling her flower-embroidered silk robe tight around her, but she still shuddered. This time, Melfane noticed.

 

“I can tell some sickness from changes in the taste, my Lady. Anyway, there’s worse things. My boy Jaem, the one who carried the scale for me, his first paid job of work was mucking out in a stable. He claimed everything he ate tasted like—” Her round belly shook with laughter. “Well, you can imagine, my Lady.” Elayne could, and was glad she was not prone to nausea. She shuddered again anyway.

It's his way of saying, "Oh, so you want to hear about that, do you? Well then!"

A lot of people are uncomfortable with that particular part.Heck, even in heavy RP tabletop seasons , you won't hear it often.In goes food, nothing comes out.Granted, it's justified if it's an elf but still...

 

But nevertheless, he responded to the fan criticism with good humor, just as he responded to the fan criticism about man-hating lesbians and 'lesbians until graduation'. He probably didn't respond to the criticism about the lack of gay men because writing about gay men made him uncomfortable. I bet he thought about it a lot, though, and I bet he even tried to write it (with little success). And I bet Harriet knew his thoughts.

Now you are throwing out assumptions based on his lack of response.Can't say I agree with you because your chain of logic falls apart if any link is broken.Not to mention that I wouldn't put it above him not putting a gay character in just to spite.

 

You're right that the attitude toward homosexuality IRL doesn't help. That much is clear from this thread. But is that Brandon's fault, or ours? Brandon, despite being more or less on the side of the detractors in this thread, decided it didn't matter and he was going to do it anyway. His post on Dumbledore makes it clear that he thinks this way because he believes that authors should try to represent the world as it is rather than through a heteronormative perspective. That goes for his own work. For RJ's work, he has RJ's declaration that homosexuality is a matter of course in WoT. Therefore, Brandon feels a responsibility to get past his own tendency to write from a heteronormative perspective. There are a number of details he has to fill in to finish the series, so it makes sense to bring a balance to the issue of homosexuality in Randland while the ball is in his court. Harriet probably told him that RJ wanted to include a gay man and could not get past the awkwardness of writing it. Yes, that is pure speculation, but it's logical speculation - don't expect an announcement on the subject because Harriet would not want RJ to be remembered as being homophobic. We have hints of that in the WoT text (and it makes sense considering his generation), but saying it outright is another thing entirely. Brandon can get past the awkwardness, so he is writing it.

Didn't say it was Brandon's fault did I ? What I implied was that it might not have been a good decision something else entirely.

 

Don't take this wrong but I disagree with you on RJ , mainly because even logical speculation has to have a base and yours is shaky at best.

Also , I find your liberal use of homophobia to be extreme, a label to be attached to any individual given a slight or even no basis for it.

On that part, we'll agree to disagree at best.

 

 

This is true. That doesn't mean that the backlash is particularly justified, or that Brandon should relent in the face of it.

No.It also however doesn't mean that it's without justification too.

 

 

The first point explains backlash but does not warrant it. There is a difference. The second point is extremely subjective, and the third ignores the fact that it's highly unlikely that Brandon made this decision without first discussing it with Harriet, and the fact that Harriet likely knew RJ's thoughts on the subject quite well.

Of course.It does provide more fuel to the fire though.The second point is extremely subjective and can be taken either way so it still provides more ammo so to speak.The third one does not ignore the fact that he has authorization.People don't talk about BS not getting permission for it (wouldn't be included if he didn't) but rather that he came out and said : This is something I decided on.

 

 

Because before, they were invisible.

Heh, kinda laughed there.

 

I don't find it either depressing or surprising. As you said, it's a hot topic, and it's healthy to have reasoned debates on hot topics if for no other reason than to familiarize oneself with the way the 'other side' really thinks. I find it far more depressing that, out of all the topics in the Structured subforum, none of the many threads came anything close to the 185-page-long Asmodean thread.

The general response to a thread titled "religion/sexuality/creation etc." to forums was "Grab the HOSE!".It often degenerated into open flaming and if not, you still got nearly nothing to show for it.Granted, not all of this is worthless but I don't find it surprising that after all those pages we are still saying the same thing basically.

 

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.

So long as you allow us to remain skeptical about your reasons for remaining so.

Can't say I find that brand of humor to my liking but sure , I'll remain mysterious to you,if you wish so.

 

 

I have an idea. Instead of trying to shock us all by introducing an openly gay character (yawn), why not really shock us and actually kill one of the main characters off and I mean really dead, not fall through a tangreal may be dead may not be.

Meh, too little too late.Would be awesome though.

 

6 am....Time to hit the bed.

[Elan Tedronai]

I have an idea. Instead of trying to shock us all by introducing an openly gay character (yawn), why not really shock us and actually kill one of the main characters off and I mean really dead, not fall through a tangreal may be dead may not be.

 

 

they can't. you see the pattern won't let them.......

[MauricXe]

As long as the gay character is a guy and grabs Mat's butt I am all for Brandon's addition. I think his reaction alone would be worth the cost of the novel.

 

 

I am generally against Brandon adding in elements RJ didn't intend. If he has already done so in other respects, then by all means proceed.

 

Would be great if Rand were gay. Then Rand and Moridin can really merge haha. I always thought Moridin was gay. Don't know why, it just seems so.

 

 

It's too easy for a woman to be revealed as gay ala the pillow friends. iirc, Elaida is gay so we technically already have one gay character.

[Terez]

As long as the gay character is a guy and grabs Mat's butt I am all for Brandon's addition. I think his reaction alone would be worth the cost of the novel.

THIS.

 

I always thought Moridin was gay. Don't know why, it just seems so.

It's because he's one of the few Forsaken who shows no interest in sex. And he is so very...refined. Or something.

[jwillis7]

i dont see what the big deal is, Martin has gay main characters that i had no idea were gay the first time reading the books, until i saw on forums and then in more rereads i saw the hints. But the characters were who they were not "o here is this character he's gay". If it was planned this guy was gay all along who cares. if they are adding it just to appease a group i think this is stupid.

[GB]

wow, i flipped through a few pages of this thread, and i have to say i never expected such a strong reaction.

 

anyway, i think Brandon did what he thinks is right for the series and he wouldnt have done so just to please certain groups, i think.

 

I dont personally see what the big deal is about this issue, and no offence to anyone, but those that say they will not reading AMOL, i dont see them actually doing it.

[Elend]

I see Moridin as asexual, if I'm honest. No indication of any interest.

[SethBaker]

those that say they will not reading AMOL, i dont see them actually doing it.

 

Agreed. They'll read it, even if they hate themselves for it.

 

 

I see Moridin as asexual, if I'm honest. No indication of any interest.

 

Agreed. He was basically a nihilist philosopher over 3,000 years ago, who sold his soul to the Devil so that he could bring about the end of the world because it's all meaningless. Then he was partially sealed in a prison for 3,000 years, and completely lost track of his humanity. Then he died and was reborn into a body. He regained his sanity, but has now begun exclusively using the True Power, further warping his mind and driving him mad.

 

I don't think sex enters into it at all. Even before all of these extreme forces were acting to harden him, he was already completely uninterested in the world.

 

It's reasonable to conclude that he's not interested in sex. It's a triviality.

[Sharaman]

those that say they will not reading AMOL, i dont see them actually doing it.

 

Agreed. They'll read it, even if they hate themselves for it.

 

 

I see Moridin as asexual, if I'm honest. No indication of any interest.

 

Agreed. He was basically a nihilist philosopher over 3,000 years ago, who sold his soul to the Devil so that he could bring about the end of the world because it's all meaningless. Then he was partially sealed in a prison for 3,000 years, and completely lost track of his humanity. Then he died and was reborn into a body. He regained his sanity, but has now begun exclusively using the True Power, further warping his mind and driving him mad.

 

I don't think sex enters into it at all. Even before all of these extreme forces were acting to harden him, he was already completely uninterested in the world.

 

It's reasonable to conclude that he's not interested in sex. It's a triviality.

 

He's kinky about rats, a pyromaniac, tortures hot women whom he enslaves, plays obscure games... none of which suggests he's an ascetic.

I don't see how you can conclude he's uninterested in sex just because it's a triviality.

[water_seeker]

I really only read a couple pages before posting...I can't speak for other people, but for me, my beliefs on homosexuality are driven by my religious beliefs...a religion that does not exist in tWoT. Given that, I cannot view WoT homosexuality the same way I would RL homosexuality, therefore I really have no issue with its inclusion into the story other than we are one book away from the storys conclusion and it seems like this should have come earlier as a world/character building idea.

 

Although that all depends on how it is handled. A scene where a character is mourning the loss of his male partner or where he is introducing his male partner to someone may be more tactful than a homosexual version of the scene of Rand & Avi after their first time.

 

And I went back to read some earlier stuff...Someone said they just assumed there were homosexual men in the story...I did too...I even felt that there were a couple minor characters leaning that way already...guess I was wrong?

[Grig]

it seems like this should have come earlier as a world/character building idea.

 

Why? People weren't complaining that Yoeli, the guy that saved Ituralde's and the rest of the Domani's asses, wasn't introduced earlier during the designated world/character building phase. Or the Traitor's Banner. Or the Dreamspike. Or Moridin's Book of Dark Prophecies. I can go on and on. This is yet another requirement being levied against the inclusion the male gay character that doesn't seem to be leveraged against any other details. People are calling for everything from Shara to Murandy to Seanchan to have more development in the last book, but when it comes to the subject under discussion here it should have come up earlier or not at all, no new development allowed.

 

Not to tear into you, it seems like you're taking a balanced approach to the information (although why even the possibility would enter into anyone's head that a distinctly Mormon author who is against gay marriage would write a homosexual version of the Far Snows, I still don't understand). But this is a very consistent theme throughout the whole thread. Gay males are somehow a whole separate category from any other world/character building exercise, and have separate arbitrary requirements regarding their inclusion.

[Terez]

Why did RJ wait until book 11 to have urine-tasting? Surely he should have introduced that earlier.

[Elan Tedronai]

As long as the gay character is a girl and grabs Berelain's butt I am all for Brandon's addition. I think her reaction alone would be worth the cost of the novel.

 

 

fixed

[MauricXe]

As long as the gay character is a girl and grabs Berelain's butt I am all for Brandon's addition. I think her reaction alone would be worth the cost of the novel.

 

 

fixed

 

ha that would be cool too lol

[Sharaman]

Until RJ debunked the idea, I'd always assumed that Demandred was Berelain.

[Elend]

Demandred is clearly Olver. Its all in the books.

[SethBaker]

As long as the gay character is a girl and grabs Berelain's butt I am all for Brandon's addition. I think her reaction alone would be worth the cost of the novel.

 

 

fixed

 

ha that would be cool too lol

 

No reason we can't have both.