Discuss the Inclusion of a Gay Character

[Grig]

I'm still holding out hope on Shaidar Haran x Demandred. Right two wrongs simultaneously.

[water_seeker]

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.

 

 

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

 

I did say that it could work being introduced now and not it would only have worked if it was introduced earlier...I don't get the seemingly sarcastic reaction to what I said. As far as the other things that were mentioned (ie, dreamspikes and whatnot), those are more plot devices than world building...basically apples and oranges.

[Random Man]

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.

Come on, Mat's already been raped by a queen, he has to get fondled too? Don't you care about his feelings? Guess not, it's all in good fun if a guy's the victim, right?

 

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

Yeah, that was my main peeve with the series: the sad lack of people drinking other people's urine. It's the whole reason I started reading the series to begin with. I thought the Eye of the World was a reference to this. I can't believe I had to wait 11 years to read about urine-tasting. Oh well, at least RJ finally delivered the...um...golden...goods. Score!

[HighWiredSith]

If a Aes Sedai had a sex change operation, would she switch from using Saidar to Saidin?

[Elend]

^

 

What about Aran'gar doesn't answer this question? :O

[Grig]

I did say that it could work being introduced now and not it would only have worked if it was introduced earlier...I don't get the seemingly sarcastic reaction to what I said.

 

Because even if you allow that it "could work being introduced now", you don't seem to have considered at all why you are only making this consideration re: gay males and not re: all the other world details that could have been alluded to or foreshadowed/introduced earlier but were not, complaining that they could have worked better or would make more sense if they had been introduced earlier, and maybe now they shouldn't be introduced because it would have been better done earlier. It's a very irritating sort of special pleading, where one category of information is treated completely different than all others.

 

As far as the other things that were mentioned (ie, dreamspikes and whatnot), those are more plot devices than world building

 

Disagree. It was previously asked of Jordan how siege warfare would work when everyone can simply Travel wherever the enemy leader was. He alluded to items of the Power that could interfere with gateways. Dreamspikes are important when it comes to world building, they weren't just something arbitrarily asspulled to allow the BT 13x13 to happen. The Big Book of Dark Prophecies likely sheds a lot of light on Ishydin's actions over centuries, and has much relevance outside immediate plot considerations (and could have immediate relevance to main storyline events as early as Fal Dara, really).

[mb]

If a Aes Sedai had a sex change operation, would she switch from using Saidar to Saidin?

Saidar/Saidin seems linked to the soul's gender; not the body's gender.

[novatomato]

One thing that all the best story-tellers know, and one thing that RJ knew very well, if something serves no purpose towards the story then don't bother to mention it.

Having said that, I don't care if there is a gay character provided that his sexual orientation is not mentioned solely for the fact that 'it seemed wrong not to have a gay character' but that it (his sexual orientation) serves helps develop the story in some way.

Maybe Talmanes is hot for Mat and that's why he followed him for so long? Something along those lines. If it turns out that the person is gay, and that has no impact on the story then I will have lost faith in Brandon being able to finish RJ's incredible story.

[SethBaker]

One thing that all the best story-tellers know, and one thing that RJ knew very well, if something serves no purpose towards the story then don't bother to mention it.

Having said that, I don't care if there is a gay character provided that his sexual orientation is not mentioned solely for the fact that 'it seemed wrong not to have a gay character' but that it (his sexual orientation) serves helps develop the story in some way.

Maybe Talmanes is hot for Mat and that's why he followed him for so long? Something along those lines. If it turns out that the person is gay, and that has no impact on the story then I will have lost faith in Brandon being able to finish RJ's incredible story.

 

This argument's been made before, and my response is the same now as it was then - we don't require a plot purpose of many different character traits. Min had a Rachel Maddow haircut. It served no plot purpose. And yet it was a facet of a character that provided interesting diversity to the world, setting the character apart.

 

One of the problems with the story is that there are so many characters that many start to look similar. Can anyone tell me a difference between Norry and Balwer? You don't NEED to differentiate, but we wouldn't require any other character trait to serve a plot purpose before accepting it as something making that character unique. We should treat homosexuality the same.

[novatomato]

Hair cut? yes it serves a few purposes, 1) it give a VISUAL image of the person, which is always helpful when telling a story with words, and 2) as it is an odd and uncommon thing in that area it helps establish a character trait for Min, that she is a fairly wild 'free-spirited' type of person, so it does something other than throw out an "oh, and just for the record I'm gay."

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

. . . one thing that RJ knew very well, if something serves no purpose towards the story then don't bother to mention it.

 

 

... ummm. . . this is one of those april fool's day jokes, right?

[SethBaker]

Hair cut? yes it serves a few purposes, 1) it give a VISUAL image of the person, which is always helpful when telling a story with words, and 2) as it is an odd and uncommon thing in that area it helps establish a character trait for Min, that she is a fairly wild 'free-spirited' type of person, so it does something other than throw out an "oh, and just for the record I'm gay."

 

1) Way to miss the forest for the trees. The haircut was one example among many. Character traits are what make characters real. There is nothing to distinguish this character trait from any other. You cannot in good conscience, and with intellectual integrity, attempt to distinguish between the two when we're talking about character development. Any attempt to do so reeks of an attempt to justify a prejudiced belief.

 

2) This is an uncommon thing that helps establish a character for whoever is there. Don't trivialize it by phrasing it that way, it's dishonest. I could just as easily say that he threw out an "oh, and just for the record, she has short hair so you know she's free-spirited."

[mb]

Almost anything could serve a "purpose towards the story"; depending on reader interpretation.

[Suttree]

one thing that RJ knew very well, if something serves no purpose towards the story then don't bother to mention it.

 

HAHAHA wow! Cross out my vote for Beidomon in the SG thread. This takes it for the funniest post of the year so far.

[MauricXe]

The gay character is going to be Taim:

 

Ashaman: So where ya been Logain?

 

Logain: I was tied up in the basement.

 

Ashaman: Oh yea. Did they torture you?

 

Logain: Taim...he....*rubs backside*....I don't wanna talk about it.

 

 

amirite?

[Terez]

Nope, Brandon won't pick someone evil. (I realize you were joking...just saying.)

[water_seeker]

I did say that it could work being introduced now and not it would only have worked if it was introduced earlier...I don't get the seemingly sarcastic reaction to what I said.

 

Because even if you allow that it "could work being introduced now", you don't seem to have considered at all why you are only making this consideration re: gay males and not re: all the other world details that could have been alluded to or foreshadowed/introduced earlier but were not

 

It was only a consideration on gay males and not everything else because this topic is (and correct me if I'm wrong): "Discuss the Inclusion of a Gay Character".

 

As far as the other things that were mentioned (ie, dreamspikes and whatnot), those are more plot devices than world building

 

Disagree. It was previously asked of Jordan how siege warfare would work when everyone can simply Travel wherever the enemy leader was. He alluded to items of the Power that could interfere with gateways. Dreamspikes are important when it comes to world building, they weren't just something arbitrarily asspulled to allow the BT 13x13 to happen. The Big Book of Dark Prophecies likely sheds a lot of light on Ishydin's actions over centuries, and has much relevance outside immediate plot considerations (and could have immediate relevance to main storyline events as early as Fal Dara, really).

 

That's fine...they're still plot devices =/. I'm done, btw, with this conversation...there's no point in arguing when AFAIK we agree on everything except the why...

[SethBaker]

Nope, Brandon won't pick someone evil. (I realize you were joking...just saying.)

 

I think it should be one of the macho Aielmen. Too few people realize that homosexual men can actually be manly and courageous. They think of Carson from Queer Eye instead of the Samurai or Greek hoplites (Spartans and Thebans especially).

[Sharaman]

Nope, Brandon won't pick someone evil. (I realize you were joking...just saying.)

 

I think it should be one of the macho Aielmen. Too few people realize that homosexual men can actually be manly and courageous. They think of Carson from Queer Eye instead of the Samurai or Greek hoplites (Spartans and Thebans especially).

Surely they can also be womanly and courageous? Or somewhere in-between and courageous.

[SethBaker]

Nope, Brandon won't pick someone evil. (I realize you were joking...just saying.)

 

I think it should be one of the macho Aielmen. Too few people realize that homosexual men can actually be manly and courageous. They think of Carson from Queer Eye instead of the Samurai or Greek hoplites (Spartans and Thebans especially).

Surely they can also be womanly and courageous? Or somewhere in-between and courageous.

 

Certainly, but what I was getting at was the popular misconception that most gay guys are like Carson or Ricky Martin or Lance Bass. Nothing to be ashamed of, but I'd also be a little happy if this gay character were someone particularly bad-ass.

[AparnaVengakkad]

What is wrong with including a gay character (a male homosexual) for political correctness? It would be helpful because many folks who do not have any exposure to homosexuality might be exposed it through that way, which is a good thing.

 

You see, homosexuals may be a common enough matter or an oft discussed matter in US and even rest of the Western world, but you cannot say that for other folks. I could give myself as an example. I was in my late teens (that is ten years before - not in seventies or eighties) i understood that there is such a word called homosexual. At the time i thought it was a misprint. I asked friends about it because we saw it in a biology text (where it said that homo and heterosexuals who did not practice safe sex or hard multiple sexual partners are at high risk of AIDS, nothing further was given) and no one knew what it meant we thought it was a medical term. All of us had been brought up in a traditional society (where even love marriages were revolutionary) where men and women married not men and women. so we didn't know. (I love my country but sex education is not one of our strengths)

 

The books i had read didn't portray it, the films never showed it, the people around didn't talk about it, how were I to know?

 

It was only a few years later that i got to know such a thing as same sex love existed. It was a critically acclaimed film which told the story of a male homosexual. Then i understood why we never saw it around. Homosexuality was illegal in India (or carnal sex was - so i suppose it includes just men?).

At the time i thought that only men were homosexuals ( i know i must come across incredibly stupid now, but well, that is how my brain worked). After that a few films used homosexuality in a comic sense (always male). I didn't get an idea about homosexuality till i read a book called "Fried Green Tomatoes." Then i got the idea that same sex love is same as heterosexual love. From there forums, American and English movies and serials (some of which are accused of tokenism for including a gay character) widened my understanding. I know i might seem an exception case, but there would definitely be many who might be in some way ignorant of homosexuality. And it would be helpful to them for a few reasons.

 

1. They would be exposed to homosexuality. Having it in a popular series like WOT would let a number of young readers who would not otherwise have heard about the fact know about it and think that it is okay and not abnormal or unnatural. (after all, the readership does not wholly belong to the west). This would prevent these people from being hurting to homosexuals that they may come to know.

 

2. This exposure will also help people who find themselves attracted to same sex to understand that it is not something bad. Think about a young person who have never heard about homosexuality, who think men always fall in love with women and vice versa, who finds himself/herself attracted to their own sex. it would be incredibly painful because they might think themselves ill or sick (granted, the chances are less now, but by no means zero). Before internet forums, books, movies, and serials, will reach people (at least in countries like India) which is why having homosexuals at least mentioned (in a nice and normal way) in WOT and other books would help people. It is not pandering. It is not sensationalist. It is not for the sake of homosexuals alone but for others as well.

 

3. It is not the same thing as including a disabled, a mute, or a mentally ill person. Why? Because none of these folks are hidden from the public eye (as it used to be in India before New Delhi High Court ruled that homosexuality is a fundamental right as much as heterosexuality)and they do not have to suffer disregard, hostility, divided opinion (as in US and rest of the west?). Almost everyone will know that disabled, ill, epileptic people exist (unless they have been brought up like Siddhartha or Buddha) while some may not know about homosexuality. So it is not the same thing.

 

As for discussions such as this thread, it helps because people who do not know much about homosexuality understand both sides better.

 

People say that homosexuality is natural (one of these forums told me that animals have it too) and homosexuals should be treated as you would treat any normal person. Yes, but that requires homosexuality to be accepted first (you cannot kill female infants and foetuses and then protest against women getting special protection saying that they are as normal as men). And accepting homosexuality would require a great deal of flux, discussions, special mention et al.

 

As long as the fact doesn't change the story (and there is little chance of that) is would be nice to include a gay character.

 

This is a long post ( I've a penchant for it ), but i hope that it gets read ( despite the thread being so long and the discussion being circular). ;-)Because i think this POV hasn't been raised till now.

 

Regards

Aparna

[Hold On To The Night]

Aparna... I don't even know what to say. That was a great post. And a good point. Personally I think including a male gay character will serve a point in the story and fill a hole. But including one also has importance in the real world. As you said, not only Americans read these books (and some of them could use some education as well) they are read by people across the entire planet. And all these people deserve to know that there is something called homosexuality and that it isn't wring or unnatural. If they don't hear that from elsewhere, what's wrong with WoT telling them. I have a feeling I will get shot at now, but I actually think that is more important than WoT or aMoL.

[Terez]

Great post Aparna. You do make a bit of an extreme point from a Western perspective, but I think it is pretty obvious that Westerners are also prone to the idea that homosexuality is not normal, and this comes from our own cultural conditioning which may not be as extreme as yours, but is still heteronormative. So we benefit from the exposure as well.

[Mr Ares]

3. It is not the same thing as including a disabled, a mute, or a mentally ill person. Why? Because none of these folks are hidden from the public eye (as it used to be in India before New Delhi High Court ruled that homosexuality is a fundamental right as much as heterosexuality)and they do not have to suffer disregard, hostility, divided opinion (as in US and rest of the west?). Almost everyone will know that disabled, ill, epileptic people exist (unless they have been brought up like Siddhartha or Buddha) while some may not know about homosexuality. So it is not the same thing.

While I do agree with the general thrust of your post, and at the risk of getting sidetracked, I'm not sure about this point. People with disabilities and mental illnesses don't tend to get the same level of exposure as the able bodied - they are, to an extent, hidden from the public eye (albeit not to the same extent homosexuality was hidden in India, I'll grant you). There are problems with disregard and hostility. That said, those are arguments for including people with mental illnesses and disabilities, not arguments against including gay men. But, as I say, not really on topic and I agree there's nothing wrong with including homosexual characters.

[mb]

Nope, Brandon won't pick someone evil.

Did Sanderson tell you that?