Discuss the Inclusion of a Gay Character

[SethBaker]

Nope, Brandon won't pick someone evil.

Did Sanderson tell you that?

 

He concurred with the criticism of Terry Goodkind for making his token gay man a genocidal maniac. He's not going to go from staking out that position to making the only gay man in this story evil.

[mb]

"genocidal maniac" and "evil" I would count as 2 different things.

One person in this series that would fit "genocidal maniac" would be Lews Therin after sealing the Bore; who was not evil.

Evil people in this series have killed alot of people (and/or ordered killings), but a number of them seem "non-crazy" most of the time.

[Terez]

Nope, Brandon won't pick someone evil.

Did Sanderson tell you that?

Didn't read his Dumbledore article did you?

[dscott8]

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.

 

Transgendered people often describe themselves as one gender's soul trapped in a body of the other gender. Would such a person channel according to their outward physical gender, or their soul's gender? Somewhat off topic, but a concept that is certainly relevant in a world where magical power is divided along gender lines.

[Phelix]

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.

 

Transgendered people often describe themselves as one gender's soul trapped in a body of the other gender. Would such a person channel according to their outward physical gender, or their soul's gender? Somewhat off topic, but a concept that is certainly relevant in a world where magical power is divided along gender lines.

 

 

We know the answer to this. Halima/Aran'gar/Balthamel channeled saidin regardless of his/her physical gender. That was an example of literally a man's soul being trapped in a woman's body.

 

Now, the weakness to this is Halima was created by the DO as a punishment. Would someone naturally born transgendered be the same? I don't know... maybe?

[Terez]

The Path of Daggers book tour 21 November 1998, VA - John Novak reporting

 

Someone actually asked Jordan whether a hermaphrodite would channel saidin or saidar. Jordan was...non-plussed. "A hermaphrodite?! I dunno. I'd have to sit down and figure that out." He shot the guy a funny look as he walked away, then remarked to the next group of people in line that he put that in the same category as the person who wrote to ask him what Donald Duck would channel.

[MauricXe]

The Path of Daggers book tour 21 November 1998, VA - John Novak reporting

 

Someone actually asked Jordan whether a hermaphrodite would channel saidin or saidar. Jordan was...non-plussed. "A hermaphrodite?! I dunno. I'd have to sit down and figure that out." He shot the guy a funny look as he walked away, then remarked to the next group of people in line that he put that in the same category as the person who wrote to ask him what Donald Duck would channel.

 

 

hahaha

[Terez]

Yes, that's one of my favorites. I was really surprised that no one had posted it yet.

[dscott8]

Donald is a male duck, obviously he'd channel saidin. Bugs Bunny, however, dressed up as a girl so many times, I's have to wonder....

 

[Canis Rufus]

Nope, Brandon won't pick someone evil.

Did Sanderson tell you that?

 

He concurred with the criticism of Terry Goodkind for making his token gay man a genocidal maniac. He's not going to go from staking out that position to making the only gay man in this story evil.

 

 

So you agree then that this is just Brandon's "token gay man." Uh, admitting is the first step.

[randsc]

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

 

 

Thank you for the thoughtful post. While I don't agree with your reasoning, a forthright defense of political correctness is an order of magnitude more intellectually honest than a position holding that anyone who fails to see this late inclusion as a triumph must be a bigot or a homophobe.

[Terez]

All we're saying is that anyone who makes a huge deal out of this like it's a bad thing has probably got some homophobic tendencies, or else they wouldn't care so much. We've already made arguments similar to hers previously in the thread, along the lines of, even if it is all about PC, then so what? But those arguments got ignored.

[SethBaker]

Nope, Brandon won't pick someone evil.

Did Sanderson tell you that?

 

He concurred with the criticism of Terry Goodkind for making his token gay man a genocidal maniac. He's not going to go from staking out that position to making the only gay man in this story evil.

 

 

So you agree then that this is just Brandon's "token gay man." Uh, admitting is the first step.

 

No. I was being facetious. I figured that everyone would be bright enough to see that.

 

Even if it was a token inclusion, I STILL wouldn't give a damn. Why do you?

[Grig]

Would it be trolling to wonder if Brandon's going to have his gay character in a civil union or a marriage? I mean, it's the WoT, and there's no stigma

 

Just tossing it out there now that it seems we're past substantive discussion. On a more serious note, Aparna, thanks for the post. It was good food for thought. Agree with Terez that several people have already said "even if it's just PC, so what", but apparently it's only intellectually honest if it comes from someone new to the thread, and preferably from someone who hasn't pointedly noted double standards, special pleading, or markings of homophobia.

[jwillis7]

So because i think it is stupid to add a gay character, or change what we thought was a straight character gay, to appease a group or make them feel included makes me a homophobe? NO. I think people should tell the stories they want to tell. If that story has gay characters in it,ie Song of ice and fire, great. If not, that is the story being told. To me it is not the fact that it is a gay character being added, it is the fact that it feels cheep, a ploy to gain a wider audience. If this character was conceived gay the whole time and it was going to come out in the story in the last third of the last book then fine, but... i feel like i am repeating myself. I just got mad at the two posts above mine that made me feel they were saying if you had a problem with this you were a bigot or a homophobe. WHICH IS WAY OUT OF LINE.

 

If people read a story and feel there is something missing, that the inclusion of something else would make the story seem more real...then go write a book.

[Grig]

If that story has gay characters in it,ie Song of ice and fire, great. If not, that is the story being told.

 

For something like the 20th time in this thread, Jordan stated that in his story/world there are gay men. It's accepted and nobody thinks much of it.

 

To me it is not the fact that it is a gay character being added, it is the fact that it feels cheep, a ploy to gain a wider audience.

 

Seriously? With 2-13% of the population being gay, and at least three times the top value of that range ardently against some basic civil rights for gays, you seriously think a mass-market book adding a gay character is a ploy to widen the audience? Get real. So many people have been trying to argue the point nicely enough, but this is just ridiculous. Basic logic misses you.

 

If people read a story and feel there is something missing, that the inclusion of something else would make the story seem more real...then go write a book.

 

Sanderson did. You're here complaining about it, before you've even read it. And you have a lot of company in doing so. Make up your mind.

[Agitel]

So because i think it is stupid to add a gay character, or change what we thought was a straight character gay, to appease a group or make them feel included makes me a homophobe? NO. I think people should tell the stories they want to tell. If that story has gay characters in it,ie Song of ice and fire, great. If not, that is the story being told. To me it is not the fact that it is a gay character being added, it is the fact that it feels cheep, a ploy to gain a wider audience. If this character was conceived gay the whole time and it was going to come out in the story in the last third of the last book then fine, but... i feel like i am repeating myself. I just got mad at the two posts above mine that made me feel they were saying if you had a problem with this you were a bigot or a homophobe. WHICH IS WAY OUT OF LINE.

 

If people read a story and feel there is something missing, that the inclusion of something else would make the story seem more real...then go write a book.

 

 

I don't understand how anybody could possibly think this could be used to gain WoT or Sanderson a wider reading audience. It won't. It really couldn't. If he turned a main character gay, then maybe but come on.

[SethBaker]

So because i think it is stupid to add a gay character, or change what we thought was a straight character gay, to appease a group or make them feel included makes me a homophobe? NO. I think people should tell the stories they want to tell. If that story has gay characters in it,ie Song of ice and fire, great. If not, that is the story being told. To me it is not the fact that it is a gay character being added, it is the fact that it feels cheep, a ploy to gain a wider audience. If this character was conceived gay the whole time and it was going to come out in the story in the last third of the last book then fine, but... i feel like i am repeating myself. I just got mad at the two posts above mine that made me feel they were saying if you had a problem with this you were a bigot or a homophobe. WHICH IS WAY OUT OF LINE.

 

If people read a story and feel there is something missing, that the inclusion of something else would make the story seem more real...then go write a book.

 

That's not what I said, and that's not what I implied. Well, okay, it's SLIGHTLY implied. Because I can't think of any other reason why people care so much about male homosexuality. "BWS is putting an albino in AMoL!" would make a thread 1/20th the size of this one, mostly consisting of, "okay, well, whatever." For better or for worse, huge segments of our population don't just see gay men as different - they see male homosexuality as different from other traits of character and behavior.

 

My point is exactly that. Why?

 

This is all repetitive, so I'll just make the bullet points. If you're not satisfied, read back in the thread to an earlier turning of the Wheel where we've discussed this already. All of this has happened before, and it will all happen again.

-You're assuming that the character is being included both to satisfy some vocal readers, and to attract new readers. The Wheel of Time already has a massive reader base, and I'd hazard a guess that the number of readers who are going to pick up a 15 book series because there's one gay man added in is pretty much 0. Brandon and Harriet know this too.

-They're not adding anything, they're DESCRIBING it. RJ already made clear that male homosexuality is known and unremarkable in the Third Age. It's a statistical fluke that we haven't seen it already.

 

Anyway, I don't like having words attributed to me that are basically unrelated to what I said. When people articulate your stance, I am convinced that they are not bigots or homophobes, I just think you haven't thought about it enough. The motivations you attribute to Harriet and Brandon don't make sense, and the way you're treating homosexuality compared to all other traits also does not make sense. However, when someone articulates none of these things, and is on the warpath against this inclusion, I am not sure whether to assume they haven't thought it through completely, or whether they just hate homosexuals. So that's what I asked. "Why do you care?"

[randsc]

All we're saying is that anyone who makes a huge deal out of this like it's a bad thing has probably got some homophobic tendencies, or else they wouldn't care so much. We've already made arguments similar to hers previously in the thread, along the lines of, even if it is all about PC, then so what? But those arguments got ignored.

 

Who's making a huge deal of it? Except for the one poster who said Sanderson had lost a fan (you can always find one)?

 

If you read back through the thread, you will see much more irritation about the casual (and foolish) assumption that people not tossing hosannas to the heavens over this must be homophobes than over the inclusion of a gay character.

 

The people making a huge deal over this whole issue are those, like you and Luckers and Baker, who were stung to realize that not everyone was as excited by this addition as you are. If you had simply accepted that people of good faith can disagree on this topic, without tossing around accusations of homophobia, this thread wouldn't have made it more than three pages.

[jwillis7]

So that's what I asked. "Why do you care?"

 

because they are making it a big deal. If the book just would have been written as planned and this character's sexuality came out in the plot of the book then, big deal. The way it seemed is that they are changing stuff. As i said in my post that if this was how the character was thought of from the start then i dont care at all. if this had not been announced then when we get AMoL people would have been like "O WHERE DID THIS GAY GUY COME FROM" i don't know why they would yell but... and Brandon would say that was always how it was planned end of story. and i would have been fine with it just like dumbledore. that's why i care i wish people would write their stories as planned and if this is as planned GREAT

[Nightstrike]

Sigh... 22 pages... Really?

 

RJ's blog 6 October 2005 "AND ONE MORE TIME"

 

 

I have gay and Lesbian characters in my books, but the only time it has really come into the open is with the Aes Sedai because I haven’t been inside the heads of any other characters who are either gay or bi. For the most part, in this world such things are taken as a matter of course. Remember, Cadsuane is surprised that Shalon and Ailil were so hot to hide that they had been sharing a bed even knowing how prim and proper Cairhienin are on the surface. Well, for many it is just on the surface.

[Nightstrike]

How about being in the midst of the asha'man? Would they be "in the heads" too? As a natural consequence of the story?

[SethBaker]

So that's what I asked. "Why do you care?"

 

because they are making it a big deal. If the book just would have been written as planned and this character's sexuality came out in the plot of the book then, big deal. The way it seemed is that they are changing stuff. As i said in my post that if this was how the character was thought of from the start then i dont care at all. if this had not been announced then when we get AMoL people would have been like "O WHERE DID THIS GAY GUY COME FROM" i don't know why they would yell but... and Brandon would say that was always how it was planned end of story. and i would have been fine with it just like dumbledore. that's why i care i wish people would write their stories as planned and if this is as planned GREAT

 

No, Brandon is not making a big deal. Have you read the thread? Do you know how this thread came to be?

(1) Terez, Luckers, and I were having a conversation on Twitter with Brandon about various aspects of sexuality in the Wheel of Time.

(2) In response to a question, and in the context of that discussion, Brandon let slip that he had written a gay character for Towers of Midnight, but had moved that scene to A Memory of Light.

(3) Based on that revelation, this thread was made to discuss that inclusion.

 

This is not pandering. He's not publicizing it. He let it slip (yes, publicly, but not as a press release) to a couple of fans that he was having a discussion with, to which it was relevant.

 

The book IS being written as planned. He has notes, but there are a lot of things he has to do to bridge gaps in those notes, and there's a lot of details he has to add in order to make the book fully-fleshed. That's why this is a labor that takes over a year. Because he's not filling in a couple of holes in a completed outline, he's taking notes and comments and forging them into a book. You can't "change something" in that unless you're expressly going against the notes themselves. He is not (because Harriet would not allow it). Perhaps RJ would not have written it this way, but based on what he's said of the world, it's possible that he would.

 

Fine, you're not a homophobe. I still think you're putting too much importance on sexuality, in the overall scheme of the book, and you're completely misinterpreting the context for this revelation.

 

EDIT: REALLY look at that chronology. Brandon had originally planned to put that in Towers of Midnight. It got moved to AMOL for space. The conversation happened WELL after the release of TOM. That scene very well could have come out exactly like you said.

 

If anything, what you're saying is, "I'm really mad at Brandon for having a discussion with fans and casually mentioning something that is going to happen in the next book."

[Nightstrike]

No, Brandon is not making a big deal. Have you read the thread? Do you know how this thread came to be?

(1) Terez, Luckers, and I were having a conversation on Twitter with Brandon about various aspects of sexuality in the Wheel of Time.

(2) In response to a question, and in the context of that discussion, Brandon let slip that he had written a gay character for Towers of Midnight, but had moved that scene to A Memory of Light.

(3) Based on that revelation, this thread was made to discuss that inclusion.

I know it's been said before. I hope it won't be needed for anyone to say it again. But, let's be realistic...

[jwillis7]

So that's what I asked. "Why do you care?"

 

because they are making it a big deal. If the book just would have been written as planned and this character's sexuality came out in the plot of the book then, big deal. The way it seemed is that they are changing stuff. As i said in my post that if this was how the character was thought of from the start then i dont care at all. if this had not been announced then when we get AMoL people would have been like "O WHERE DID THIS GAY GUY COME FROM" i don't know why they would yell but... and Brandon would say that was always how it was planned end of story. and i would have been fine with it just like dumbledore. that's why i care i wish people would write their stories as planned and if this is as planned GREAT

 

No, Brandon is not making a big deal. Have you read the thread? Do you know how this thread came to be?

(1) Terez, Luckers, and I were having a conversation on Twitter with Brandon about various aspects of sexuality in the Wheel of Time.

(2) In response to a question, and in the context of that discussion, Brandon let slip that he had written a gay character for Towers of Midnight, but had moved that scene to A Memory of Light.

(3) Based on that revelation, this thread was made to discuss that inclusion.

 

This is not pandering. He's not publicizing it. He let it slip (yes, publicly, but not as a press release) to a couple of fans that he was having a discussion with, to which it was relevant.

 

The book IS being written as planned. He has notes, but there are a lot of things he has to do to bridge gaps in those notes, and there's a lot of details he has to add in order to make the book fully-fleshed. That's why this is a labor that takes over a year. Because he's not filling in a couple of holes in a completed outline, he's taking notes and comments and forging them into a book. You can't "change something" in that unless you're expressly going against the notes themselves. He is not (because Harriet would not allow it). Perhaps RJ would not have written it this way, but based on what he's said of the world, it's possible that he would.

 

Fine, you're not a homophobe. I still think you're putting too much importance on sexuality, in the overall scheme of the book, and you're completely misinterpreting the context for this revelation.

 

EDIT: REALLY look at that chronology. Brandon had originally planned to put that in Towers of Midnight. It got moved to AMOL for space. The conversation happened WELL after the release of TOM. That scene very well could have come out exactly like you said.

 

If anything, what you're saying is, "I'm really mad at Brandon for having a discussion with fans and casually mentioning something that is going to happen in the next book."

you obviously are not understanding what i am saying, i'm not going to try and say it again. It seems you want me to be saying something i am not but I've given my thoughts on the matter, and that is NOT what i was saying