Discuss the Inclusion of a Gay Character

[Luckers]

I'm seconding randsc's request, and officially. Drop the bolding and the big fonts.

[Threepy]

There is no proof that RJ wanted this in the book.

 

There is no proof that he did not either. This isn't Sanderson changing character history; this is him putting his own (very minor) mark on the series - something he is allowed to do. He may be finishing a series that he did not start, but I doubt he would have taken on the job if he was allowed no freedom in his writing.

 

People think too much about this. If it wasn't 'announced' then we would have read through it and it no doubt wouldn't have even been discussed on the forums. It's a minor, irrelevant issue and though I see little point in announcing the sexuality of a minor character, I see no harm in it either. The only way this will be an issue for me is if, when read, it doesn’t feel natural. It’s something I won’t assume however; any author would be smart enough to give it the right context.

[Nightstrike]

I think it's highly relevant. If we're about the spend more time in asha'man's heads, then it's about time that this showed up. That which hasn't happened yet, but is no extremely rare occurance at all. Not in the Wheel or in our world.

[Canis Rufus]

There is proof that RJ had no objections to it ever happening. He hadn't written these 3 books when he passed. There's no reason not to include it - if we're about to spend more time in asha'man's heads. That's what RJ's blog-post makes clear.

 

Harriet knew the man.

 

 

No he had only outlined those, written most and had an entire time line done. Really you don’t think in all the interviews questions and discussion where he eluded to what was going to happen he wouldn’t have known what was going to happen in the last books? With his fan base you don’t suppose that at some point he would have just tossed that in? He tossed in chamber pots due to questions about where they go to the bathroom. All I have asked for is proof that this is RJ and not just BS. All anyone has here are twisted half quotes that fall apart at the smallest tug. People here want it there I get that, perhaps that’s what this conversation should be. “What I want to see in the books.’ But then there is already a thread for that isn’t there?

[Nightstrike]

No he had only outlined those, written most and had an entire time line done. Really you don’t think in all the interviews questions and discussion where he eluded to what was going to happen he wouldn’t have known what was going to happen in the last books?

What's your point? He hasn't said it wasn't going to happen. He just said it hadn't come into the open because we hadn't (published books 2005) been in the heads of all kinds of people.

[Grig]

No he had only outlined those, written most and had an entire time line done.

 

[citation needed]. Very much so. He had written scenes. A few of them. Not anything like "most", if you pay attention to Sanderson's tracking of progress when he's been going through the last two books. And if he "had an entire timeline done", we wouldn't have so many inconsistencies when it comes to the timeline in tGS and ToM (so much so that apparently Steven Cooper gave up on trying to keep the chronology updated).

 

Really you don’t think in all the interviews questions and discussion where he eluded to what was going to happen he wouldn’t have known what was going to happen in the last books?

 

He definitely didn't have every scene decided, nor every PoV, nor every detail in those scenes. As much as people seem to think otherwise, he was probably dealing with notes very much like what Tolkien's son had to work with. I don't know where people come up with the idea that Jordan basically had the last book written. He had notes, which need to be expanded and turned into an actual book (or three, as it turns out).

 

All I have asked for is proof that this is RJ and not just BS.

 

It's been provided several times. If RJ says something exists in his world, it's fair game for Sanderson to use tastefully. There is no sign he is doing otherwise. I don't see you questioning every other plot detail, demanding to know if Sanderson added it because it worked well or if it was explicitly mentioned in Jordan's notes. I can't imagine Jordan would have Setalle Anan use modern literary lingo when describing Mat's shoe story (and I can't imagine Jordan writing Mat's dialogue in that scene either), and I'm pretty sure his notes didn't describe her doing so. Why is this not more of an issue?!?

[Sakaea]

Ok, this is just my opinion, but as far as I'm concerned, this is like J.K. Rowling all of a sudden saying that Albus Dumbledore is gay. No evidence in the entire series that he's gay, and then BOOM! now he is. JKR did it so that element of society would be happy.

 

Now, I have nothing against gays/lesbians. I'm bi myself. But if all of a sudden a major character is gay, that just stinks. I mean, changing something like that, abruptly, in the last book...it's just not right.

Now, I'm not saying it's going to be a major character. A supporting character, well, good for him. I just don't want the last book of one of the best series ever to have an element in it that could ruin it for some people.

[Nightstrike]

Why would it ruin anything? We've not been in the heads of too many asha'man before. Now, if not before, there's going to be a reason for it to come into the open. Why would that ruin anything?

[Nightstrike]

If we ever were in the heads of 20 male characters, at least 1 should be homo- or bisexual. Or, alternatively, of all relationships we've seen in the series 1 out of 20 should be male-male or female-female. Statistically speaking, since the Wheel is actually "our world".

 

It's just a correct way of representing the world. It ruins as little as any other relationship does. And we've seen a lot of relationships in WoT. Does anyone really disagree on that?

[Suttree]

*Pissst* [suttree edit: Canis, please provide the quote where it says RJ wrote most of the last book? I would very much like to read that. Thank you.]

[Terez]

What's wrong with bolding?

[Luckers]

Yeah ok, it's mostly the big font. That's a little bit over the top.

[Grig]

Ok, this is just my opinion, but as far as I'm concerned, this is like J.K. Rowling all of a sudden saying that Albus Dumbledore is gay. No evidence in the entire series that he's gay, and then BOOM! now he is.

 

You do realize that the series is ongoing? And the author was simply casually discussing a sequence he wrote for ToM, that got pushed to AMoL for space reasons? Do you realize how many characters there are in the WoT? Most of them, while having a few distinguishing characteristics, are rather shallow as far as characterization goes.

 

But if all of a sudden a major character is gay, that just stinks. I mean, changing something like that, abruptly, in the last book...it's just not right.

 

The author explicitly said it wasn't a change. A character who had not been previously characterized as gay or straight turns out to be gay in his book.

 

Now, I'm not saying it's going to be a major character. A supporting character, well, good for him.

 

Hide your gays? Not sure what you consider major, though, so maybe over-reacting. I don't see that it matters how important the character is, as long as it's handled naturally and doesn't contradict past characterization (so Rand, Mat, and Perrin are right out).

 

I just don't want the last book of one of the best series ever to have an element in it that could ruin it for some people.

 

This seems like an odd issue that would ruin the series, especially since by all indications it's just a characterization/world building thing and not a plot thing. Hell, mishandling "who killed Asmodean" or having one of the favorite characters (main or auxiliary) die could "ruin the series" for lots of fans. Having an ending where everyone lives happily ever after could ruin the series for some people. It seems like an odd thing to be worried about, especially considering that when something runs as long as the WoT there are always people just waiting to have it ruined, and will take any change that doesn't line up with their pet theories as ruinous. If you don't want the last book to ruin the series for anyone, the possible issue of a gay male is the least of your worries. There are plenty of characters people dislike. One more for a subset of fans isn't even something to take note of.

[EvilSocrates]

Just caught up on reading this.

 

To Seth, and Mark, who I think also made this argument:

 

"People would not be upset about the inclusion of, say, and albino character or other new plot detail not in RJ's notes, they therefore hold male homosexuality as a special case that requires special justification...likely due to homophobia."

 

I agree that people would not be bothered by the inclusion of an albino, but I reject that the only (or even most likely) explanation is discomfort with male homosexuality. Although I'm sure some people in this thread, are, in fact, influenced by such discomfort, I think some are simply bothered by political correctness. An albino character would not need special justification because, based on the social reality we live in, it is very, very unlikely that political correctness or sensitivity to "albinos rights" was behind the inclusion. With gay rights, on the other hand, political correctness and sensitivity loom large.

 

Personally: (1) I do not mind BS making changes that improve the series--as I believe he has in several places, and 2) I think the inclusion of a gay man, to the extent it isn't jarring, makes the series hang together better, because it is strange we have not seen one (although most of our protagonists are bumpkins from the shire, so what are you going to do).

 

I think randsc, and others, are more sensitive to changes in RJ's style etc. than I am, though. I have to say, however, that if the gay guy horribly murders Egwene, he might be satisfied anyhow...

[Terez]

Yeah ok, it's mostly the big font. That's a little bit over the top.

I kinda figured that's what you meant, but I just wanted to be sure.

[Kal11]

My only hope is that after being revealed the character catches some balefire to the face. Not because he is gay but for starting this whole debate on a WoT forum. It is not going to be some graphic sex scene and it is almost certainly not going to be a main character (we have evidence against it already for any main I can think of)so there is no reason to get all up in arms over it. I have read plenty of books that contain gay characters and enjoyed them no less, even one or two with a gay main, it just depends on the author and the story. If it is natural to the story and not forced then personally I have no problem with it.

 

To be truthful I do find Sanderson's reasoning to be a bit pandering and do not agree that the story needs or should have a gay character for any reason, the story was not incomplete or lacking without one. It smacks of inclusiveness which I find annoying and often insulting in any medium or setting, not having a gay character is not some kind of crime or travesty. I have always assumed there were gays in Randland and just figured RJ didn't want to write one, I could definitely see certain cultures in the story being lenient or accepting of homosexual behavior. The only way I see myself having an issue with it is if the character is openly gay in a culture like the Borderlands or Aiel and everyone is just accepting of it. It would be highly unrealistic and forced imho.

[Terez]

In this case it's not about 'inclusiveness' but rather about tempering the over-sexed female characters. The lesbians-only thing is a big part of that, along with the female only nudity. hehe, I remember getting excited about Galad being naked in TOM ch. 2 (iirc) which was pre-released. RJ rarely had naked men and when he did he avoided descriptions that create mental images, unlike with the women.

[mb]

Nope, Brandon won't pick someone evil.

Did Sanderson tell you that?

Didn't read his Dumbledore article did you?

Was not aware of the article. Searched for it at Sanderson's site after I read quoted post, but did not find it.

Please link to it.

[SethBaker]

What's clear is that Canis Rufus is scrambling for any justification to oppose this. This support, putting the burden in the wrong spot to try to justify himself, is the latest of several attempts he's made over the course of the thread to cloak his opposition to the inclusion in a cloak of legitimacy. All of the arguments against him (ESPECIALLY those that are not mine) are perfectly logically sound. And yet he does not accept them.

 

There will be no convincing this one, because his opposition is clearly not based in logical deduction, even if he makes an attempt to give it the indicia of such.

 

Evil Socrates: Then perhaps we should be offended by RJ's attempt to make a world that, while realistic and sometimes unjust, treats the sexes equally? I don't think it's the only reason why people are uncomfortable, but I think that latent anti-gay bias is causing people to make a bigger deal out of this than they would otherwise. Just like you'll see a lot of people (myself included, at times) say, "I'm not gay, but..." disclaiming homosexuality as if it is a vice, you'll see people having a stronger negative emotional reaction to something that touches on homosexuality than they would to something else.

 

I don't think anyone is consciously trying to set up straw men with this "pandering" argument, but I don't think that the argument has a strong foundation, and I don't think it would be made if the minority to be included were anything but a homosexual man.

 

Dumbledore was also not pandering. JKR didn't come out and say, "DUMBLEDORE WAS A GAY DUDE. GIVE ME PUBLICITY." At the time, Harry Potter was one of the biggest series in the world. She didn't say, "Dumbledore was gay." In response to a question, she said that she'd always thought of him as gay. And that statement was supported by references in the text that had been previously ignored.

 

And yet, this kind of response supports my premise that people will manufacture opposition to a male homosexual character.

[Terez]

Nope, Brandon won't pick someone evil.

Did Sanderson tell you that?

Didn't read his Dumbledore article did you?

Was not aware of the article. Searched for it at Sanderson's site after I read quoted post, but did not find it.

Please link to it.

Here you go.

[Grig]

The only way I see myself having an issue with it is if the character is openly gay in a culture like the Borderlands or Aiel and everyone is just accepting of it.

 

Uh, why? Word of God says that in the WoTverse, homosexuality is accepted and unremarkable. He didn't say that only applied in the soft, feminine countries like Andor.

[Kal11]

The only way I see myself having an issue with it is if the character is openly gay in a culture like the Borderlands or Aiel and everyone is just accepting of it.

 

Uh, why? Word of God says that in the WoTverse, homosexuality is accepted and unremarkable. He didn't say that only applied in the soft, feminine countries like Andor.

 

 

If the argument for inclusion of a gay character is based on realism and world building it would be ridiculous for every culture to have the same views on the matter. In male dominated or military oriented cultures it is something that is generally frowned upon or even reviled. Asking people to believe that the Borderlanders or Aiel with their sensibilities, values and traditions would be cool with homosexuality is straight jumping the shark.

[Sakaea]

But if all of a sudden a major character is gay, that just stinks. I mean, changing something like that, abruptly, in the last book...it's just not right.

 

The author explicitly said it wasn't a change. A character who had not been previously characterized as gay or straight turns out to be gay in his book.

 

 

Now, I'm not saying it's going to be a major character. A supporting character, well, good for him.

 

Hide your gays? Not sure what you consider major, though, so maybe over-reacting. I don't see that it matters how important the character is, as long as it's handled naturally and doesn't contradict past characterization (so Rand, Mat, and Perrin are right out).

 

 

 

I didn't say hide the gays. And a major character would be Rand, Mat, Perrin, Thom, Loial, or Lan, to me. And if the character is important, we've already probably got some characterization of them.

 

I just don't want the last book of one of the best series ever to have an element in it that could ruin it for some people.

 

This seems like an odd issue that would ruin the series, especially since by all indications it's just a characterization/world building thing and not a plot thing. Hell, mishandling "who killed Asmodean" or having one of the favorite characters (main or auxiliary) die could "ruin the series" for lots of fans. Having an ending where everyone lives happily ever after could ruin the series for some people. It seems like an odd thing to be worried about, especially considering that when something runs as long as the WoT there are always people just waiting to have it ruined, and will take any change that doesn't line up with their pet theories as ruinous. If you don't want the last book to ruin the series for anyone, the possible issue of a gay male is the least of your worries. There are plenty of characters people dislike. One more for a subset of fans isn't even something to take note of.

 

It would only ruin the ending if he handles it badly. As I'm sure he will probably handle it just fine, I'm not really worried about it. But you do have to admit, some people would consider it ruined. A subset of fans, yes, one that I am not included in (unless it's clumsily done).

[Kal11]

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.

 

- The Official Robert Jordan Blog, October 6, 2005

 

That quote you are referring to indicates it is not a universal norm, just common.

[Grig]

If the argument for inclusion of a gay character is based on realism and world building it would be ridiculous for every culture to have the same views on the matter. In male dominated or military oriented cultures it is something that is generally frowned upon or even reviled

 

I didn't say every culture should have the same views. I was just pointing out that it's extremely silly to assume that any country that's "manly" would of course despise open gays. As for the bolded text, you really should read some history. Military oriented cultures have in the past deliberately encouraged male/male relationships, with the intent that they will fight harder to protect their lovers in the front lines. Just because it's currently "macho" to "frown upon" and "revile" gay men does not make it a constant across universes that manly = straight and soft/feminine = gay. And this is one reason why it's important to get visibility on the existence of gay people of many different personality types -- there are so many ignorant assumptions that are still constantly made based solely on the current cultural milieu.