Discuss the Inclusion of a Gay Character

[Majsju]

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

 

 

 

 

 

Haha, you can't be serious? Oh wait, I forgot about homophobes.

Nothing like adding to the civil discussion.

 

 

 

What should be said to a person that stops reading a 14 book series before the 14th book because a gay character is included?

 

Sometimes, saying nothing at all is the wisest choice.

[UGAShadow]

No one said I was wise though

[Random Man]

Well, in all fairness, the gay is highly contagious. You have to be careful. One day you're reading a book where a passing reference indicates that a character might be sexually attracted to other men. Next thing you know, you're a snappy dresser and use product in your hair. Before too long you're speaking with a lisp, buying tickets to Cher concerts and making sweet, sweet love to other men. The gay is like cancer, except it spreads via smoldering looks and falsetto whispers, and the only cure for the gay is Jesus.

 

That was just too funny. Once I had a male friend who developed a crush on me. I found it flattering. Did I catch something? Achoo... uh-oh, I'd better go find my copy of the New Testament to inoculate myself...oh yeah, that's right, there isn't a single mention of Jesus saying anything on the subject of homosexuality in any of the Gospels.

 

 

As it stands, I have a fair amount of respect for Jordan for adding a highly sexual trans-gendered character, even if s/he was one of the bad guys. Jordan has had lesbian characters, bisexual characters, and a transgendered character. Given what's come before, completing the LGBT sweep doesn't strike me as something that will be an issue for most readers or out of place in the series.

 

I would have an issue with tokenism -- a character thrown in for the sole purpose of having a gay character in the story. That would just be flat out condescending to gays, or at least I would think so. As a soldier who wrestled with PTSD for years after my experiences in Iraq, I'd find it condescending had this issue never come up in the series aside from Lidrin in ToM chapter 21 "An Open Gate," and as such been a throwaway line that said "Here you go, vets." But it fit well. I have faith this gay character will be a part of the story that belongs and feels like it's always been there. In fact, (and yes I know this isn't the whoisit thread) I think being gay would be a very fitting part of Androl's character -- he cares very deeply, perhaps intimately about one or more of his Asha'man companions and this is a part of what drives him to act. I hope it didn't escape anyone that the gay character was supposed to be...outed?...in ToM but wasn't and we also only got a portion of the "50,000 words of Pevara being awesome" in ToM. Just my 5 cents (due to inflation).

[Rosée]

Question: How do you include only ONE gay male character?

 

Seriously. Unless he is the loneliest man on earth, don't you need at least two???

Rofl, good point!

 

I have no issues with gay characters, in fact it's something that bothered me a bit that there were only lesbians but no gay men. I think BS is intelligent enough not to make a huge scene out of it, like "LOOK HERE THAT'S THE GAY CHARACTER OMG HE'S OUT OF THE CLOSET HEY LOOK THERE'S A GAY CHARACTER IN THIS SERIES OMGGGG!!11!1!!11!!" I mean, no, not really =/

 

If the addition of a male character is pictured in a normal way, I don't mind. Like, his love for another man is seen and written as normally as straight love. I really don't like in movies or books when they go OH LOOK HE LOVES ANOTHER MAN. HE IS GAY. THIS IS IMPORTANT. HE IS DIFFERENT!!! I have nothing against gays (I have several gay friends and I'm bisexual), but I don't like the fact that gay characters are often given such importance because by doing so it highlights the differences rather than the similarities between them and straight people. I'd like them to be seen as normal, rather than different. That's what I'd like to see in a book.

I'm sorry if I didn't make much sense, I'm a French speaker and I'm very good at confusing myself with my own words... xD

 

 

In any case, am I the only one who totally saw Dain Bornhald and Jaret Byar as lovers??? I always thought those two were too... together, you know? And then when Bornhald killed Byar in ToM and walks away from Perrin, Galad sort of confirms it.

"That one still thinks I killed his father," Aybara said.

"No," Galad replied. "I think he believes that you did not. But he has hated you for very long, Lord Aybara, and has loved Byar longer." He shook his head. "Killing a friend. It is sometimes painful to do what is right."

 

Some may think that they were just friends, but in my head they've always been lovers. Oh well, just my opinion xD

 

 

Edit;

I have faith this gay character will be a part of the story that belongs and feels like it's always been there.

Yes!! That's how I feel about it.

[Random Man]

 

If the addition of a male character is pictured in a normal way, I don't mind. Like, his love for another man is seen and written as normally as straight love. I really don't like in movies or books when they go OH LOOK HE LOVES ANOTHER MAN. HE IS GAY. THIS IS IMPORTANT. HE IS DIFFERENT!!! I have nothing against gays (I have several gay friends and I'm bisexual), but I don't like the fact that gay characters are often given such importance because by doing so it highlights the differences rather than the similarities between them and straight people. I'd like them to be seen as normal, rather than different. That's what I'd like to see in a book.

I'm sorry if I didn't make much sense, I'm a French speaker and I'm very good at confusing myself with my own words... xD

 

Made perfect sense to me.

 

In any case, am I the only one who totally saw Dain Bornhald and Jaret Byar as lovers??? I always thought those two were too... together, you know? And then when Bornhald killed Byar in ToM and walks away from Perrin, Galad sort of confirms it.

"That one still thinks I killed his father," Aybara said.

"No," Galad replied. "I think he believes that you did not. But he has hated you for very long, Lord Aybara, and has loved Byar longer." He shook his head. "Killing a friend. It is sometimes painful to do what is right."

 

Some may think that they were just friends, but in my head they've always been lovers. Oh well, just my opinion xD

 

Never thought about their relationship that way. That possibility certainly adds a new perspective to the scene -- the depth of how much it hurt Bornhald to do what was right.

 

I have faith this gay character will be a part of the story that belongs and feels like it's always been there.

Yes!! That's how I feel about it.

Kewl.

[ajameswhitehead]

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

Haha, you can't be serious? Oh wait, I forgot about homophobes.

Nothing like adding to the civil discussion.

To be fair, he only said what most of us were probably thinking.

Well that's my point. "Most of us" assumed Kiriath's homophobic? That wasn't in what Kiriath posted previously; he just didn't like the late inclusion of a gay male character to satisfy, in his mind, some agenda.

 

As to what should be said; I dunno, something that gets the poster to explain his/her post maybe? Actually engages the other poster in a debate? Do I think Kiriath's reaction is a little over the top? Sure. But I'd like to get more info as to why he said it; not just assume homophobia.

 

Now, if he never comes back to defend such a unequivocal post/position, then we are left to draw our own conclusions. ;-)

 

HGT

[Kestrel]

In any case, am I the only one who totally saw Dain Bornhald and Jaret Byar as lovers??? I always thought those two were too... together, you know? And then when Bornhald killed Byar in ToM and walks away from Perrin, Galad sort of confirms it.

"That one still thinks I killed his father," Aybara said.

"No," Galad replied. "I think he believes that you did not. But he has hated you for very long, Lord Aybara, and has loved Byar longer." He shook his head. "Killing a friend. It is sometimes painful to do what is right."

 

Some may think that they were just friends, but in my head they've always been lovers. Oh well, just my opinion xD

 

I wondered about that scene myself when I read it. Why say Bornhold "loved" Byar unless you are hinting at a homosexual bond? I tried to convince myself (unsuccessfully) that the words "Killing a friend" meant "loved" wasn't supposed to be a homosexual hint, when the "friend" was one of those righteous members of the righteous enforcers of the Creator's will.

 

If you really don't intend to suggest homosexuality there are so many other words you could use: Bornhold esteemed Byar, Bornhold admired Byar, Bornhold venerated Byar, respected, acclaimed, honored, adulated, extolled, idolized, revered.... Any of those would have worked better. But loved???

[Byzantine279]

Well Kestrel, keep in mind that we aren't talking Fundamental Christians, etc, we are talking about a fiction organization who would likely string you up if you so much as talked about the Bible. Meaning they have inherently different beliefs based around their own type of fanaticism, which do not need to include anything about homosexual relationships (and as far as we have seen they don't).

 

On the other hand "loved" may have been as in "loved, like a son loves his father".

[Val Mickey]

My problem with the new gay character is that it just rings to false to include something like this at the end of the game. Whether it's mentioned that "so-and-so is well known for not fancying the attention of the opposite sex" or is a paragraph describing so-and-so's live life.. it just shouldn't be there. I cannot but feel it's pandering.

Again, it's only 'pandering' to the extent that RJ was pandering to fans when he supplied the requested Malkieri Aes Sedai in KOD. Fans thought it odd that none had been mentioned, so RJ conceded and put one in the books. Aside from that, Swithin's last paragraph is worth considering again.

 

The two situations are exactly the same. Of course the Malkieri are buying the books, and if they want one of their own as AS, they should be indulged.

[Mr Ares]

It's nothing to do with being lazy. I like fantasy because the author can create a world exactly as he/she wants, never mind the restrictions of "reality" or the current social ideals we have. That's what fantasy is all about to me. After all, fantasy is usually set in a completely different world to ours, so why should our ideas of what's realistic apply? It's a matter of preference, not being "intellectually unable to come up with a counter argumant".

The world might be different to ours, but it is still inhabited by human beings, and as such it is quite reasonable to expect human characters to act in recognisably human ways. Now, I agree with you to some extent - if I wanted perfect realism, I wouldn't read fantasy, and being realistic is not the same as being good - but a degree of verisimilitude is important, and does benefit a story. Personally, I would find it decidedly odd if everyone in a series this length and with this many characters never expressed any interest in the opposite sex - and by the same token, no-one expressing any in the same sex would also be a little odd. Which is not to say that romance couldn't be kept to the background, for example, ro their could be an in-story explanation for why everyone is asexual, but if you start wondering why none of the people are actually acting like people you might think it a little bit odd.

 

 

I'm a Catholic, I completely toe-the-line on Church teaching so you can imagine my views on homosexuality. That doesn't change the fact that homosexuals exist though. We live in a world in which right and wrong are black and white with humans being grey in how they react to this. So I don't have an issue with a character being included who homosexual.

 

My problem with the new gay character is that it just rings to false to include something like this at the end of the game. Whether it's mentioned that "so-and-so is well known for not fancying the attention of the opposite sex" or is a paragraph describing so-and-so's live life.. it just shouldn't be there. I cannot but feel it's pandering.

I would say we should wait and see how it is handled. Looked at like this, hearing about it on a forum, it could easily look like pandering, but in context it might just fit in naturally. There might be good reason why we are only lately learning of a given character's sexuality, after all.

 

In any case, am I the only one who totally saw Dain Bornhald and Jaret Byar as lovers??? I always thought those two were too... together, you know? And then when Bornhald killed Byar in ToM and walks away from Perrin, Galad sort of confirms it.

"That one still thinks I killed his father," Aybara said.

"No," Galad replied. "I think he believes that you did not. But he has hated you for very long, Lord Aybara, and has loved Byar longer." He shook his head. "Killing a friend. It is sometimes painful to do what is right."

 

Some may think that they were just friends, but in my head they've always been lovers. Oh well, just my opinion xD

 

I wondered about that scene myself when I read it. Why say Bornhold "loved" Byar unless you are hinting at a homosexual bond? I tried to convince myself (unsuccessfully) that the words "Killing a friend" meant "loved" wasn't supposed to be a homosexual hint, when the "friend" was one of those righteous members of the righteous enforcers of the Creator's will.

 

If you really don't intend to suggest homosexuality there are so many other words you could use: Bornhold esteemed Byar, Bornhold admired Byar, Bornhold venerated Byar, respected, acclaimed, honored, adulated, extolled, idolized, revered.... Any of those would have worked better. But loved???

Personally, I don't think any of those work better - Bornhald might see Byar as a friend or companion, but not as a subject for hero worship. Liked would be accurate, but a bit underwhelming. Loved is probably the best way to get the depth of feeling across, but people might see the word as indicating romantic love where such is not intended.

[Cybertrolloc]

pfff, attend to your books. It's perfectly clear that Nalesean, Talmanes, Daerid, Edorion, Estean and Vanin are gay, I'll look up the quotes soon :)

 

Tam al Thor: that could work.

 

So, nothing immediately jumps to my mind as being story-relevant that someone is gay. Where's the option for the appendix of Loial's book to read "by the way, the following people are gay: (list of every named character that isn't hetero-exclusive from PoV)"?

[Elend]

Question: How do you include only ONE gay male character?

 

Seriously. Unless he is the loneliest man on earth, don't you need at least two???

Rofl, good point!

 

I have no issues with gay characters, in fact it's something that bothered me a bit that there were only lesbians but no gay men. I think BS is intelligent enough not to make a huge scene out of it, like "LOOK HERE THAT'S THE GAY CHARACTER OMG HE'S OUT OF THE CLOSET HEY LOOK THERE'S A GAY CHARACTER IN THIS SERIES OMGGGG!!11!1!!11!!" I mean, no, not really =/

 

If the addition of a male character is pictured in a normal way, I don't mind. Like, his love for another man is seen and written as normally as straight love. I really don't like in movies or books when they go OH LOOK HE LOVES ANOTHER MAN. HE IS GAY. THIS IS IMPORTANT. HE IS DIFFERENT!!! I have nothing against gays (I have several gay friends and I'm bisexual), but I don't like the fact that gay characters are often given such importance because by doing so it highlights the differences rather than the similarities between them and straight people. I'd like them to be seen as normal, rather than different. That's what I'd like to see in a book.

I'm sorry if I didn't make much sense, I'm a French speaker and I'm very good at confusing myself with my own words... xD

 

 

In any case, am I the only one who totally saw Dain Bornhald and Jaret Byar as lovers??? I always thought those two were too... together, you know? And then when Bornhald killed Byar in ToM and walks away from Perrin, Galad sort of confirms it.

"That one still thinks I killed his father," Aybara said.

"No," Galad replied. "I think he believes that you did not. But he has hated you for very long, Lord Aybara, and has loved Byar longer." He shook his head. "Killing a friend. It is sometimes painful to do what is right."

 

Some may think that they were just friends, but in my head they've always been lovers. Oh well, just my opinion xD

 

 

Edit;

I have faith this gay character will be a part of the story that belongs and feels like it's always been there.

Yes!! That's how I feel about it.

 

So, on Byar and Bornhald, I approve. That actually adds another depth to the entire thing and, let us remember, the Children seem suspiciously absent of any nearby woman and camp followers when we see them. Though I first read it as loved him like a brother.

 

In fact, homosexuality among the Children of the Light makes a lot of sense in the context of their organization.

 

ETA: The gay character is very likely going to be Black Tower related, I think.

[kasper11]

I think it should have been addressed sooner, but am against it now for this reason....

 

I don't buy it. Sorry, don't care what RJ said, I can't see homosexuality, in the society that he has created, being accepted as a matter of course. Randland has very specific gender roles. The women (goodwives) clean the house, the men have jobs. There is Women's Circle business and Village Council business. Healing is a woman's work. In Shienar, the men are soldiers, the women are protected. Men are not allowed into the women's apartments, but women are allowed into the mens' apartmentsFor the Sea Folk, the women are Wavemasters, the men are Cargomasters. Aiel clan chiefs are always men, wise ones and roof mistresses always women. Aiel men can have two wives, but there is no evidence a woman can have two husbands. The only culture that seems to be beyond bright line gender distinctions is the Seanchan.

 

Now, this isn't to say that homosexuality can't fit in with normal gender roles. There is no reason gay men can't be soldiers. BUT, I really have a hard time believing that a culture that so separates men and women is perfectly accepting of men being with men and women with women.

 

 

 

I think it has been a mistake, if as it seems, RJ has intended to create a realistic world, particularly one that is a past/future version of our world, not to have brought up homosexuality before now. Homosexuality exists and has existed in every culture. Many times homosexuals are forced to hide, but they still exist. Maybe Randland is like that, but RJ's statement (somebody quoted it earlier in the thread) seemed to indicate that wasn't the case.

 

Hopefully, someday, we will get to the point where homosexuality is accepted. I live in NY where most people really couldn't care less about a person's sexuality, so I know it is possible. However, Randland does not feel like that kind of a culture to me. Therefore, the last minute inclusion of a gay character, who is accepted by all, would strike me as odd.

 

 

Note: When I talk about homosexuality not being brought up, I am purposefully ignoring "pillow friends". I agree with the earlier poster that pillow friends do not seem to be true homosexuals, but rather sexual partners of convenience.

[Pilz]

I really wouldn't like it, unless it needed to be a significant part of the plot.

 

Coincidentally, I am reading a new fantasy book by Robin Hobb, and just found out that two of the key male characters are having a secret relationship.

 

It just seems out of place in Fantasy; although, the 2 Mord-Sith seem to work in SOT :)

[Terez]

I really wouldn't like it, unless it needed to be a significant part of the plot.

 

Coincidentally, I am reading a new fantasy book by Robin Hobb, and just found out that two of the key male characters are having a secret relationship.

 

It just seems out of place in Fantasy; although, the 2 Mord-Sith seem to work in SOT :)

Ah, and here is a perfect example of what the problem is.

[Hopefire]

I really wouldn't like it, unless it needed to be a significant part of the plot.

 

Coincidentally, I am reading a new fantasy book by Robin Hobb, and just found out that two of the key male characters are having a secret relationship.

 

It just seems out of place in Fantasy; although, the 2 Mord-Sith seem to work in SOT :)

Ah, and here is a perfect example of what the problem is.

Terry Goodkind? I blame him for a lot, but...

[Soraz]

In a world with trollocs, darkfriends, forsaken, Ogier, people who can foretell, people who can talk to wolves, and people who can do feats of magic without any visible warning, sexual orientation is probably one of the least interesting aspects of a stranger.

[randsc]

In a world with trollocs, darkfriends, forsaken, Ogier, people who can foretell, people who can talk to wolves, and people who can do feats of magic without any visible warning, sexual orientation is probably one of the least interesting aspects of a stranger.

 

But in order to be a realistic world with trollocs, darkfriends, forsaken, Ogier, people who can foretell, people who can talk to wolves, and people who can do feats of magic without any visible warning, all sexual orientations must be specifically referenced.

[yoniy0]

sexual orientation is probably one of the least interesting aspects of a stranger.

Not if said stranger is a pretty girl. People will be people, after all.

[Guest PiotrekS]

In a world with trollocs, darkfriends, forsaken, Ogier, people who can foretell, people who can talk to wolves, and people who can do feats of magic without any visible warning, sexual orientation is probably one of the least interesting aspects of a stranger.

 

I agree.

Although I'm aware that gender and sexuality aspects of WOT are important to many readers, I read WOT for totally different reasons and don't care about these issues too much. But I would still like to write a few words

 

About the inclusion of a gay character, I'm not sure how to react. I don't have anything against gay characters in books generally and also, as I said above, if I want some deep analysis of human sexuality or gender relations I read something else than WOT

 

It seems to me that if RJ didn't include a male gay character in 12 books, then he probably wouldn't include such a person in final volumes of the series, having so many fundamental threads to tie in (I can be wrong of course). It is possible that he just didn't feel a need for that (story-wise).

 

Some (or maybe many, I don't know) people think the lack of gays is a flaw in WOT and probably Brandon thought so as well and decided to change that. What I have trouble with is that it might depart from what RJ would have written. I know Brandon said he wouldn't mimic RJ's style and that the notes didnt't contain everything, but it is a different thing to knowingly add to the story something RJ probably wouldn't put there himself.

 

Even if Brandon felt that lack of this one gay character was a big flaw, it was a flaw RJ had decided not to correct in 12 books and it is really difficult to believe he would do so in volumes devoted to the final battle and resolutions of numerous important plotlines. Time for world-building seems to be long past.

 

To conclude, I think that Brandon faced a choice between showing deference to RJ's decision not to include gay men and correcting this what Brandon saw as a flaw. I think he honestly believed that including such a small detail would make the series better, but he still didn't show deference to RJ. If it was a flaw, it was for RJ to correct it, and since he obviously isn't able to do it, it should be left as it is.

To clarify: I don't think RJ had anything against gay men. I think he didn't include them because it wasn't necessary for the story and he simply prefered to include other things, which he felt were more interesting.

[yoniy0]

Isn't Harriet in the best position to decide what RJ would or wouldn't have done, though? Won't you defer to her judgement in this issue?

[Guest PiotrekS]

Isn't Harriet in the best position to decide what RJ would or wouldn't have done, though? Won't you defer to her judgement in this issue?

 

She is and I will.

Still, I think that the argument about RJ not doing it in 12 books is pretty strong. Harriet might also feel a need to improve the series, maybe so that RJ is not accused of sexism.

 

But of course, her judgement is the best available and she should decide.

[yoniy0]

Again, my belief is that the important question isn't whether RJ would (I did say I think he wouldn't have) but whether he might. People's personal traits are just a means to a goal. Whether Brandon uses one specific path or another is up to his creative discretion, as long as he doesn't do anything RJ wouldn't condone. And for that, we have Harriet.

[Guest PiotrekS]

I understand and generally agree.

 

My only doubt is this: even though I agree RJ would condone this as a matter of personal convictions (not being a homophobe), he still decided not to make some points in the books or leave them equivocal.

 

I like to think that the work of art, such as a novel or a series of novels, when published, gets its "own life" and is somehow separate from its author and his personal traits and thus open to interperatation by every reader in every time and place.

On the other hand, the work of fiction, even fantasy, still reflects some personal traits of its creator.

 

In fact, both these ideas justify giving every possible deference to what "RJ would have done" - first, WOT is an everlasting monument to his memory not only as an author, but also as a human being with all personal traits. Second, it is a work of art he created and his choices, what to include and what not, what to state clearly and what to leave in doubt, are essential to this unique creation. Even when we could say "of course he wouldn't have a problem with a gay character", we still have to take account of the fact that he chose not to include it.

 

I-as a reader- somehow value the fact that WOT doesn't make a clear statement on many issues, even though I could reasonably guess what RJ's personal opinion on them would be or what is widely accepted as reasonable.

 

It is also a fact that WOT's treatment of issues of gender and equality is somehow ambiguous and thus generates discussion and interest. I wondered if Brandon would like to reduce this ambiguity and include things that would make WOT more "enlightened" or "correct" or "realistic", and thus change it a little bit. Maybe for the better, but still change it.

 

I have written another rant, for which I'm really sorry After expressing my doubts, I feel that I won't really have a problem with this gay person

And if Brandon should give deference to RJ, I certainly should give it to Harriet and trust her to do what's best for RJ's life's work.

In Krakow it's also late, so I rest my case

[Suttree]

Even when we could say "of course he wouldn't have a problem with a gay character", we still have to take account of the fact that he chose not to include it.

 

Ah but that is the thing. He said there are gay characters we have just not been in their heads yet up until this point of the story. He very well may have chosen to do so if he had finished the series. In addition I highly doubt Harriet would allow BS to make a decision that runs counter to what RJ would have wanted.