Discuss the Inclusion of a Gay Character

[randsc]

Lastly, @randsc:

(a) As I said before I don't believe those remarks regarding the Mormon were anything more than an ill-advised attempt at humor, which is why it still stands.

 

OK. I understand you moderators are not monoliths, and not responsible for the actions of other mods. But posts that were much more clearly jokes (including the infamous spoof book cover) were swiftly deleted in the past, while the anti-Mormon "joke" stands. I'm not really suggesting that is be deleted, I basically don't think anything should be deleted. But it would be nice if some of the people who are so quick to offense on behalf of other minority groups recognzed the religious bigotry and commented negatively, ya' know? Just for the sake of consitency?

 

(b) I don't consider what Terez said about heterosexual males bigoted. I'm one myself, so I feel free applying my judgement in this issue.

Again, the issue with that statement isn't that it is offensive. It is that it is hypocritical. I don't think it should be deleted, which is why I never even considered hitting the "report" button. But I think it is fair to point it out, when the poster who made such a sweeping, negative characterization objects to others making much less-sweeping, less-negative generalizations.

 

© I didn't mean to leave you with the impression that I consider homophobia the only reason for objecting to the inclusion of a new homosexual character; it's just your assertion that the character will be introduced (BTW we don't know that it's a new character) because it's homosexual rather than that detail being used in this (otherwise needed) character's story to some end that I find objectionable.

 

I assume that the homosexuality of this character is not a key plot element in and of itself simply because I cannot imagine that Sanderson would not have said so, if it were. The twitter conversation leaves the definate impression that Sanderson felt the need to "correct" something.

[randsc]

Regardless of that, it doesn't reek of political correctness, in light of RJ's quote, if it comes out in passing. In fact, while I understand your complaint about it getting thrown in during the last book, my response is that it's long overdue, given the social structure of the world RJ created, and leaving it out for the last book won't fix that problem. It will make it worse.

 

This is essentially what the issue comes down to and why BS, Harriet and the rest of Team Jordan are correct in rectifying the matter.

 

 

I guess, ultimately, that is where I disagree.

 

I've said from the beginning, both in this thread and the other one, that it would have been better is RJ simply made some sort of passing reference to male homosexuality in the same way that he made passing references to female homosexuality. But he didn't. To add it at this late date feels forced to me, having a single male homosexual just to 'correct' the matter I see as the very definition of tokenism, and I think that political correctness and other forms of thought control and speech suppression should be combatted whenever possible.

[Guest PiotrekS]

...

It is also fair to say that there are many large groups of people that weren't mentioned in WOT, despite their importance in any kind of "realistic" society. What with e.g. old people who are dependent on others? In WOT we see only strong and able old people (Cadsuane, Sorilea). Wouldn't it be more realistic if at least one of our heroes had a relative that was dependent upon his or hers care and would die when left alone? That's what would happen in XVI century village, especially with hard winter from EotW. What about disabled people? What about mental illness not related to channeling? What about transexuals?

Isn't our insistence on one subject an example of another kind of bias? Isn't there a little "fashion" factor involved?

...

 

This isn't the first time this type of argument has appeared, but you seem sincere in effort to remain open-minded.

 

Let me present a few questions you can ask yourself.

 

If an elderly dependant was introduced in the AMoL, would you speak against it because there are no gay men in the book either?

 

If one of the characters became disabled would you likewise have a problem with it? What about Mesaana, who is now mentally disabled?

 

If a character is introduced with a non-magic-related mental illness, would it's inclusion bother you?

 

What about transexuals? Did you curse Robert Jordan for coming up with Halima/Aran'gar?

 

Is it really Brandon Sanderson who is focusing on one subject?

 

I'm a little late in responding (sorry!) and the discussion seems to have gone far ahead, but I'll just respond to your post briefly.

 

My doubts-that never became strong opposition-about our topic never had anything to do with the inclusion of gay character as such, but concerned the possible, even if slight, altering of WOT by Brandon who might wish to improve it according to his own standards. I might even share them. What concerned me was that they weren't RJ's and WOT should remain his creation, even with its flaws.

 

After having RJ's quote on the topic and Harriet's approval brought to my attention by other posters, I don't think this danger is very real and so my doubts are no longer valid.

 

The questions you posed were very interesting and made me think, but still completely missed my point - I had nothing against an inclusion of a gay character, only its timing and circumstances. I have listed a few other significant groups that weren't mentioned to counter the "realism" argument - you don't have to mention every significant group to have a believable world. It suffices to mention enough of them to create the feeling of diversity.

[mikael]

This thread delivers! :) Except maybe for the last two pages..

 

Didn't know about Dumbledore, but you got to love it. Adds to the story and upsets the right people... ;)

 

I have no doubt that BS will include this in a good way. I like the Bornhald suggestion, but as long as it's used to explain some characters motivation I see no problem with it.

 

PS, hating anything PC is so radical and cool man! It's so unfair that those minorities get special treatment, when what they really should get is special punishment.

[randsc]

PS, hating anything PC is so radical and cool man! It's so unfair that those minorities get special treatment, when what they really should get is special punishment.

 

No, they should get neither. They, and everyone, should be seen as individuals valuable in their own right, not avatars for various socio-political causes. And they, and everyone else, should never seek to control what topics can be the subject of reasoned discourse.

[SethBaker]

PS, hating anything PC is so radical and cool man! It's so unfair that those minorities get special treatment, when what they really should get is special punishment.

 

No, they should get neither. They, and everyone, should be seen as individuals valuable in their own right, not avatars for various socio-political causes. And they, and everyone else, should never seek to control what topics can be the subject of reasoned discourse.

 

When you're dealing with whitebread society in a fictional work, it's not special treatment to introduce a diverse character, even if it's for the purpose of "artificially" producing diversity. We're not talking about the things that Terez likes to argue about (regarding women) where the characters are not strong enough or sexually liberated enough. We're talking about them simply not being shown at all. It's not special treatment to show them on-screen once for a few lines out of millions of words.

[randsc]

PS, hating anything PC is so radical and cool man! It's so unfair that those minorities get special treatment, when what they really should get is special punishment.

 

No, they should get neither. They, and everyone, should be seen as individuals valuable in their own right, not avatars for various socio-political causes. And they, and everyone else, should never seek to control what topics can be the subject of reasoned discourse.

 

When you're dealing with whitebread society in a fictional work, it's not special treatment to introduce a diverse character, even if it's for the purpose of "artificially" producing diversity. We're not talking about the things that Terez likes to argue about (regarding women) where the characters are not strong enough or sexually liberated enough. We're talking about them simply not being shown at all. It's not special treatment to show them on-screen once for a few lines out of millions of words.

 

It is special treatment if one particular form of diversity is recognized, and not others. It is really the definition of special treatment. But you know what? That's OK. Because it is a fictional work (though the whitebread comment is not supported by the text). But it is equally OK NOT to have a particular form of diversity represented. It is not an indicia of bias or homophobia.

 

Honestly, I don't think that the lack of a gay male POV character is such a crime. If people wanted to take offense at the depiction of homosexual relationships in tWoT, I think they would be on much firmer ground objecting to the "Lesbian Until Graduation" nature of the pillowfriend relationships.

[Guest PiotrekS]

PS, hating anything PC is so radical and cool man! It's so unfair that those minorities get special treatment, when what they really should get is special punishment.

 

No, they should get neither. They, and everyone, should be seen as individuals valuable in their own right, not avatars for various socio-political causes. And they, and everyone else, should never seek to control what topics can be the subject of reasoned discourse.

 

randsc, I very much agree with you.

 

As a person interested in American constitutional law (especially human righs and freedoms, not institutional stuff) I was under the impression that looking at certain rights from group perspective, rather than individual perspective, was a characteristical feature of American democracy. I wonder what other people think about it.

It is somewhat relevant to the topic, since we are talking about representing a certain group in a book.

[Suttree]

Regardless of that, it doesn't reek of political correctness, in light of RJ's quote, if it comes out in passing. In fact, while I understand your complaint about it getting thrown in during the last book, my response is that it's long overdue, given the social structure of the world RJ created, and leaving it out for the last book won't fix that problem. It will make it worse.

 

This is essentially what the issue comes down to and why BS, Harriet and the rest of Team Jordan are correct in rectifying the matter.

 

 

I guess, ultimately, that is where I disagree.

 

I've said from the beginning, both in this thread and the other one, that it would have been better is RJ simply made some sort of passing reference to male homosexuality in the same way that he made passing references to female homosexuality. But he didn't. To add it at this late date feels forced to me, having a single male homosexual just to 'correct' the matter I see as the very definition of tokenism, and I think that political correctness and other forms of thought control and speech suppression should be combatted whenever possible.

 

What you see as tokenism others see as filling out a world detail that has been unrealistic up until this point. We have no idea if RJ would have included it at some point post KoD but we do know male homosexual characters exist in his world view and it's not just a single one. Again I think for me, how it is written will go a long way in coming to a final determination on this issue.

 

I put the following quote in the other thread.

 

The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion. ~Henry Steele Commager

 

Unfortunately it was almost immediately followed by a post that needed Luckers to step in lock the thread.

 

We all have to remember it is only in recent years that PC was adopted as pejorative term by the far right. The problem in this is many use the term discredit and distract attention from a real debate about discrimination in general.

[randsc]

 

The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion. ~Henry Steele Commager

 

Unfortunately it was almost immediately followed by a post that needed Luckers to step in lock the thread.

 

We all have to remember it is only in recent years that PC was adopted as pejorative term by the far right. The problem in this is many use the term discredit and distract attention from a real debate about discrimination in general.

 

 

The term was, almost from the very beginning, used ironically. Though certainly not always by the "far right."

[Goramier]

 

PS, hating anything PC is so radical and cool man! It's so unfair that those minorities get special treatment, when what they really should get is special punishment.

 

Nice job on the post man...you forced me to respond, lol (in a good way).

 

This hits the exact point I was making several pages ago. There is a big difference between the valid, legit and necessary underlying purpose of PC and exploiting it. I am reading mostly posts that are simply exploiting PC as a way to start and win their argument, and as I said, it is more harmful then good to the community in question.

 

But it is equally OK NOT to have a particular form of diversity represented. It is not an indicia of bias or homophobia.

 

I like this line from randsc and would like to add-in my own thoughts to it, if I may be so bold. My argument with this thread in many ways centers around a twisted definition of "tolerance" that many people seem to have. Your quote hits it well. It seems, some people define tolerance as: "I am right and PC and therefore you must agree with everything I have to say, but I don't have to agree with anything you say, and if you don't agree with me, you are a [insert label here] while I can kick around any label, make any broad sweeping statement, generalize anything, include or exclude any fact or detail and I am still tolerant and you are of course, intolerant."

 

This is precisely why I took issue with how this topic was being presented. Again, this amounts to merely exploiting PC as a means of winning an argument and is more harmful then helpful and always splits people.

[randsc]

PS, hating anything PC is so radical and cool man! It's so unfair that those minorities get special treatment, when what they really should get is special punishment.

 

No, they should get neither. They, and everyone, should be seen as individuals valuable in their own right, not avatars for various socio-political causes. And they, and everyone else, should never seek to control what topics can be the subject of reasoned discourse.

 

randsc, I very much agree with you.

 

As a person interested in American constitutional law (especially human righs and freedoms, not institutional stuff) I was under the impression that looking at certain rights from group perspective, rather than individual perspective, was a characteristical feature of American democracy. I wonder what other people think about it.

It is somewhat relevant to the topic, since we are talking about representing a certain group in a book.

 

Thank you

 

To your point, I don't know that corporatism is a characteristic feature of American democracy. In fact, I'd say that is about exactly wrong. Rights and freedoms are guaranteed, in the US Constitution, to individuals, not groups.

[SethBaker]

PS, hating anything PC is so radical and cool man! It's so unfair that those minorities get special treatment, when what they really should get is special punishment.

 

No, they should get neither. They, and everyone, should be seen as individuals valuable in their own right, not avatars for various socio-political causes. And they, and everyone else, should never seek to control what topics can be the subject of reasoned discourse.

 

randsc, I very much agree with you.

 

As a person interested in American constitutional law (especially human righs and freedoms, not institutional stuff) I was under the impression that looking at certain rights from group perspective, rather than individual perspective, was a characteristical feature of American democracy. I wonder what other people think about it.

It is somewhat relevant to the topic, since we are talking about representing a certain group in a book.

 

Thank you

 

To your point, I don't know that corporatism is a characteristic feature of American democracy. In fact, I'd say that is about exactly wrong. Rights and freedoms are guaranteed, in the US Constitution, to individuals, not groups.

 

The Fourteenth Amendment is only enforceable as it pertains to an individual's membership in a discrete and insular minority. (E: Sorry, off topic, but I am a law student and I responded with a knee-jerk.)

 

E: vvv You a lawyer? Because the Equal Protection aspects of the 14th Amendment are irrelevant without a context of minority/majority traits.

[randsc]

 

The Fourteenth Amendment is only enforceable as it pertains to an individual's membership in a discrete and insular minority.

 

 

Umm, no. Sorry, but no. Or at least, not quite. The 14th Amendment protects an INDIVDUAL'S rights to due process and equal protection. And see the MacDonald decision (which incorporates decidely indivdual rights).

 

Anyway, you're right. This one really is off-topic.

[Guest PiotrekS]

PS, hating anything PC is so radical and cool man! It's so unfair that those minorities get special treatment, when what they really should get is special punishment.

 

No, they should get neither. They, and everyone, should be seen as individuals valuable in their own right, not avatars for various socio-political causes. And they, and everyone else, should never seek to control what topics can be the subject of reasoned discourse.

 

randsc, I very much agree with you.

 

As a person interested in American constitutional law (especially human righs and freedoms, not institutional stuff) I was under the impression that looking at certain rights from group perspective, rather than individual perspective, was a characteristical feature of American democracy. I wonder what other people think about it.

It is somewhat relevant to the topic, since we are talking about representing a certain group in a book.

 

Thank you

 

To your point, I don't know that corporatism is a characteristic feature of American democracy. In fact, I'd say that is about exactly wrong. Rights and freedoms are guaranteed, in the US Constitution, to individuals, not groups.

 

Thank you kindly for answering

 

I know the US Constitution. I phrased the question wrongly and to correct it would take too much space and detract from discussion, which should be, after all, about WOT=

 

Your post simply reminded me of something I once thought. I wondered about a situation of individuals who weren't, as you put it, "avatars for various socio-political causes" and didn't have a backing of various vocal and organised groups behind them.

But that's not relevant for this topic.

[UGAShadow]

Your defense of your bigoted comment is itself bigoted.

 

Let's just change the charged words in question, shall we? Instead of "Mormon" let's use...oh, I don't know...how about "Gay?"

 

The only new thing I've learned in this thread is that Sanderson is Gay. This disappoints me. I've always pictured gays as the crazy cousins of normal people (all-man, myself).

 

 

I have nothing against Gays or other freaks. The crazy cousin thing was a joke. I was disappointed to learn he was gay because that broke a preconceived notion I had about him. For some strange reason I've always pictured him as normal. Also anything that connects him to Elton John is a bad thing IMO (another joke if you couldn't tell).

 

 

Not sure if you took the crazy comment thing or me being dissappointed as bigoted. At least I don't think theyre pedophiles anymore, haha. Was gay till my Sophomore year in college. My entire view of everything has changed since then.

 

 

I guess humor doesn't translate well. Alot of Christians consider Mormons a cult since they don't use just the Bible. Things like that and the Christian view on gays is one of the reason I'm not one anymore.

 

 

And breaking my preconceived notion isn't bad thing. It was like getting a WoT theory proven wrong. Being agnostic isn't better, it's just what I assumed without knowing.

[mikael]

PS, hating anything PC is so radical and cool man! It's so unfair that those minorities get special treatment, when what they really should get is special punishment.

 

No, they should get neither. They, and everyone, should be seen as individuals valuable in their own right, not avatars for various socio-political causes. And they, and everyone else, should never seek to control what topics can be the subject of reasoned discourse.

 

They don't though, but sure, in utopia it will be your way.

[Suttree]

PS, hating anything PC is so radical and cool man! It's so unfair that those minorities get special treatment, when what they really should get is special punishment.

 

No, they should get neither. They, and everyone, should be seen as individuals valuable in their own right, not avatars for various socio-political causes.

 

This just isn't reality. Up until just over thirty years ago we had legalized segregation in this country. When it coudn't be done legaly anymore we had redlining affect the quality of life for huge portions of the minority population. Even in a forward thinking city like San Francisco I saw racial profiling effect friends I went to HS with. These are facts that can't be disputed and have to be taken into account when looking at these types of situations.

[Terez]

Before I begin, you people are making it very hard to moderate this thread. Have mercy on those of us who can't read as fast as you, won't you?

I know right? I take a day off and I have a fuckton of posts to reply to. Going to have to split it up into two posts due to quoting limitations. But that's my fault for being so opinionated and generally a blabbermouth. Going to do it out of order for coherency and readability.

 

I have to say, though, I don't see the connection to your watered-down scenarios. That's quite simple - if you don't fancy someone it's just awkward to get too personal with them

Exactly. For some reason we find it difficult to process sexual conversation or implication without involving ourselves and our own preferences (which are, of course, usually quite irrelevant).

True that. I think you might finally hit the nail on the underlying reason I was looking for.

Yeah, I was hoping you would respond to that bit in particular. I think it has a great deal to do with most sexual taboos, not that I necessarily think we should just up and abandon all sexual taboos based on principle right now; it's probably not even possible. I just feel like it's something we should be aware of. Part of the reason why the subject has even become relevant over the years in relation to WoT is the fact that RJ is clearly going to great lengths here to appeal to everyone - he once said that his UK publisher told him that his readership demographic was a near-perfect sample of Britain (and this was offered up as an example, suggesting it's probably the same in most places - which is probably true) across every major category - gender, race, age, etc. - but his representation of the world is still filtered through his own preferences. Is it a major crime? Of course not. In fifty years it might be different, but RJ was if anything ahead of the game in terms of representing homosexuality in blockbuster fantasy fiction. Is it a conversation that can help us to learn more about ourselves? I'd say the last 200 posts or so are a testament to the importance of the conversation.

 

ok 96ish posts in, i'm sorry to ask but who is it exactly? i missed that other mentioned topic, can't find it ("who is it" is to short to search for)

It appears as though the separate thread created for that purpose has disappeared

Not so, it was merely locked because people proved incapable of arguing the topic in an adult manner. Look for a locked topic down-board, you'll find it easy enough

Yeah, I found it, and linked it IIRC. Somewhere. I just thought that after the lock two threads were made. I remember what happened now.

 

Terez, thank you for including Brandon's blog post. I've stopped following those, and I did like reading this one. While I find his logic wanting at times, it's good to know where he's coming from.

This one was an old one, though I couldn't find a date on it. He wrote it about a week after the Dumbledore news broke, though...and that was 3.5 years ago. I think he mentioned 'my Dumbledore essay' on Twitter once and I had to google it to find it. I also have issues with his logic at times, but I can understand why he doesn't want to debate it. I was raised religious, and I remember having a problem with the Bible's comments on homosexuality from a very young age, because I just couldn't see what was wrong with it. It seemed to me like all of the other important tenets of Christianity had solid, logical reasoning behind them, but this one didn't, at least outside of a compulsion on the part of God to populate the earth as quickly as possible. It just seemed to me like there could have been a better way of going about it.

 

The only new thing I've learned in this thread is that Sanderson is a Mormon. This disappoints me. I've always pictured Mormons as the crazy cousins of normal Christians (atheist myself).

That is probably because the 'normal' Christians have a tendency to depict Mormons as a crazy cult, and of course 'normal' Christians outnumber the Mormons by a rather large margin. Brandon would probably be at least somewhat proud that you thought him an agnostic. He doesn't exactly regret that his faith influences his work, but he does try to represent human nature as it actually is, rather than how he wants it to be. As he said in his essay, he tries particularly to avoid his own biases, which makes him pretty liberal for a Mormon. Interestingly, Brandon has sort of an entourage (they'd probably hate that description, even Brandon, but it's true) of his old BYU buddies. Don't get me wrong - they're all extremely talented. Peter Ahlstrom his assistant, his artists for his own books, Dan Wells, etc. They're all practicing Mormons, and they're pretty liberal relative to their religious peers. As an aside, Matt Hatch (Tamyrlin of Theoryland) is also Mormon, and also very much on the liberal side of his faith, and we've had quite a few liberal Mormons join Theoryland over the years. It seems the sf/f world attracts many of the more liberal religious people in general (and some more conservative ones too). For an atheist such as yourself, that shouldn't be incredibly surprising (we do have a cynical reputation to uphold, after all).

 

The only new thing I've learned in this thread is that Sanderson is a Mormon. This disappoints me. I've always pictured Mormons as the crazy cousins of normal Christians (atheist myself).

And there we have the first truly bigoted statement of this entire debate.

Oh, I wouldn't say that at all. And not because his comment wasn't at least a little bigoted.

 

Also, if USAShawdow was serious, well it wasn't any worse of a sweeping generalisation than Terez's ... "By and far, hetero men are the most homophobic creatures on earth..." was.

Sweeping generalizations do serve a purpose sometimes, you know. They only become problematic when they are superimposed upon the individual. The fact that hetero men are more susceptible to homophobia has a great deal to do with cultural conditioning, which is (in my opinion) the point of this conversation. It's something we need to be aware of.

 

@FSM - Again, if you feel revulsion at the sight of lesbians, then you are involving yourself in the sight more than is strictly necessary.

.

Not so. It is hate which involves someone - just as love does, incidentally. Revulsion is a withdrawing, a distancing. Biologically, it's a defence mechanism. Consider what kinds of things we find revolting.. I won't get biological!

Also, there are many 'homosexual acts', most of which are not strictly homosexual in nature....and, there are many medical issues that arise in any number of sexual acts.

I refer specifically to

anal penetration

, as I suspect you know quite well. Yes, sexual acts can be problematic, which is why promiscuity and early loss of virginity are also medically dangerous. But these problems can be avoided, while still leading a satisfying sex life.

Yeah, I figured that's what you were trying to get at. I hoped that you would in turn understand that I was responding to your not-an-argument by pointing out that it is neither a strictly homosexual act nor the only sex act with potential medical consequences. Also, I'm not sure why you believe its consequences are more unavoidable than the consequences of other sex acts.

 

Furthermore, I'm not sure what it even has to do with the argument at all. It appears as though you are trying to justify your revulsion by linking it to this one sex act which you mistakenly believe is a 'homosexual act', claiming it is a biological (and therefore legitimate) defense mechanism, but that surely doesn't explain your aversion to lesbians. Some engage in it, true, but I gather it's rather less common than it is among heterosexuals. Other than that, I can't imagine why you even brought it up, except as a straw man. Certainly RJ never indicated any such distinction in his comments on homosexuality in WoT.

 

I don't think that not enjoying the idea of male sexual intimacy or feeling uncomfortable about it should be equated with being homophobic. Being heterosexual doesn't mean being homophobic.

Being heterosexual doesn't mean being homophobic, but expecting the world to conform to your heterosexual preferences IS homophobic.

I agree with that. Weren't we as well talking about subjective feelings that don't get externalized and don't involve any expectations as to other people,though?

Yes, but these feelings should not be conflated with 'being heterosexual'.

 

Personally, as a heterosexual male, I don't find male homosexual inimacy "disgusting" or "gross",but simply difficult to understand (on emotional level, I can understand it intelectually) or relate to. That's what I meant by "not enjoying". I have absolutely no problem with people engaging in it, or the issue appearing in books or movies.

Excellent, then.

 

It is also fair to say that there are many large groups of people that weren't mentioned in WOT, despite their importance in any kind of "realistic" society. What with e.g. old people who are dependent on others? In WOT we see only strong and able old people (Cadsuane, Sorilea). Wouldn't it be more realistic if at least one of our heroes had a relative that was dependent upon his or hers care and would die when left alone? That's what would happen in XVI century village, especially with hard winter from EotW. What about disabled people? What about mental illness not related to channeling? What about transexuals?

Isn't our insistence on one subject an example of another kind of bias? Isn't there a little "fashion" factor involved?

Indeed there is - see my comments in the transcript about now being the time to blow this particular bias out of the water. This is just the way that human rights tend to progress. We can only handle so many worldview changes at once, and when one starts to get familiar, we move on to the next greatest injustice that has a chance in hell of being rectified (we being the Great Unwashed Masses - we're not exactly perfect when it comes to picking our battles, but we generally go for what should theoretically be easiest to accomplish).

 

In a way, RJ's position in time is unfortunate. He was writing on the cusp of the age of socially acceptable homosexuality, at a time when most of his readers were a step or two ahead of him by virtue of age, despite the fact that he was a step or two ahead most of his peers. That's just how fast thought was evolving on the subject. RJ's work will stand the test of time, I think, but he doesn't have the luxury of being buried in the middle of an age where discrimination was acceptable. If he hadn't included homosexuality at all, then most likely no one would have ever commented on it. But he saw fit to be inclusive of lesbians, and after twelve books (including New Spring) it became evident that, no matter the plot justifications, he enjoyed writing about lesbians but had a problem finding a way to fit in gay men (when, of course, there were hundreds of such opportunities along the way which I'm sure RJ could have taken advantage of if he wasn't a victim of the unfortunate social conditioning that leads to most hetero men being at least a little homophobic). The distinction, ironically, gives WoT the impression of being a little bit more sexually-charged than I think RJ really intended (he was very careful to hide most of that under the surface).

 

Research shows that the public sentiment on homosexuality has progressed radically in the five years since RJ's death. I believe that RJ would have wanted to conquer this particular bias of his because he was convinced in the first place that he didn't really have a bias (and that he just didn't happen to have any particular reason to introduce a gay man by name). I think that in the last five years he would have faced that bias and decided to do something about it, and I believe that because of his receptiveness to criticism in the past.

 

Since I came to the conclusion that I would have no problem with gay character, provided that the integrity of RJ's creation is respected, I would like to add that I also wouldn't mind a homosexual romance or sex scene-since we include a gay character, they have every right to be there as well.It would of course have to be written in good taste. I don't think it will happen though, since all previous sex scenes in WOT involved major characters and were important to the plot.

There aren't exactly any sex scenes in WoT. The closest we get are Graendal's pets, who are presumably doing some nasty things on screen, but it's not like we're given any detail really.

 

I think this whole discussion calls for a poll wether or not the inclusion of same-sex attraction in a character's POV will influence the quality of the story. (Male same-sex attraction that is, for we have seen female same-sex attraction in the Wheel of Time and IIRC there haven't been these discussions, compared to this thread that is)

Out of curiosity I started a poll about this at Theoryland, sort of.

[UGAShadow]

The only new thing I've learned in this thread is that Sanderson is a Mormon. This disappoints me. I've always pictured Mormons as the crazy cousins of normal Christians (atheist myself).

That is probably because the 'normal' Christians have a tendency to depict Mormons as a crazy cult, and of course 'normal' Christians outnumber the Mormons by a rather large margin. Brandon would probably be at least somewhat proud that you thought him an agnostic. He doesn't exactly regret that his faith influences his work, but he does try to represent human nature as it actually is, rather than how he wants it to be. As he said in his essay, he tries particularly to avoid his own biases, which makes him pretty liberal for a Mormon. Interestingly, Brandon has sort of an entourage (they'd probably hate that description, even Brandon, but it's true) of his old BYU buddies. Don't get me wrong - they're all extremely talented. Peter Ahlstrom his assistant, his artists for his own books, Dan Wells, etc. They're all practicing Mormons, and they're pretty liberal relative to their religious peers. As an aside, Matt Hatch (Tamyrlin of Theoryland) is also Mormon, and also very much on the liberal side of his faith, and we've had quite a few liberal Mormons join Theoryland over the years. It seems the sf/f world attracts many of the more liberal religious people in general (and some more conservative ones too). For an atheist such as yourself, that shouldn't be incredibly surprising (we do have a cynical reputation to uphold, after all).

 

 

It wasn't the disappointment to find he was Mormon exactly that disappointed me. It was that he wasn't what I pictured. Similarly if I ever learn that Robert Jordan was a Buddhist instead of a Baptist I'll feel the same way. I've never delved far into either's lives and the blog post in this thread is the only one I've ever read.

 

 

And, I live in rural Georgia. One of the least liberal places in the US. And I've met plenty of liberal Christians. I've even been to a church that doesn't condemn gays. One of the few churches I can listen to a preacher at and not think I'm listening to Glenn Beck. The only part of that blog post that I truly am disappointed with is that he is against gay marriage. But, so is 90% of the people around where I live (including my mother and father) so I'm used to that viewpoint.. I actually understand religious people more than gay people. I can understand why someone would believe in the Bible or their respective holy text because I did also at one time. While I can't understand how a man can find another man attractive because I've never been gay. Both lifestyles I respect and both are not for me. But that doesn't mean I think everyone should believe what I do. The only beliefs I do not approve of are those that hurt or take another person's rights away. It just so happens that many western religions believe just that when it comes to gays.

 

 

If it came off as insensitive then it was just a failed joke. I probably should have explained myself better. Its what comes from posting at 6 in the morning after a twelve hour shift. I get lazy with my posts.

[FarShainMael]

@Terez: Please do not dismiss the medical aspects of homosexual activity as 'not an argument'. This is unwise in the extreme.

 

Over here in the UK a short time ago, certain gay pressure groups tried to accuse the National Blood Service of discriminating against active homosexuals by refusing to accept blood donations from them, or from women who had had relationships with such men. The attempt did not succeed, fortunately.

 

The homosexual act is and always wil be medically risky, and should therefore not be encouraged. Heterosexual acts don't have to be risky. That's not intolerance or prejudice, it's just fact.

[dscott8]

Finally, I don't believe that debate is going to change the minds of anyone who has strong personal convictions, pro or con, about this issue.

This sort of statement gets thrown around a lot, but it's not true. I've seen many opinions change and evolve over the years. Most will continue to believe as they do, but not all, and the few who can be persuaded make the debate worth the time.

 

Also, I don't believe that the inclusion of a gay male character necessarily needs to be 'justified' any more than any other character's sexual orientation needs to be justified. RJ already said that there are gay males in his world. It does, however, need to be handled in such a way that makes the most readers happy (aside from not doing it at all, which has its own problems), since it's a controversial issue, and this should technically include some sort of significance to said character's sexual orientation in the plot.

 

 

If you believe that discussion here will alter such opinions as have already been expressed in this thread, have at it. I shall observe your progress with considerable interest. My own experience as uncle to a lesbian and as friend and co-worker of gay and transgendered people suggests that it would take something more immediate and personal than abstract debate over a fictional character to change adult minds on this issue.

 

When I spoke of the character's inclusion being "justified", I meant it in terms of the story, and not justified by the writer's or readers' position on the issue. So, I think we are more in accord on this than it might seem at first glance. Again, the Dumbledore example is a good one, an example of thinking with your hormones and the stupid choices that result from it. I suspect we've all had personal experience with that situation, regardless of the genders involved, so it makes it real to us. What I expect from Sanderson is that the character's orientation will provide a motive for some significant action. It may not be as huge as cleansing saidin, but it will move the plot along.

[Terez]

@Terez: Please do not dismiss the medical aspects of homosexual activity as 'not an argument'. This is unwise in the extreme.

1. It was not an argument that had anything to do with what we were actually talking about. It was a straw man, and still is.

2. The straw man is not 'homosexual activity'. Not only do heterosexuals engage in it, but many homosexuals (at least half, and probably many more) do not.

3. HIV is not a consequence of anal sex. It is a consequence of unprotected sex with someone who has HIV.

[Terez]

If you believe that discussion here will alter such opinions as have already been expressed in this thread, have at it. I shall observe your progress with considerable interest. My own experience as uncle to a lesbian and as friend and co-worker of gay and transgendered people suggests that it would take something more immediate and personal than abstract debate over a fictional character to change adult minds on this issue.

I imagine you say that because the hardliners are both more common and more memorable, and if a mother of a lesbian can't change her mind out of love for her daughter (for example), then why should random people on the internet change their minds for an argument?

 

The truth is that people have varying degrees of homophobia, as stated above. Some are homophobic almost completely out of cultural conditioning, peer pressure, insecurity - these kinds of things. In those cases, it's relatively easy to shatter the illusion.

 

On this particular subject, I don't know that I've ever seen a blatantly homophobic person up and say, 'Okay, all this makes sense now, and gay people are okay.' But I have seen people post latently homophobic things much like what you see in this thread (not everybody, so calm down ppl), and then over the years they eventually jump the fence into PC-land. Every time it happens, God kills a kitten.

[yoniy0]

The homosexual act is and always wil be medically risky, and should therefore not be encouraged. Heterosexual acts don't have to be risky. That's not intolerance or prejudice, it's just fact.

I believe we should refer to anal intercourse as such rather than use euphemisms such as "homosexual act". It's already been commented that it is by no means practiced by homosexuals alone. Using this terms strikes me as prejudicial.

And let's please leave such medical determinations to professionals. I'll accept them from a doctor, although I'll expect an explanation even then. Anyone else can attest to points they've heard, but should refer to them as such. For example, I've been told that practicing unprotected heterosexual sex (in case I'm not making myself clear, I'm referring to vaginal penetration) is ill-advised nowadays for medical reasons.

Also, discouraging people from practicing medically risky acts simply for this fact is somewhat prejudicial as well. Would you say the same for certain sports (like sky-diving)? And will you tell a person who's HIV positive not to practice sex ever again? The answer is to use appropriate precautions, not hide from risks.

 

EDIT: @Terez, let's ease up with the approach that the absolute truth lies with us. And tread carefully when joking at the expense of God. As we'd do with any topic that many people hold dear.