Discuss the Inclusion of a Gay Character

[Nightstrike]

Since the Wheel is supposed to be our world, then I think it's just fine when the authors strive to make the story more accurate in its representation of the world and things in it. As simple as that.

[FarShainMael]

@yoniy0: The National Blood Service won't accept donations from anyone in the at-risk groups, even if the act only took place once, even if a condom was used. This illustrates the fact that there are no completely effective 'appropriate precautions'. What this means to the HIV-positive is up to their own perception of the risks involved. But.. If you love someone, and you are HIV-positive, what would you do?

 

I'm not a doctor either, but as a blood donor I have to have some understanding of the issues involved.

 

Also, I'm happy to use the term 'anal intercourse' since you have ok'd it as a moderator.

 

FYI, the NBS made the point that they do not 'discriminate' against gays; they merely exclude people who have had anal intercourse.

 

@terez: I have told you why it is not a 'straw man' argument; it is inadvisable to encourage risky behaviour, and the inclusion of an active gay at this late stage would do exactly that. Since I am now having to repeat myself, I'll leave it to the onlookers to decide that one for themselves.

 

(BTW, on the subject of risky behaviour, I'm none too happy about Mat's promiscuity, or Rand's harem; though to be fair, we don't actually know that Mat was actually sleeping around, and as a good TR lad he might not have been. Also, Rand only had one encounter each with Elayne and Avi; and the 'mythological triplet' is part of the story and has been since the early books. But I'm still not keen on it.)

 

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

 

(Corrected the inaccuracy)

 

Besides the fact that there are other STDs out there - not just AIDS - HIV is apparently a consequence of bushmeat-eating in Central Africa, where people became infected with SIV, which mutated. The effects of immune modulation weakened the barrier against infection of all types. This is more likely to happen among those who indulge in anal intercourse, because the rectum is not designed to handle this kind of influx, whereas the vagina has to be, or women couldn't get pregnant and not die of raging infection.

[Luckers]

@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.

 

Someone is feeding you disinformation, I'm afraid. Likely the media, or the politicians. They do that some times unfortunately.

 

All exchanges of bodily fluids contain dangers for the spread of disease, which can be easily negated by the adequate employment of protection. That goes for both blood transfusions and anal sex. For that matter it goes for oral and vaginal sex too.

 

Though the whole blood transfusion thing strikes me as funny--I mean as much as I'm go for saving lives, being told i don't have to undergo needles and blood loss has some plus sides to me--indeed, we need more prejudice like that. "James, you can't pay taxes because your gay."

 

Damn!

 

Aids is not passed people, but the 'Aids-scared-me-straight' is. Knowledge destorys fear as it provides informed responses. So is the case now, and thus whilst the issue of health in sex--including, and perhaps especially with aids, gay sex--is important, the specific, singular. solitary dangers of the 'homosexual act' are not.

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

it is inadvisable to encourage risky behaviour

 

there's a lot that could be commented on in this post, but i'll leave that for those who think there's a point.

 

just can't get past this here sentence, though.

 

cause, like, really? the inclusion of openly evil characters who torture people, on screen, in many gory and risky ways . . . the inclusion of insanely heroic characters who risk their lives and the lives of their multitudinous followers in many ill advised and unsuccessful attempts at saving the world . . . the inclusion of a loveable, enviable, main character who engages in risky behavior on a more or less constant basis cause it's, like, fun. . . and thousands of other risky businessy characters who populate a huge world of immense diversity, and it's the psa for safe sex that should exclude the mention of a gay character?

 

gosh.

 

in someone else's opinion, nothing that is human is foreign to me.

[yoniy0]

@FSM the policy practiced by several blood banks around the world is more a result of a certain lifestyle, or the impression that it existed, among homosexual individuals at the middle of the last century (in GB and the US, that I'm aware of), namely the practice of having multiple partners. No one was big on practicing safe sex back then, but it was less of a problem among married people, as you can imagine. It's not evidence for anything other than the fact that such organizations must play the numbers, and are conservatives when it comes to adapting policy (for good reason).

Attesting to this is the fact that I, as a heterosexual male, have never once been asked whether I had anal sex in the past before giving blood. Only whether I've practiced homosexual sex. And I've given blood dozens of times in more than one country. If you need farther evidence for that, I would think the fact that certain African nations have among the highest levels of HIV infection would suffice. Surly you won't claim that they have an unusually high concentration of homosexuals? No, they simply practice safe sex much less than is customary in the western world.

[Terez]

Part two! (If anyone is still paying attention.)

 

there are degrees of homophobia ranging from that awkward feeling to full-on hate. Again, it's the connotations of the word that make people defensive about it, but it's still pretty prevalent among hetero men, and it's something that I don't really think is insurmountable.

I've never liked the term "homophobia" or "homophobe," which has always struck me as trying to sound like some sort of clinical diagnosis of mental health (or lack thereof). The wikipedia definition mentioned earlier seems pretty good, but who is to decide what an "irrational fear" is in this case?

We examine the logic of it. If homosexuality bothers you...is there a logical reason for it? If not, then it's irrational. But 'aversion' is much easier to define.

Ah, and that's part of why I suggested that it is problematic to include "irrational" in the definition. Who decides what is "irrational"? There is no agreed upon definition of "rationality." There is no way to agree upon what counts (and what does not) as a "logical reason."

You say that as if there is no point in debating the relative logic of various positions. There are many widely-agreed-upon methods for examining the strength of arguments. Have you ever studied formal logic?

I've taught logic, so I do have some understanding of it.

Good. In that case, I'll argue that for the average user of Wikipedia, there isn't any real difference between 'irrational' and 'illogical', so semantics debates on the subject aren't all that helpful either. More helpful would be editing the page. Shall we? I am guilty of term misuse sometimes. But most of the time I think people know what I meant, and they sort of avoid the subject by arguing semantics.

 

There is a lot more to be said about these issues. Too much. So I'll just be quick about it. (1) Showing that a person is "irrational" can be quite difficult, since this is a loaded term. And I don't think that a person can be said to be irrational simply because he or she doesn't have a fully positive reaction (either in terms of their beliefs or feelings), or even a somewhat negative reaction, to the gay community. (2) Even if you can show that a person is "irrational," this doesn't necessarily imply that he or she is therefore immoral. And (3) when we have a morally charged term, like "homophobe," we cannot assume that "irrationality" implies immorality, since this could in fact be begging the question. So I stand by my previous analysis. Your broad use of the term "homophobe" in fact seems to include people that we cannot say are irrational, as well as those who could be irrational, but are not acting immorally.

As a general rule I prefer not to call reasonable people homophobes. It's not just a descriptor, but also a slur. I don't have a problem, however, with using 'homophobia' in a broader sense that encompasses the milder forms of it, and I took care when I first brought it up to make clear that it's difficult to discuss because of the connotations, and the defensiveness, but it's still a very real problem that needs to be addressed. I assure you, blatant homophobia still persists because widespread casual, milder homophobia supports it. That does not make those with milder homophobic tendencies equally culpable as those who commit hate crimes by any stretch of the imagination, but that doesn't mean that casual homophobia shouldn't be addressed.

 

I hope you are not suggesting I am trying to redefine a word because I don't like the connotations. If so, then I ask you please to consider what I have been trying to say. In fact, I have not tried to redefine any words. My point has been the scope of the word: to whom does "homophobe" apply? Who is included in this group? In other words, I am less worried about the definition than I am about how the word is used. Specifically, your use of the word to cover the vast majority of heterosexual males (as you claimed), as belonging to the same group of people that hate gay people, only differing from such haters by degree, not kind.

I believe that there are plenty of words that we can and do use to differentiate by kind, don't you think? Because homophobia simply does not equal hatred of homosexual people. I suppose homosexualmisia just doesn't roll off the tongue all that easily, but I don't think it's helpful to confuse it with homophobia. The latter can lead to the former, but does not necessarily do so.

 

Should we lump gay people in with child molesters, or with those who commit acts of bestiality, necrophilia, or incest, and say they only differ by a matter of degree, not kind? (obviously not)

By what connection? Sexual deviance? Some would go for that; obviously I wouldn't. But in any case, isn't it clear that there are other things going on here aside from sexual deviance? I would really hope so.

 

I do not need nor want some pointless side details concerning anyones sexual escapades.

Why assume they will be pointless? Love is, after all, a rather important theme in WoT, which is why there has been so much attention given to 'sexual escapades' previously. I mean, did we really need all that about Mat? What did it add to the story, aside from another dimension for Mat's character? What about Caraline and Darlin? Or, even further down the ladder, Valan Luca's flirtation with Nynaeve? His marriage to Latelle? Obviously, I could go on and on. So what's the problem again?

Hear, hear. Where would we be right now (without love? No, I won't go there) without the Far Snows? Like it or not, it has been a part of tWoT from the get go (Else Grinwell, anyone?)

 

Except that is exactly what I wasn't saying. I am not sure how to continue my points or argue further when Terez takes what is said, and replies by completely reversing the point being made or simply makes up her own argument to it while entirely dismissing the point being made. Look at her replies to what I said, they are either a complete reversal to what I said or framed her answer in a way that is entirely different from and negative to, what I actually said.

 

I absolutely made no reference to getting rid of love or any love scene. "Pointless side detailes concerning sexual escapades" was a point made about including a gay character in the 11th hour just to appease the masses and get down with that which is politically correct. That is all this is about, period. This gay character issue has no other relevance. It is frustrating when people take what is said and then either completely reverse your points or answer in a way that entirely changes what you said.

I didn't reverse anything. You jumped immediately to the conclusion that any mention of a gay character would be a 'pointless sexual escapade', and I merely offered an alternative to your assumption, and then further argued that even 'pointless sexual escapades' are a part of WoT. There is no reason to expect that to change in AMOL, though it seems more likely that the alternative scenario - one having to do with the love theme - will be used rather than a 'pointless sexual escapade'.

 

]BS is going PC to appease people who are simply using the gay community as a step-off point.

If you read his post on Dumbledore carefully, you'll see that at least part of his motivation is a desire to preempt his own biases. He saw that RJ had a tendency to do the same, so he felt the move was appropriate. I see no reason to disagree.

 

It's not really as hopeless as you make out. Brandon's choice is not the evil pandering that you make it out to be.

[/Quote]

The first sentence is the exact opposite of what I was saying. Evil pandering? Where in the world is that coming from? Not from anything I said. Sounds like Terez disagrees with what I said and is simply blowing it off by using some catch phrase that has likely already been tossed around in this thread or a similar one.

Oh, the 'evil' bit was hyperbole, but aside from that, 'pandering' was implicit here:

 

Actually my sister is a lesbian, I have no problem with gay people or anyone for that matter. I will finish reading the series and I'm sure it will be awesome. I have been thinking about picking up some of Brandon's other works however. Ive heard good things about The Way of the Kings and a few others from a friend and figured since Ive got another year or so I could knock out his entire collection and still have time for a complete series reread before AMoL. I read fast, yeah me!! So in hindsight what I should have said was Brandon has lost a potential reader. I have no problem with any gay character, but at this point in the series I want conflict resolution, not pointless plot detail. A characters sexuality isn't going to enhance the story in any way at this point the only reason a character is being made gay is to appease the masses. I'd prefer more BT/LB/FoM/Seanchan/WT sequences.

I got to say, I fully agree with these thoughts. I was trying to avoid posting on this topic (I think there is what, 2 threads on this?) because at the end of the day, when people want to get all politically correct and make points for the sake of writing and sounding good, it is almost always junk writing.

Far from the 'opposite' of what you were saying.

 

And we will get it. No reason to be alarmed.

[/Quote]

I am not alarmed in the slightest.

Again, hyperbole. Sarcastic, in this case.

 

And again, let me be clear, nothing I am saying has anything to do with the story. The opposite is true. I don't want a perfectly epic story changed to include some last minute gay character meant to make the series more PC. The story is fine. We are all here because we share a love for it. I simply dislike presenting such an issue where the PC view is being argued as clearly the only right one and tollerance is expected and intollerance for any other view is perfectly ok. That and it seems to me to be about pushing ones views into a story because one doesn't like how certain things haven't been included.

Aren't you pushing your views onto the story because you feel like Brandon's reasons - whether they have anything to do with the evil PC or not - are somehow less legitimate than other reasons for going in a particular world-building direction? Especially considering the fact that we already have RJ's word that homosexuality is not a big deal in Randland?

 

I am sure you are right. It's what happens, when human rights issues progress. After a while, it just isn't socially acceptable any more to discriminate. That's a good thing.

 

And yeah, the gay community is the world's freak show at the moment. It seems to be pretty inevitable, so we might as well get it out of the way now. Putting it off does not amount to some sort of backhanded service to the gay community - it just prolongs the problem.

[/Quote]

And therein lies the problem. Did anyone say the gay community was a freak show or even imply it?

Oh, only the last several hundred years of human history. That's what we're trying to overcome right now. The only reason why it's the freak show of the moment is that we've finally come to the point where we don't expect homosexuals to be invisible any more (sort of - that's certainly not true in many cultures even still), but we still have this widespread homophobia issue which is sort of bringing everything to a boil. It will pass, but going back to expecting gay people to be invisible is NOT helping the problem, and I find it really disgusting...

 

The "freak show" is being pushed onto the gay community by those who are pretending to defend it. They are first basically saying, "ok, we all know the gays are freaks so now I am going to set this all straight." It is harmful to the gay community and as I said, its not fair to them or the readers. You cannot frame a group as a puddle of mud and then pretend to be the stick used to leap over it.

...that you try to accuse us of making it more difficult for them by defending their right to choose their own lifestyle when the real problem is people who seem to think that gay people should just hide in the closet forever.

 

I absolutely made no reference to getting rid of love or any love scene. "Pointless side detailes concerning sexual escapades" was a point made about including a gay character in the 11th hour just to appease the masses and get down with that which is politically correct. That is all this is about, period. This gay character issue has no other relevance.

In all fairness, you can't know that until you've read the last book. [/Quote]

I agree that is a fair statement and that yes, I can't know until then. But it hasn't stopped any of the pro-inclusion people from asserting the opposing view the same way.

Unlike you, we have reason to believe that Brandon will handle it the right way, and that it won't be a 'pointless sexual escapade'. (See the Dumbledore article, and his comments on Twitter.)

[Terez]

...we don't actually know that Mat was actually sleeping around...

We do, actually:

 

Balticon XXX April 1996 - Pam Korda reporting

Mat has indeed had far and away more MPS experience than our other young heroes, and intends to get much much more. I believe the quote was something like "The world is full of beautiful women, and Mat wants to romp barefoot though them all (or was that with them all, same thing). He's slept with lots of women; he's slept with women old enough to be his mother..." Also, Mat makes the Aes Sedai nervous. Sigh, and if RJ had shown all of this "on-screen," y'all wouldn't be complaining about the lack of explicit sex in The Wheel of Time!!! (And the books would read like The Fallon Blood.)

[yoniy0]

@Terez dear, you've got the quotes mixed up at the end of your post before last. Do you mind editing it so I'm only quoted as saying what I actually said?

[Terez]

@Terez dear, you've got the quotes mixed up at the end of your post before last. Do you mind editing it so I'm only quoted as saying what I actually said?

Fixed. In the future you can feel free to edit it yourself. (I'm not always around after all.)

[Kiriath Til Asdod]

Actually my sister is a lesbian, I have no problem with gay people or anyone for that matter.

Obviously you do, since you differentiate between this and other 'pointless plot details' and similar 'appeasements' along the way (such as Nacelle). As I mentioned in my blog post on the subject, 'pointless plot details' are probably the meat of the most common criticisms of WoT. The next most common criticisms have to do with gender and sexuality. An anecdotal observation, but one that I think would hold up to a test on non-WoT forums where the critics are more common.

 

Actually in all of my twenty posts I never mentioned Nacelle or other pointless plot details so I'm not sure how you are inferring that. If all of the gay scenes or details up to this point in the series had been male on male I would have no problem with it. If I found out that the author was adding a lesbian (or two) to "flesh out the series" I would feel the same way I do now. I'll even say if the character had been added 2-3 books ago and something could be made of said characters gayness I'd be all for it. But lets be honest, it is political and social pandering...if not why even announce it? Just make a character or a whole society/social/military group gay...if all it really is is to fix a mistake by Jordan as Terez seems to think.

 

I'll never understand this need by certain people to "fix" everything. Jordan's biases (and really everyone's) are part of what make him human and it reflects in his writing. While it is perfectly ok to have an opinion on anything that is put out there for all, I find it exceedingly cocky to point out the flaws and tell everyone why they need to be fixed and then dam anyone who doesn't agree, right Terez? Learn to appreciate things in life because of their flaws.

 

But thanks Terez for telling me who I am.

[Nightstrike]

But lets be honest, it is political and social pandering...if not why even announce it? Just make a character or a whole society/social/military group gay

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.

Let me say it again:

Since the Wheel is supposed to be our world, then I think it's just fine when the authors strive to make the story more accurate in its representation of the world and things in it. As simple as that.

[Nightstrike]

Also, the "announcement" - wasn't that something revealed in something more of a "discussion"?

[capuga]

@yoniy0: The National Blood Service won't accept donations from anyone in the at-risk groups, even if the act only took place once, even if a condom was used. This illustrates the fact that there are no completely effective 'appropriate precautions'. What this means to the HIV-positive is up to their own perception of the risks involved. But.. If you love someone, and you are HIV-positive, what would you do?

 

I'm not a doctor either, but as a blood donor I have to have some understanding of the issues involved.

 

Also, I'm happy to use the term 'anal intercourse' since you have ok'd it as a moderator.

 

FYI, the NBS made the point that they do not 'discriminate' against gays; they merely exclude people who have had anal intercourse.

 

@terez: I have told you why it is not a 'straw man' argument; it is inadvisable to encourage risky behaviour, and the inclusion of an active gay at this late stage would do exactly that. Since I am now having to repeat myself, I'll leave it to the onlookers to decide that one for themselves.

 

(BTW, on the subject of risky behaviour, I'm none too happy about Mat's promiscuity, or Rand's harem; though to be fair, we don't actually know that Mat was actually sleeping around, and as a good TR lad he might not have been. Also, Rand only had one encounter each with Elayne and Avi; and the 'mythological triplet' is part of the story and has been since the early books. But I'm still not keen on it.)

 

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

 

(Corrected the inaccuracy)

 

Besides the fact that there are other STDs out there - not just AIDS - HIV is apparently a consequence of bushmeat-eating in Central Africa, where people became infected with SIV, which mutated. The effects of immune modulation weakened the barrier against infection of all types. This is more likely to happen among those who indulge in anal intercourse, because the rectum is not designed to handle this kind of influx, whereas the vagina has to be, or women couldn't get pregnant and not die of raging infection.

 

Wow, apparently I woke up in a time machine this morning and traveled back to the 1980's. AIDS is a gay disease? Really, didn't we leave that kind of thinking behind 20 years ago. I think it's been well established by now that AIDS is a risk for everyone who engages in sexual acts. Gay, straight, bi, anal, vaginal, oral - all carry the risk of transmitting HIV. Perhaps anal sex is a higher risk then vaginal or oral, but they are all "risky" if that's how you choose to view things. And for a blood bank to discriminate because of sexual orientation is silly - They should be screening all their blood and donors for HIV (and other blood born diseases) regardless of who they are. After all, millions of straight, non-anal sex engaging people around the world have HIV/AIDS. And the thought that the inclusion of a gay character would encourage risky behavior or homosexuality is just ridiculous. And offensive. Eleven pages in and this was the first ridiculous, close-minded comment that actually made me want to join in this conversation.

[David Selig]

But lets be honest, it is political and social pandering...if not why even announce it? Just make a character or a whole society/social/military group gay...if all it really is is to fix a mistake by Jordan as Terez seems to think.

Because Sanderson was talking on Twitter about related issues in WoT and it naturally came up. It's not like he and TOR made a special press release "Breaking news - there will be a gay male character in AMOL!".

 

it is inadvisable to encourage risky behaviour, and the inclusion of an active gay at this late stage would do exactly that. Since I am now having to repeat myself, I'll leave it to the onlookers to decide that one for themselves.

Putting aside how offensive this is, you are really overrating the influence of WoT on the readers. Some third tier character is revealed to be gay in the last volume (without any on screen sex scenes, since there aren't such things in WoT, as we all know) and this would make the readers have more male on male anal sex? Seriously? We all should've turned gay or at least bi just by watching primetime TV then.

[SethBaker]

it is inadvisable to encourage risky behaviour, and the inclusion of an active gay at this late stage would do exactly that. Since I am now having to repeat myself, I'll leave it to the onlookers to decide that one for themselves.

Putting aside how offensive this is, you are really overrating the influence of WoT on the readers. Some third tier character is revealed to be gay in the last volume (without any on screen sex scenes, since there aren't such things in WoT, as we all know) and this would make the readers have more male on male anal sex? Seriously? We all should've turned gay or at least bi just by watching primetime TV then.

 

Agreed. Even if it does make the choice to have gay sex more mainstream (I'm not sure it will), and gay sex is intrinsically more dangerous than straight sex (it's not), risk is not a justification to keep something out. What else is risky in the Wheel of Time? Fighting with swords. After reading the Wheel of Time, I'm more likely to want to fight with swords than practice unsafe sex. Smoking. Love their Two Rivers leaf! Ah, but that causes lung cancer at higher rates than STD transmission among anal intercourse aficionados. Binge drinking/alcoholism. There are a lot of characters in WOT that like to get plastered. At one point or another, most of the characters do. Mat and Birgitte are habitual drinkers.

 

This whole line of thinking strikes me as attempting to justify an anti-homosexual stance without coming out and saying, "but reading about gays makes me feel gross." It's completely nonsensical given the risky behaviors that the characters take part in over the course of the series, which are going unmentioned.

[Terez]

Even that shows people getting insanely worked up over very little. Sanderson said he already included a gay male in ToM. Did anyone notice it? Did it influence the quality of the story? Was the story ruined? This is really just much ado about nothing (well, I guess more much ado about being squicked by the idea of the implication that buttsex might happen somewhere in the WoTverse at some point in time between people who are not a male and a female and how it would be PC-pandering). Has Sanderson even hinted that it would come up again in AMoL?

 

Sanderson said he WROTE a gay character for ToM, but that scene was moved to AMoL. So your point is moot. Actually, not so much "moot" as "completely wrong."

I was starting to think this was urban legend but I went back and checked and I missed a tweet. Glad I found it because the Dumbledore article was making me wonder if Brandon was just going to leave it at that. It annoyed me when Rowling did it, and while I can understand why Brandon appreciated that, at least Rowling had dropped clues in for Dumbledore - it wasn't just interview retcon. So I feel better now.

 

What I think is interesting is that there was a flat-out bigoted post on this thread, followed by another bigoted post defending the first, and all of the people who claim to be defenders of tolerance and inclusion are silent.

I was asleep. It's always best to try reasoned arguments first, and if the person persists in being bigoted then we can play kick the baby with a clean conscience. Ignorance is, after all, often the cause of bigotry. And now, because of you and your ilk, yoniy0 has gone all PC on me, which is clearly pandering since he knew that's what you really wanted anyway.

 

I maintain that Sanderson's primary motivation was political correctness and pandering to a certain segment of his fan base.

Even if it was, why is it a problem? Nacelle was pandering to a certain segment of the fan base. The charity auctions were pandering to a certain segment of the fan base. RJ's unique level of engagement with the fans on plot details at book signings was pandering to a certain segment. The blogging was another; the work RJ did on side projects for WoT was pandering. So what?

 

I know yoniy0 said to avoid repeating too much, so I won't give too many arguments again on why I think it's not pandering at all. It's just a detail that is consistent with the world that RJ established both in the text and in the metatext (literally in this case, as opposed to a signing report that is paraphrased or even transcribed). There are plenty of gay dudes in WoT. Is it really so bad that one of them will finally have a name?

 

In my opinion, Brandon's primary motivation was probably the challenge of it. It's an established part of the WoT world, but the lesbian contrast creates a problem that many fans have noticed, and Brandon has to overcome his own personal bias in order to pull it off. And why shouldn't he? From his perspective, the issue is very important for religious reasons, but just in the last year or two we've seen a good number of important conservative figures finally step up and admit the fact that equal rights for homosexual folk are inevitable at this point. It's a fact of life that religions are going to have to find a different way to deal with, lest they become irrelevant to society.

 

The various Western religions had to adapt for the women's revolution, and while I don't believe they will adapt in quite the same way for this little revolution, they will adapt. In fact, you might could attribute some of the recent poll snowball effect to the incredibly ironic situation with the Catholic Church. The message the world is getting is something like this: 'Okay. Homosexuality is real, it's not going away, and we need to deal with it in a way that is healthy.' Of course, Protestants (and Mormons) get to pass Go and collect $200 for not trying to enforce abstinence on clergy at least, and even the Catholics will recover eventually if they adapt. I'm going to skip forward at this point to get to what appears to be the meat of your argument (and what might possibly be what you would respond to my previous points).

 

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.

RJ did make passing references to male homosexuality in the text. He simply never had a named gay male character. But aside from that, your main objection here appears to be tokenism, which you see as a form of thought control. I assume you are poking around at the Gay Agenda thing? That's the only real sense I can make of it, because there doesn't appear to be anything inherently threatening about a gay male character, other than the fact that it's still considered to be a bit avant garde at this point. So, I call slippery slope. Can it really be logically established that this particular form of 'tokenism' - assuming, for the moment, that it is indeed tokenism - is a form of thought control? If so, then what is the intended result of the brainwashing? To make people accept homosexual people as human beings? As I noted above, that result is inevitable at this point. It can happen smoothly, or it can be yet another stain on the history of human rights. (Actually, that is probably inevitable as well at this point, but I tend to think it is past the point of being stubborn.)

 

And to yoniy0, I don't really know how to avoid taking that stance, and I don't feel like I can avoid it just because it amounts to declaring that my side of the argument is the only right side. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that this stage in the human game is inevitable, and to be honest, I feel that religious stances against homosexuality can be tolerated so long as they remain consensual and are not projected onto society at large. Religious preferences are very personal. The idea of brainwashing children is a different story and has no ideal solution that I can see, but that is a topic for another day.

 

Bottom line is, as long as the reference is short enough to not detract from the rest of the story, I don't really care. I sincerely hope Sanderson does not listen to Terez's "You want to be careful not to make it too throw-away" line, because unless it is necessary to the story, NO new subplot should be introduced at this point.

I think you missed my point. All of us feel that it would be silly to make a character gay in a trivial manner that really does amount to making him gay for the sake of it. What would be the point of that? But I think most of us realize after reading Brandon's thoughts on the subject that he probably agrees, and he'll probably do alright. I mentioned at some point or another the charity name-dropping that struck some of us as being a little bit overboard in places. For instance, something like 'Three Maidens - Sue, Lou, and Froufrou - were Rand's guards today.' And they're never mentioned again. That's lame. In the same way, it would be incredibly lame if Brandon dropped a throw-away reference to a man's sexuality in the book. But all Brandon has to do to avoid that is work it smoothly into the plot.

 

People aren't upset by the inclusion of male homosexuality in the book. They are upset by the idiotic suggestion that if they see that inclusion at this late date as forced, they must be bigots.

People were upset about the inclusion of male homosexuality before anyone said anything about it, obviously. Because why would we have said anything about bigots (not that we used the term that I can recall) if no one had been upset about it? But aside from that, I think we have given a number of logical reasons why it shouldn't be a big deal, even at the late date.

 

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.

Why? What makes that one argument better than the other? They are two parts of the same problem. It was a fairly small problem, with an unbelievably easy correction, much as you seem to dislike the term. RJ corrected the one, and Brandon is correcting the other. Problem solved. Except....

 

Actually my sister is a lesbian, I have no problem with gay people or anyone for that matter.

Obviously you do, since you differentiate between this and other 'pointless plot details' and similar 'appeasements' along the way (such as Nacelle). As I mentioned in my blog post on the subject, 'pointless plot details' are probably the meat of the most common criticisms of WoT. The next most common criticisms have to do with gender and sexuality. An anecdotal observation, but one that I think would hold up to a test on non-WoT forums where the critics are more common.

 

Actually in all of my twenty posts I never mentioned Nacelle or other pointless plot details so I'm not sure how you are inferring that.

This one's easy. You said Brandon had lost a potential reader because of it. There will be a whole bunch of 'pointless plot details' introduced in the last book - that's just common sense. But you freaked out on this one.

[Terez]

They should be screening all their blood and donors for HIV (and other blood born diseases) regardless of who they are. After all, millions of straight, non-anal sex engaging people around the world have HIV/AIDS.

I understand this has to do with the window period, which technology has slowly been gaining a march on.

 

This whole line of thinking strikes me as attempting to justify an anti-homosexual stance without coming out and saying, "but reading about gays makes me feel gross."

To be fair, she did come out and say that. She then tried to use the anal sex thing as a reason why lesbians gross her out. (Or at least, that is what it appears she was arguing; hard to make sense of it otherwise, not that it makes any sense at all really.)

[kasper11]

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.

 

That is either 100% prejudice and intolerance or the statement of somebody who knows absolutely nothing about sex. ANY sex can be risky behavior. Oral, anal or vaginal. Heterosexual and homosexual. Yes, anal intercourse (whether hetero or homosexual) can have a higher degree of risk, but it is a matter of degree.

 

Nor do gay men need to engage in anal intercourse, although I assume the majority choose to.

 

And if you want to talk about "encouraged" lets not forget that heterosexual sex can lead to unwanted pregnancy, which can have life altering affects for teenagers. So maybe we should stick to encouraging anal intercourse.

[Nightstrike]

We should outlaw all of it. In this Age, or in another.

[Nightstrike]

Everything having to do with sex & procreation. Then all souls go to the "ordinary afterlife". Thus cheating the Dark One.

 

(Sorry about my momentary lapse away from seriousness.)

[Suttree]

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.

 

Along with everyone else I have been completely stunned that these viewpoints still exist in the year 2011. I'm not going to pile on here just please do yourself a favor and do some actual research on the issue.

[Terez]

Is it bad that I just took it as a matter of course? I mean, I do live in MS. We don't believe in sex ed.

[yoniy0]

Actually, @Terez, it was your own fault for quoting Brandon's blog post . The part about not giving the other side of the debate ammo to present all Mormons as fanatics resonated (is that the correct word?) with your comments regarding 'shattering the illusion'. My reaction to it was that objection to homosexuality isn't necessarily an 'illusion' to be broken. I don't have to agree with it to respect Brandon's right to it.

[Caramoore]

Gay, Lesbian, Straight, Bi.. I don't really care. I think that we all have the right to be what we are born. As for reading about a gay character, it doesn't matter to me at all. As long as it makes sense in the story. I love the Last Herald Mage Trilogy and the main character is very much gay and that doesn't hurt the story but in fact makes it a better. Granted as a young man in rural Alabama reading that story the first time bothered me but that was my own failings not the stories. There are always going to be people who hate, don't understand, or are scared by things they don't understand. Whats the expression? Haters gonna hate..

[OptimusPrime]

Its Gawyn. Egwene is the clue, and Galad is the red herring.