Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 2/16/2020 at 9:07 AM, Dreamer said:

The gay male protagonist. Bane of mainstream literature. But things are better now™. *sigh* LGBT literature is still very much- actually hold that thought. The existence of that term alone shows the problem: that LGBT literature is a separate thing from straight literature. We rarely have fantasy, mystery or sci-fi whose main character happens to be gay, we have gay fiction which happens to have a fantasy, mystery or sci-fi setting, rarely. Mostly it's just romance. Written by women. *sigh* It's mostly erotica, basically not even aimed at the same gender. 

Sorry to reach back to this OP to settle on this point, but I just remembered hearing about this from my wife a while back.

She's gotten deep into the romance novel genre in the past few years, and she's commented on how there are huge fan bases for particular authors' "universes" (frequently, the book series expand outwards based on side characters from earlier novels now getting their own book or books), and that there are many sub-genres of romance novels catering to sub-groups of readerships, splintering on things like historical setting, how graphically sexual or violent they get, whether pre-marital sex happens, how religious and what religion they are... And of course, sexual orientation.

She's gotten into the genre not just as a fan and reader, but has also joined some FB groups with the authors that will discuss "writerly" issues. In one of those groups, she learned of a cautionary scandal in the romance writing world from a few years back: someone had been quite successful, for some long period of time, as a writer of M/M gay romance novels, selling over half a million "self-published" works on Amazon numbering over fifty books -- some (all?) of which turned out to be thinly veiled ripoffs of existing best-selling mainstream M/F romance novel series (from multiple authors!) edited to make the female lead character male.

The baldfaced chutzpah of it all relied on the nearly complete lack of editorial policing in the realm of Amazon's "self-published" works, which is what mainly what the romance writer's group was discussing (how to detect and combat "freelance plagiarism" of their books or characters); but of course, this scheme also presumed a complete lack of overlap in the M/F vs. M/M readership groups.

That someone eventually DID notice was traced to someone who was both bisexual and a voracious romance novel reader who was in multiple reading groups, and who was recommended one of of these altered M/M books by a gay friend after having already read the original M/F one. A pretty small set of people for Amazon to rely on for self-policing...

Ah, a bit of Googling turns up the details: Prolific romantic fiction writer exposed as a plagiarist

Edited by robardin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose I should have expected that but it still took me by surprise. Not that the non-plagiarized or non self-insert lead type are much better *shivers* though let's not take any names. Hopefully most these people are just unaware, doing what they like and trying to put food on their table, and not just looking to make a quick buck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Dreamer said:

@AonEne, yes pan is part of the acronym now. The idea behind the acronym is to educate, familiarise and create a support network. So that people of different gender identity or sexual orientation can help one another feel more accepted and eventually become more accepted: be they ace or bi, nonbinary or genderfluid. Basically, so that people don't pick and choose but support the entire LGBTQIAP+ community and something like a gay person being transphobic doesn't happen, it sadly does still happen but using an umbrella term really helps people reconsider

That’s great. Hopefully it makes people rethink being ____phobic, because it really does suck how people can be part of the community and still against other parts of it. 

17 hours ago, The Awakened Salad said:

Yeah, I am ^_^.

Ayyy, cool! I’ve never had another ace friend before, that I’ve known about! Do I have your permission to send you memes? :ph34r: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Awakened Salad said:

YES. SEND ME ALL THE MEMES. 

And neither, I’ve never even met another person that I’ve known is ace (apart from you :P). 

I SHALL DO SO IN A PM SO WE DON’T DERAIL THIS ONE ANY LONGER! 

I mean, depending on your definition of meet, I was greeted on an AVEN intro thread by people who were ace (because...AVEN), but I literally never spoke on that site again, so. I’m not counting it. :P 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I just can't understand how it can be difficult to write an lgbt character  protagonist. If the cosmere had any earth analogue then there would be the issue of lgbt history but when regarding all the research brandon puts into his creations it justs seems flimsy . Don"t get me wrong I adore the cosmere, but .... Is it that I (by asking to be represented in that regard) am asking too much... it's disheartening . I have don't really have distinguishing tastes when it comes to romances, so all the ones that brandon writes seem run from fine to great, which is why I can't understand why he hasn't yet. Sorry if this is rambling      

I also don't understand what people mean when they say that an author shouldn't include LGBT character/ protagonists just to be inclusive. Does it mean that the character has to have being LGBT an important plot point ? I am of the belief that there isn't any real reason for a character not to be LGBT.

Edited by twenty second of the sun
space
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@twenty second of the sun, you can join the two double posts by clicking edit on one of them and copy-paste, then hide the now-empty one

Quote

I also don't understand what people mean when they say that an author shouldn't include LGBT character/ protagonists just to be inclusive

A lot of the time the criticism doesn't come from people who want better representation or even better foreshadowing but simply didn't want a certain character to be gay (kind of like the opposite of what shippers do, basically). They just hide that under the banner of wanting better representation, sometimes it's blatantly obvious, like with most of the Dumbledore/JK Rowling memes. Originally the complaint was that Dumbledore being gay was simply an FYI by Rowling and not actually something put into the books, now it's turned into people complaining about their favourite childhood characters being turned gay.

And agreed, some people are just gay, some characters also should just be gay, without it needing to be an integral part of the plot. "what does so and so being gay add to the plot?" is a stupid question.

Though of course we would want a gay character to have that part of themselves not just be a background element of their character and see it in their character development and interactions. There's an overestimation of the number of authors who'd be willing to put in the effort and an idea that a character being gay is like hitting option two, while straight is the default option and hence such a choice requires justification

Edited by Dreamer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dreamer said:

Originally the complaint was that Dumbledore being gay was simply an FYI by Rowling and not actually something put into the books, now it's turned into people complaining about their favourite childhood characters being turned gay.

There is a huge shake up in the comic book world going on still because a writer was bold enough to have iceman come out as gay(for none comic fans iceman is one of the OG x-men who had there first comic in the 60s and is famous for flirting with every female character in marvel).  However when I went back and read the older comics the thing I kept thinking was "this guy is totally gay."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/17/2020 at 3:12 AM, SwordNimiForPresident said:

I don’t disagree with what you guys are saying, but I don’t like the idea of authors changing their main characters simply to check a box. They should write them how they imagined them, whether that be gay, trans, straight or what ever else.

No one's asking for that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, twenty second of the sun said:

I also don't understand what people mean when they say that an author shouldn't include LGBT character/ protagonists just to be inclusive.

it means that it must not be an obligation. one should not have a list of minorities to add like a checklist (black dude? check. single mother? check. asian? lgbt? check. Black woman single lgbt mother? damnation, i miss that one, i must put one in the story). that's not inclusion, that's politically correct gone mad.

furthermore, i am a big fan of the "live and let live" principle. and according to that principle, no one has any right to tell an author that he must put something in the story just to show inclusion. making it an obligation to include lgbt themes - or. heck, any other topic - also goes against freedom of artistic expression.

the emphasis is all on "would be nice if he did X" against "must do X". would be nice, certainly. but the moment we force people to conform their art to a canon, we are pushing it too far.

now, regarding an author choosing whether to make a character lgbt when it's not a plot point, i assume it would go more or less like any other fluff descriptor that is not important to the plot. as in, i have no idea, but i trust that an author does.

I mean, in mistborn commentary brandon said that initially vin was male, but worked better as female. why? I'm not sure. I don't know enough to tell why brandon felt that vin had to be female. but i trust that just as brandon figured it for some reason, so he can figure when he'd rather his character is gay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, king of nowhere said:

well, if one says that an author should include minorities because otherwise his work is not inclusive, if one implies that an author is bad because he is not inserting something, then he's doing exactly that.

Ah, good old King of Nowhere fighting against the gay agenda! Give yourself an applause!

Why do you feel so attacked by us asking for some representation? Me and many others have tried to explain why exactly people feel disincluded and glossed over, and why that feels bad.

Minorities aren't check boxes to tick to begin with. We are people.

Since you've taken the liberty to point it out, I assume you have noticed that most fiction are more likely to include certain types of characters, while putting certain others on the fringe? Why would people lobbying to see themselves reflected in what they read offend you? 

 

And

Look at what I underlined and said:

Quote

I don’t disagree with what you guys are saying, but I don’t like the idea of authors changing their main characters simply to check a box. They should write them how they imagined them, whether that be gay, trans, straight or what ever else.

No one's asking for that?

I never asked for any existing character's orientation to be changed. That was it. 

Edited by Dreamer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Dreamer said:

Ah, good old King of Nowhere fighting against the gay agenda! Give yourself an applause!

i can't figure out if you are being serious, or you are trying to make a joke, or you are trying to provoke me.

but assuming you are serious, this kind of comments is exactly what i am fighting against. i am fighting against the idea that minorities can accuse of intolerance anyone who dares to disagree with them.

also, please tell me how can i be accused of discrimination for claiming that everyone should be treated equally :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, king of nowhere said:

i can't figure out if you are being serious, or you are trying to make a joke, or you are trying to provoke me.

but assuming you are serious, this kind of comments is exactly what i am fighting against. i am fighting against the idea that minorities can accuse of intolerance anyone who dares to disagree with them.

also, please tell me how can i be accused of discrimination for claiming that everyone should be treated equally :huh:

A lot of your comments, intentionally or otherwise, are rather... hurtful

This is a reminder that you're not just expressing your discontent against certain issues but also hurting a certain subsection of people who are so often maligned.

 

Plus, nowadays people seem to really be against any form of activism. They cite sympathetic exhaustion, and I understand that or at least try to, to some degree. But there are so many people still suffering from what they say they're tired of fighting against. It's okay, that some people are tired of the fighting but don't bash or ignore those who still are

 

I understand that I seem petty to you. But I've already told you that your last contents hurt me deeply and yet...

You seem far more petty to me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, twenty second of the sun said:

I just can't understand how it can be difficult to write an lgbt character  protagonist. If the cosmere had any earth analogue then there would be the issue of lgbt history but when regarding all the research brandon puts into his creations it justs seems flimsy . Don"t get me wrong I adore the cosmere, but .... Is it that I (by asking to be represented in that regard) am asking too much... it's disheartening . I have don't really have distinguishing tastes when it comes to romances, so all the ones that brandon writes seem run from fine to great, which is why I can't understand why he hasn't yet. Sorry if this is rambling 

I'm not getting involved in the main convo (that's a lie I'm absolutely going to get involved later) but you're absolutely not asking too much. If you haven't seen this wob:

Quote

17th Shard Forum Q&A (Sept. 28, 2012)
#9 Sept. 28, 2012 Share Copy

 
 

XFER

Are you planning to include a gay character in the second book of The Stormlight Archive? I know there is that bridge guy, but I mean a character with some weight on the book. Would be cool.

Brandon Sanderson

I've tried to be more GLBT aware in recent years, but I want to be careful. Doing it poorly could be more insulting than doing it not at all. Having Ryan, the real world Drehy from Bridge Four, as a friend does at least give me access to someone who can give early feedback and tell me where I might be going wrong. So let's just say maybe.

So he is absolutely planning to include more characters and protagonists that fall under one of the spectrums eventually, it's just that he's worried about doing it right. I understand if people disagree with me but I think he's doing his best when it comes to LGBTQ+ characters and I appreciate it, even if he's not at a point yet where he's confident enough to write a more major character as LGBTQ+. 

Ack it's getting real difficult to not respond to some of the above comments but I'll resist until tomorrow when I'm on a computer at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. Hmm this is tricky esp considering Brandon's background and stuff. But he is trying to be inclusive. 

I think Maybe as time goes by both Brandon and the Cosmere worlds will grow progressive enough to have atleast gay or lesbian secondary charecters. 

Idk about a gay or lesbian protagonists however. 

It would be cool. But whether Brandon will be up to the task of writing him right ....hmmm. 

Also I think one of the reasons inhibiting him is that homosexuality isn't all too well received and while Brandon might be ok with writing a LGBT primary character , the editors or the ppl maintaining the finances might fear a drop in sales and block the charecter. They might also fear future readers dropping the book cause of it. 

I think this will change by MB era 4 at the latest and Brandon will be comfortable with writing such a charecter and will have the necessary insight to properly convey him.

But then again in the meanwhile maybe we will get a bisexual protagonist like Lisbeth salandar from the millenium trilogy. 

I mean , that was a great success commercially even tho it was published a decade ago. 

But lesbian or female bisexual charecters are seen as much more acceptable than only gay male charecters. 

Also I think maybe Brandon is afraid of any biases he carries and worries that it may spill out on page. That would be as bad as completely excluding LGBTQ charecters .

I mean , he already catches a lot of flake for his handling ( or absence of ) of even heterosexuality. He might simply be afraid he might do worse with homosexuality. 

Idk I think there might be gay secondary charecters and female bisexual protagonists within a decade or so. 

As for gay protagonists ,well that depends a lot on how society will percieve them. I mean I consider myself to be a very open minded and I like to think that I'm completely ok with gay ppl and have watched movies like brokeback mountain and books like "two boys kissing" and even consider myself to be bicurious , but even I cringe a bit at any gay action above kissing.  So yeah it's a reaction that's internalised in me and  most individuals and societies as a whole , consiously or unconsiously .

 

But hey I'm an optimist and I'm thinking things are really looking up for non binaries. Bisexual protagonists were ok a decade ago. U get more acceptance of lesbian and gay charecters in movies and comics. For example , love Simon, lesbian relationship between harley wuin and poison ivy in comics.  I must admit I don't read much LGBTQ literature so can't say what's going on there. 

I think we are becoming more accepting and in 10-20 , who knows.  But unfortunately ,I don't think we will any until after mistborn Era 3 .

Then we might get a full gay guy or atleast a bisexual one caught in a love triangle with a guy and a girl after tho. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, twenty second of the sun said:

I also don't understand what people mean when they say that an author shouldn't include LGBT character/ protagonists just to be inclusive. 

What I personally mean when I say this is that authors shouldn’t be inclusive just to jump on the bandwagon and get praised, if that makes sense? I don’t want someone to be inclusive for selfish reasons. 

5 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

...an author should include minorities because otherwise his work is not inclusive... 

The above is...actually a fact...like, by definition, if there aren’t minorities, then the work is not inclusive of those minorities. It doesn’t include them. Implying that that stance is an opinion is simply incorrect. 

5 hours ago, Dreamer said:

Plus, nowadays people seem to really be against any form of activism. They cite sympathetic exhaustion, and I understand that or at least try to, to some degree. But there are so many people still suffering from what they say they're tired of fighting against. It's okay, that some people are tired of the fighting but don't bash or ignore those who still are 

This is also something I’ve noticed, and it’s exhausting. People rebel against other people who are trying to make more progress, saying there’s already enough and now you’re just going too far. *sighs* So long as we still need to have these discussions, it won’t be too far. If you don’t want to participate in making the progress, that’s unfortunate, but at least let other people do what they want with their time without going “ugh that’s so unnecessary”. 

6 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

...no one has any right to tell an author that he must put something in the story just to show inclusion. making it an obligation to include lgbt themes - or. heck, any other topic - also goes against freedom of artistic expression. the emphasis is all on "would be nice if he did X" against "must do X". would be nice, certainly. but the moment we force people to conform their art to a canon, we are pushing it too far. 

I agree with this, and I don’t think anyone here is disagreeing with it. People should include representation, but if they don’t, that’s their decision. It’s their content to do with as they like. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dreamer said:

A lot of your comments, intentionally or otherwise, are rather... hurtful

This is a reminder that you're not just expressing your discontent against certain issues but also hurting a certain subsection of people who are so often maligned.

 

Plus, nowadays people seem to really be against any form of activism. They cite sympathetic exhaustion, and I understand that or at least try to, to some degree. But there are so many people still suffering from what they say they're tired of fighting against. It's okay, that some people are tired of the fighting but don't bash or ignore those who still are

 

I understand that I seem petty to you. But I've already told you that your last contents hurt me deeply and yet...

You seem far more petty to me

sorry that i give the wrong impression. and, before i forget, thanks for trying to reach out to me.

as i tried to make clear, i have nothing against activism. i have a beef against people that commit excesses in the name of activism, that use it as an excuse to bullying or to get a better treatment. sure, those people are rare, and sure, we should not let ourselves be blinded by those few bad people. but people committing excess in the name of supposedly good causes exhist, and i've dealt with a few of them in real life. people who felt that just because they are members of some minorities, or they are spearheading some political campaign for rights, that they are allowed to do things that they would not do otherwise.

it's not just "sympahtetic exhaustion". It's not "yes, whatever, I don't really care"; perhaps i seem petty to you because you read that in my stance? if that was the case, i wouldn't even bother to write here. what i am against is well intentioned extremists pushing things too far. Even if I agree with them on a fundamental level.

And I think it is important for me to make this argument because those excesses are not helping your cause. instead, they are alienating support. I've heard many people who were indifferent toward minorities (of any kind) gradually become antagonistic because said minorities were asking, or getting, preferential treatment. and most often those minorities weren't, really. most members of those minorities were only asking equal treatment. but the media will often latch to the most vocal people, who often enough are also the most fanatics. and then there are always a few bad apples who are just trying to take advantage of their minority status to get away with stuff, and they stand out. But when this happens, it can give a bad reputation to the whole minority.

I assume this goes both ways. I assume that whenever a straight person starts with "I have nothing against gays, but..." it would also put you on the defensive, because you may have heard that incipit from many bigoted people who basically meant "I have nothing against gays, but i actually do". I assume that I gave you the same vibe, and so I thank you again for trying to reach out instead of closing.

And so I hope that my message can get across. that it's all right to ask for representation, inclusion, acceptance, but if you move from asking to demanding you cross a line, and it will put people on the defensive; even those who would have supported you. and that things like acceptance and inclusion must come from within the other person if they are to be genuine. you can't force acceptance; if you do, it's no acceptance at all.

Personally, I think the inclusion of gay protagonists will simply take time. I think so because I think writers write largely based on their experience, and consider how fast lgbt rights have moved. 50 years ago homosexuality was a crime punished by the law. 20 years ago the general vibe was "they are free to do whatever among them, as long as they stay hidden". then in just those two decades it moved to "a friend of mine is gay, and I don't see him any different than anyone else" to "same sex marriages should have the same rights as regular ones". But until 20-odd years ago, homosexuality was virtually invisible. So, most people who are now adults grew up in a world without lgbt people. they weren't part of their experience. and so, they don't think to put in an lgbt character, because it's outside of their experience. The whole lgbt topic being riddled with pitfalls also doesn't help making people comfortable with it.

But people growing up now are most likely to know some declared lgbt. so it will feel natural for them to see some such people around, and those of them who will pick up an artistic career will see fit to include more of them. And seeing more of them in books will also make tv producers less wary of the topic. and perhaps more gay couples will feel comfortable enough kissing in public, and more people will get used to it. and the people who will grow up in this environment will start writing gay protagonists without anyone telling them to. Some processes require time, and trying to hasten them too much backfires.

and perhaps it will go for brandon too. He said that he wouldn't feel comfortable writing gay protagonists because he feels he would blotch them. but he started writing ranette and drehy. those had a very minor role in their first appearences, but they gained more visibility. perhaps the next mistborn book will have a short ranette pov, or perhaps rythm of war will have a short drehy pov. and from there, and getting feedback, brandon will feel comfortable in expanding roles for lgbt characters, and he will eventually write a gay male protagonist. brandon likes to try new things with his style, there's a good chance he will get there eventually. in due time. conversely, putting pressure on him may only make him feel less comfortable.

By the way, I can make this argument in person without problems, but those few times I tried on the internet it often went poorly. too many people react as if i were a bigot hiding under a paper-thin cover, and from there it escalates. I wouldn't mind some tips to figure out how to convey this argument better. without resorting to a wall of text as I did here, possibly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, AonEne said:

 

This is also something I’ve noticed, and it’s exhausting. People rebel against other people who are trying to make more progress, saying there’s already enough and now you’re just going too far. *sighs* So long as we still need to have these discussions, it won’t be too far. If you don’t want to participate in making the progress, that’s unfortunate, but at least let other people do what they want with their time without going “ugh that’s so unnecessary”. 

Yep. I agree and stand by ene and dreamer. 

Quote

I agree with this, and I don’t think anyone here is disagreeing with it. People should include representation, but if they don’t, that’s their decision. It’s their content to do with as they like. 

Yep I guess in the end it depends on what Brandon is comfortable with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/8/2020 at 5:21 PM, king of nowhere said:

Personally, I think the inclusion of gay protagonists will simply take time. I think so because I think writers write largely based on their experience, and consider how fast lgbt rights have moved. 50 years ago homosexuality was a crime punished by the law. 20 years ago the general vibe was "they are free to do whatever among them, as long as they stay hidden". then in just those two decades it moved to "a friend of mine is gay, and I don't see him any different than anyone else" to "same sex marriages should have the same rights as regular ones". But until 20-odd years ago, homosexuality was virtually invisible. So, most people who are now adults grew up in a world without lgbt people. they weren't part of their experience. and so, they don't think to put in an lgbt character, because it's outside of their experience. The whole lgbt topic being riddled with pitfalls also doesn't help making people comfortable with it.

But people growing up now are most likely to know some declared lgbt. so it will feel natural for them to see some such people around, and those of them who will pick up an artistic career will see fit to include more of them. And seeing more of them in books will also make tv producers less wary of the topic. and perhaps more gay couples will feel comfortable enough kissing in public, and more people will get used to it. and the people who will grow up in this environment will start writing gay protagonists without anyone telling them to. Some processes require time, and trying to hasten them too much backfires.

and perhaps it will go for brandon too. He said that he wouldn't feel comfortable writing gay protagonists because he feels he would blotch them. but he started writing ranette and drehy. those had a very minor role in their first appearences, but they gained more visibility. perhaps the next mistborn book will have a short ranette pov, or perhaps rythm of war will have a short drehy pov. and from there, and getting feedback, brandon will feel comfortable in expanding roles for lgbt characters, and he will eventually write a gay male protagonist. brandon likes to try new things with his style, there's a good chance he will get there eventually. in due time. conversely, putting pressure on him may only make him feel less comfortable.

 

Yep this is what I  was trying to say.  He said it way better than I ever could. I think in time it will happen. 

Edit: I still think all the other posts by this guy before the one I'm quoting were .....well condescending and hurtful at ths very least. 

Edited by Friendshipspren
A little polishing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, I really need to check this forum more often because I apparently missed this one appearing. Second, thank you @Dreamer for making the thread and everyone else who jumped in; incessant cishet coupling has been really my only true problem with Sanderson's work for quite a while now, and the nebulous Potteresque "trust me this character is gay" things that we are told, but never shown grinds my gears. 

2 hours ago, Kidpen said:

So he is absolutely planning to include more characters and protagonists that fall under one of the spectrums eventually, it's just that he's worried about doing it right. I understand if people disagree with me but I think he's doing his best when it comes to LGBTQ+ characters and I appreciate it, even if he's not at a point yet where he's confident enough to write a more major character as LGBTQ+. 

I'm going to take perhaps a strange-seeming approach for a GSRM person talking about GSRM representation in media: I think Brandon would be best served by starting with an ace-spectrum character. Obviously I'd love it if he had gay (in any flavour), bi, pan, genderqueer, etc. characters, however, I am going to make a case for ace representation to be the first thing. I quoted the text above for a reason, which is that my argument ties directly in with Brandon's reasoning here. 

1. It's 'easier' to get an ace character 'right'. 

To begin, the problem with Sanderson and GSRM representation in his books, at least as he explains it: Brandon does not want to write a gay character, and then have them not be a healthy or realistic representation of a gay character. This is a valid concern for him to have, given that he has explicitly stated that part of writing Steris and Renarin was to make up for writing Adien as something of a stereotype, as his then-only autistic character. Using this same example, I think it's also fair to take it at face value as being, if not his only reason for sticking to hetero couples, certainly a strong one — Brandon does seem to care about giving minorities their proper representation and not just going with what seems "normal" to a white, western, cishet audience (see also: the presentation of race on Roshar, with Caucasian-ish Shin looking 'weird' to many of the Easterners). 

An asexual-spectrum character is easier for an author without much (read: barely any) experience writing GSRM characters to do in a healthy manner in part because it just requires less stretching on Brandon's part, while still definitively putting him outside of his comfort zone so he is forced to grow as an author. Further, the array of characters in many of his flagship series is such that an ace character slots in very seamlessly; there are some very stereotypical (if indeed you can have a cliché for ace representation at the moment...) places, such as making an ace character an ardent or someone with ties to the ardentia, but it would be totally reasonable for, say, an ace couple to run the orphanages we know exist, further, I do not think this is necessarily as bad as some other more Hollywoodesque representations of minorities. We are told that Ellista (aka 'that Dawnchant expert ardent from that one interlude in Oathbringer who was reading Pride and Prejudice') has had jokes from her parents that the only reason she joined the ardentia is so that she could justifiably shave her head because she didn't like dealing with her hair. This works as a humourous moment for the audience because we understand that she wouldn't join the priesthood for such a trivial reason, and people don't then assume that any woman who dislikes her hair would become an ardent. It should be clear where this is going, but to be explicit, an ace character is (relatively) easy to introduce as explicitly ace, without suggesting that being ace is just a collection of stereotypes, and without devaluing that identity. An offhand recollection of a joke from family around the idea of "X joined the ardentia to escape the boys and girls in town who misinterpreted X wanting to be friends" establishes a character as unambiguously not attracted to men or women, while also making it clear that this is not the sole feature of their character. 

We could obviously go on discussing how to easily add in ace characters (honestly, if a WoB came out tomorrow saying Jasnah was ace you'd be hard pressed to call that an 'annoying retcon'), but before moving on to the next section I'd just like to expand upon why I value the characters being easy for Brandon to write. In short, Brandon is constantly writing new books. If we wish for him to jump in the deep end, and have something on the level of a Shallan-Adolin-Kaladin-Sylphrena (Shakadoliphrena, @ me) super queer poly network, then yeah, it's going to take a while for him to be able to do that. In the mean time, Sanderson probably will just continue writing books starring hetero couples and their love triangles, so now we've got an even bigger number of works of his being heteronormative. However, given that Sanderson does want to try, then having him begin with an explicitly ace character can help him build the confidence and skill to write other identities, without having to wait. For example, Skyward 3 is probably going to be released in 2021, having been written in the back half of this year. In the process of writing a strong ace character into Skyward 3, Brandon will likely have a lot of opportunity to better learn how to represent people who do not share his sexual or romantic orientation, and be able to begin writing those characters in early 2021 with some confidence. It helps our dear authorial overlord get some practice and learning in, without having to wait for total confidence before he starts in a publishable work, helping everyone else receive that representation we desire sooner. 

2. Who even writes ace characters, anyway?

I would hope that the above argument is fairly compelling as it stands, but then, I also hoped that the current pandemic's impact on our lives would be minimal, so I'm having to learn to temper my hopes. Big claims also require equally large justifications, so, in addition to that, I am going to make a point from a more intra-GSRM angle as well. To put it bluntly, ace people often get erased even by other members of the community, as do bi people. Most of the posts on the Reddit subreddit /r/SuddenlyGay are more likely SuddenlyBi, but the assumption is that if a wife leaves a husband for a woman, then she was gay the whole time, because those are the only two options. Similarly, many queer folk love the idea of having the princess get wooed by a woman rather than a man as a subversion of heteronormativity; for an ace person, this still could be seen to say that "you're weird because you don't want to get wooed by anyone". How many plots have you seen where the main character doesn't have any romantic partner at all? No love interest, male or female, straight, bi, or gay? Even among "LGBT literature" (which I agree can be a problematic term itself) the majority focuses on MLM and WLW couples, the vast majority of whom are either implicitly or explicitly sexual. 

Thus, I propose that one of Brandon Sanderson's first major GSRM characters be on the asexual spectrum not just out of convenience, or in order to push the message more swiftly, but to help provide representation to a group who may otherwise be ignored even by authors who are trying to represent romantic minorities. 

3. Asexuality presents an opportunity.

Brandon has said a number of times in the past that he really enjoys looking at how religions impact the world, and how they can be abused. Further, if we take Roshar as a case study, Brandon really has not shied away from looking at social norms in society and creating novel cultures which can seem crazy to us: the delineation of jobs to men and women, modesty and safehands (gasp!), discussions of masculinity (it's unmanly to read), PDA and other displays of emotion (cf: Listener Rhythms compared to the humans' facial expressions), and even vague subtexts that ardents are considered on some level to be outside the normal gender binary (IIRC one of the characters comments on it being weird for a man to read, unless they become an ardent, but then they don't really count anyway). Rosharan society, especially that of the Alethi who we have been most exposed to so far, is incredibly militarized, and Vorin theology stresses heavily the idea of "callings" which please the Almighty. Ace characters provide Brandon with the ability to look at the intersection of sexuality and religion at the most fundamental level: what happens if you don't want to start a family? Even Drehy and Ranette are making moves to start a family, even if they are same-sex couples. Vorinism and Pathism/Survivorism respectively can still rationalize that on the basis of looking after orphans perhaps, and having the same-sex couple serve as surrogate parents for children who otherwise wouldn't have that ideal nuclear family. If you introduce a character who explicitly has no desire for a relationship then you can't hide behind acceptance on the grounds of the minority implementing your norms, but in their own way; you must actually confront your norms at their core. Must everyone want to form a family? Must you require exceptional justification for a character to not pursue a relationship at all?

"Why has Y stayed single for the entire series?" "Oh, Y had a traumatic experience with their last relationship and they can't deal with the pain of going through that again." "Oh, Y lost their best friend and their life fell apart as a result of it." 

Hang on, why can't Y just... want to be single? You don't need a problematic childhood to be gay so why do you need a problematic adulthood to lack romantic drive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@king of nowhere

It's okay, well not really, you really did hurt me there, hard. But I'm trying to look at this thread with a fresh perspective, a lot of the things you said still aren't okay. *sigh* Some of the things you said in the beginning were nice but then you got angry and defensive and deviated. But maybe you are trying I guess.

I understand the part about associating so much with a movement that anyone who points out a fault within that movement is targeting you. I've had the misfortune of understanding that perspective from both sides.

 

And yeah, we do get butt-hurt fast. I'll try to explain why... when there's a very real possibility that you're looking at an entire lifetime, alone in more ways than one, isolated. There's always an undercurrent of worry when you're with your friends, don't let them know. You get wound up. You try to find a safe space, that isn't always there. Then you find it and other people are there, all of a sudden you have a support structure. Then you start noticing some undercurrents, and everyone starts to look more bad, even the ones who really were looking out for you. Like, yeah, I've decided to treat you like a normal human being, isn't that great? Doesn't that make me a great person? And so the spiral begins. This is of course assuming the person isn't in a super religious intolerant community and without any overt discrimination so you don't think I'm trying to guilt trip you 

I hope you understand. Thank you for the apology and sorry that this is the most I can extend as an olive branch.

I'm not comfortable that the hate LGBT people have to face is being compared with irritating campaigning

 

@Elsecaller_17.5

Thanks for the apology DM. But I'm afraid I still stand by what I said. I can't quite make myself get over the fact that your first and immediate response was a "tone it down bud" without even seeing what it was that made me angry, not even the slightest hint of a benefit of the doubt.

You kind of put me on the opposition bench the moment I created the thread and got defensive, reacting as though I was attacking Sanderson and then you. I don't think you really tried to see what I was trying to convey on the thread, just tried to do exactly what you said, moderate.

Edited by Dreamer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, king of nowhere said:

*all the words* 

Yep, I pretty much agree with both points. 

18 minutes ago, Staenbridge said:

...the nebulous Potteresque "trust me this character is gay" things that we are told, but never shown grinds my gears. 

(if indeed you can have a cliché for ace representation at the moment...) 

I don’t understand what you’re referring to with that; I don’t remember Brandon ever doing what JKR did in that respect. He promised he would write LGBTQIAP+ characters, not that he already had. 

Trust me, you definitely can. And one of the big ones is that ace and aromantic are the same thing, as well as that all aces are averse to sex. Which you perpetuated just a little in your post. ;) But aside from that, I agree with what you said and am totally on board for Brandon to write an ace character, whether they’re also aro or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AonEne said:
Quote

.an author should include minorities because otherwise his work is not inclusive... 

The above is...actually a fact...like, by definition, if there aren’t minorities, then the work is not inclusive of those minorities. It doesn’t include them. Implying that that stance is an opinion is simply incorrect. 


yes, but on the other hand, there are so many minorities (lgbt, women, black people, asian people, latin american, mentally disabled...) that if you had to include a character for each of those minorities, you could do so only by writing huge sagas. and then any kind of story would just feel like a checklist where some elements have to be included. And if some of them are not included, then it will convey the message that some minorities are more important than others.

what I fear is politically correct gone mad. I fear that after all the trouble we went through to remove censorship, peer pressure and media backlash will push us to censure ourselves again. And I think that every time a piece of fiction is analyzed in terms of "inclusion" or "strong role model", we are moving towards the slippery slope.

perhaps i am paranoid. but i have seen some instances of politically correct gone mad, and I fear it more than most other scenarios.

 

EDIT: that said, if a piece of fiction shows nothing but chatolic white men with a career and catholic white women housewives, then that piece of fiction has a problem. Let's just say that I fear excesses on both sides /EDIT

Quote

This is also something I’ve noticed, and it’s exhausting. People rebel against other people who are trying to make more progress, saying there’s already enough and now you’re just going too far. *sighs* So long as we still need to have these discussions, it won’t be too far. If you don’t want to participate in making the progress, that’s unfortunate, but at least let other people do what they want with their time without going “ugh that’s so unnecessary”.

 

On the other hand, I have also seen many people do bad things in the name of "making progress". I have seen people calling themselves "anti-fascist" vandalize a pub that a right-wing movement had hired for a meeting. So, they are fighting fascism by using fascist intimidation against those who don't share their opinions. what could possibly go wrong?

And I have seen majors close city centers to car traffic on some sundays to protect the environment. this only means that whoever needed to pass through the city center will just have to take the detour around the city, taking a longer road and burning up more fuel. I don't think that's very effective.

And I have heard the argument that to favor inclusion of disadvantaged students, we should abolish school rejection. Now, it's already difficult enough to get kids to study when they do risk rejection. but one good thing to promote inclusion is that in italy we have good public schools, so even the poor can study well and get a good degree. Except that in the last decade we started a lot of measures to "increase inclusion", and all the data shows the quality of our instruction plummeting. So, the poor kids who actually want to study cannot, because they are put in the same classroom with a couple dozen #### who don't care and disturb enough to make teaching nigh impossible. We keep on like that, soon the only way to get a good instruction will be private schools. How is that favoring inclusion?

So, just because people are trying to make progress, it does not mean that they are doing something good. It is possible to screw things up royally in the name of progress, and it happens all the time. And I've seen it happen in the name of inclusion too.

And so long as people don't realize that they may actually be going too far, too fast, and may end up doing more harm than good, then I need to make this argument.

Edited by king of nowhere
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, AonEne said:
51 minutes ago, king of nowhere said:

*all the words* 

Yep, I pretty much agree with both points. 

Oh he got "*all the words*"? :( I'm wounded...

6 minutes ago, AonEne said:

I don’t understand what you’re referring to with that; I don’t remember Brandon ever doing what JKR did in that respect. He promised he would write LGBTQIAP+ characters, not that he already had

I mean, we haven't really gotten it with Brandon; the closest we've come is some of his comments regarding Shallan. I do take your point though and I'll phrase it better next time. 

17 minutes ago, AonEne said:

Trust me, you definitely can.

On the stereotypes, my tongue-in-cheek comment there was that you see so few ace characters that there is barely enough material to produce a cliché. 

17 minutes ago, AonEne said:

And one of the big ones is that ace and aromantic are the same thing, as well as that all aces are averse to sex. Which you perpetuated just a little in your post. ;)

You know, amusingly enough I actually thought about how I wanted to approach that one. Unfortunately, I decided to cut a paragraph talking about potential ace but romantic couplings, because I couldn't work out where to fit it in and the comment was reaching absurd lengths anyway. I thought that was the better way around than focusing on ace romantic characters, because Brandon likes to leave a lot of plausible deniability on that front, so it's much easier for me at least to headcanon some of his hetero couples as ace/heteroro (heterorororo), but it's difficult to imagine that Shallan and Adolin are just good friends. 

I'm intrigued though; I'm not exactly active in ace circles, but I have definitely heard an aro person... not quite complaining per se, but not thrilled at ace activists taking the approach of "I still 'like' people, I just don't really care about having sex with them", which they saw as ignoring ace/aro identities to present an 'easier' message. Is this really just a minority view, with most people still thinking ace = ace/aro?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...