Poetry Corner

[Chris 2.1]

It's difficult, isn't it, because to feature a homosexual character there's a sense that addressing their sexuality has to be an explicit feature. Their struggles, their identity. May people would prefer someone whose problems and storylines were not a byproduct of their sexuality, yet if these do exist, there's a sense the word 'gay' or 'lesbian' is shoehorned in - it doesn't impact anything, so does it need to be mentioned in the first place? Then you start having sexually ambiguous characters.

Quite an interesting notion.

[mr_pikachu]

It's a tricky subject, indeed. I think that's part of why Dumbledore threw so many people for a loop. Some have suggested, like you mentioned, Chris, that the homosexual aspect of his personality was just thrown on top and had nothing to do with him as a character. At the same time, that's also the greatest triumph of the characterization -- his sexual orientation was a part of who he was, but it didn't define everything he did, just as the preference of anyone else doesn't (or, at least, shouldn't) be the sole meaningful characteristic of that person. My heterosexuality plays no role in my enjoyment of video games, the research I conduct, etc., etc. If I were describing myself, I wouldn't feel the need to name my orientation, so why should it be necessary to elaborate in any other narrative?

I imagine that the reason why so many people feel a homosexual character must be stated as such, while heterosexual characters need no such clarification, is because heterosexuality is viewed as "normal" while homosexuality is deemed "unusual" or at the very least, "different." This highlights our assumptions about people themselves. A lot of readers enter into any character description with a blank slate. What else can you do, after all? But that blank slate must have certain characteristics in order to be anything besides an amorphous blob. If it's human, it probably has a predictable set of appendages (two arms, two legs) and other "normal human" characteristics like a mouth, a nose, etc. It might also have attributes like skin tone and height/weight that are similar to that of the reader or, alternatively, seem to be "normal" and thus more likely to appear in a fictional representation.

This leads me to my larger point. Many readers feel that homosexuality must be stated, as opposed to heterosexuality, because heterosexuality fits into the representation that they're expecting. Whether that's because (1) the reader him/herself is heterosexual (hence, the expectation of similarity/homophily), (2) because heterosexuality is viewed (accurately or inaccurately -- statistics are somewhat inconsistent) as more common than homosexuality, or (3) because the reader holds a prejudice against homosexuality that results in it seeming "unusual" or "strange" regardless of (1) and (2), readers tend to expect heterosexuality and are surprised by anything outside that "blank slate." I apologize if the comparison offends anyone, but just as a reader would be surprised by a different number of appendages, a different orientation also deviates from the template that the reader holds. (It's a much different deviation, but if it splits from a reader's expectations, similar mental adjustments have to be made to understand the nature of the character.) Unless, of course, it's thrown in your face that all of the characters in the community are three-armed or, as the more relevant example, that they are all homosexual (for the latter case, think of Rent), in which case you have other problems: it's unfortunate that the homosexuality had to be thrown in people's faces at all, and by definition everyone in the community is somehow set apart from the "normal," "expected" society.

...Anyway. Sorry for the stream-of-consciousness mini-essay, but at the risk of starting an argument over sexuality -- and at the risk of stating something poorly in the midst of this 5:20 a.m. monologue and accidentally inflicting offense -- I wanted to share a few of my thoughts here. Maybe next time I'll actually post a bit of poetry, eh?

[Gavin Luper]

I don't remember the exact word count, but my thesis ended up being approximately fifty pages. It evolved out of a short story I wrote in a second-year Creative Writing class. Basically, the piece charts an unlikely friendship between two individuals who meet in Toronto during the summer: a twenty-something, drag-obsessed transgendered student who has stopped speaking to his mother and a thirty-something, laid-off professional who has recently separated from her husband over the death of their child. There's lots of heavy stuff going on there, but the tone is also relatively light.

Why was the required length of your thesis reduced? I imagine to accommodate your graders? Hopefully it's still long enough that you can produce something substantial and satisfying.

I could be wrong, but I think mine will be much shorter than that. It's 10,000 words creative and 5,000 words critical essay. It feels inadequate - it was previously 20,000 total but they chopped it down to 15,000 total and I'm not really sure why. Either way it doesn't fit any category properly - it's not a novella and it's not a short story. I don't think I can produce anything other than a "long story" (seriously, that's what they're calling it) and go from there. Or a cycle of three short stories, maybe, but that stops it from feeling like a proper, chunky thesis, IMHO.

That sounds like a very quirky but also very approachable thesis. Would be happy to give it a read some time if you ever feel like sharing it!

It's difficult, isn't it, because to feature a homosexual character there's a sense that addressing their sexuality has to be an explicit feature. Their struggles, their identity. May people would prefer someone whose problems and storylines were not a byproduct of their sexuality, yet if these do exist, there's a sense the word 'gay' or 'lesbian' is shoehorned in - it doesn't impact anything, so does it need to be mentioned in the first place? Then you start having sexually ambiguous characters.

Quite an interesting notion.

Indeed. For most heterosexual male characters, for instance, I think an off-the-cuff comment like "that chick was hot" would go pretty much unnoticed as giving much away about them. That is, few readers would see that as giving away much about that man's character. But if a male character says "that dude was hot", it suddenly MEANS something. He becomes seen as a gay character and with that comes a projection onto him of a whole bunch of stereotypical ideas. It's maddening. I mean, I understand it, but it frustrates me that sexual orientation is constantly a more defining issue for gay characters than straight ones.

It's a tricky subject, indeed. I think that's part of why Dumbledore threw so many people for a loop. Some have suggested, like you mentioned, Chris, that the homosexual aspect of his personality was just thrown on top and had nothing to do with him as a character. At the same time, that's also the greatest triumph of the characterization -- his sexual orientation was a part of who he was, but it didn't define everything he did, just as the preference of anyone else doesn't (or, at least, shouldn't) be the sole meaningful characteristic of that person. My heterosexuality plays no role in my enjoyment of video games, the research I conduct, etc., etc. If I were describing myself, I wouldn't feel the need to name my orientation, so why should it be necessary to elaborate in any other narrative?

Yes. Exactly. And there are some people of both orientations who do place a heavy importance on this as a centrally defining feature when it is really just one of many. (I'm thinking of both straight guys who try to be macho by talking about chicks all the time - most of these I have met in real life are angry, massive closet cases - and of gay guys who place their "queerness" (a term I think I detest) as a central tenet of their persona, when their sexuality really doesn't carry much or any meaning at all - see Dumbledore, Albus.)

I imagine that the reason why so many people feel a homosexual character must be stated as such, while heterosexual characters need no such clarification, is because heterosexuality is viewed as "normal" while homosexuality is deemed "unusual" or at the very least, "different." This highlights our assumptions about people themselves. A lot of readers enter into any character description with a blank slate. What else can you do, after all? But that blank slate must have certain characteristics in order to be anything besides an amorphous blob. If it's human, it probably has a predictable set of appendages (two arms, two legs) and other "normal human" characteristics like a mouth, a nose, etc. It might also have attributes like skin tone and height/weight that are similar to that of the reader or, alternatively, seem to be "normal" and thus more likely to appear in a fictional representation.

This leads me to my larger point. Many readers feel that homosexuality must be stated, as opposed to heterosexuality, because heterosexuality fits into the representation that they're expecting. Whether that's because (1) the reader him/herself is heterosexual (hence, the expectation of similarity/homophily), (2) because heterosexuality is viewed (accurately or inaccurately -- statistics are somewhat inconsistent) as more common than homosexuality, or (3) because the reader holds a prejudice against homosexuality that results in it seeming "unusual" or "strange" regardless of (1) and (2), readers tend to expect heterosexuality and are surprised by anything outside that "blank slate." I apologize if the comparison offends anyone, but just as a reader would be surprised by a different number of appendages, a different orientation also deviates from the template that the reader holds. (It's a much different deviation, but if it splits from a reader's expectations, similar mental adjustments have to be made to understand the nature of the character.) Unless, of course, it's thrown in your face that all of the characters in the community are three-armed or, as the more relevant example, that they are all homosexual (for the latter case, think of Rent), in which case you have other problems: it's unfortunate that the homosexuality had to be thrown in people's faces at all, and by definition everyone in the community is somehow set apart from the "normal," "expected" society.

...Anyway. Sorry for the stream-of-consciousness mini-essay, but at the risk of starting an argument over sexuality -- and at the risk of stating something poorly in the midst of this 5:20 a.m. monologue and accidentally inflicting offense -- I wanted to share a few of my thoughts here. Maybe next time I'll actually post a bit of poetry, eh?

Not offended at all. I don't think I'd be offended at all unless someone was actually deliberately being homophobic or abusive towards me. So you don't need to worry about offense - from my point of view, at least.

And yes, this is the crux of the whole thing. If you're male, heterosexual = masculine = good. Homosexual = feminine = bad. That's the gist of it. No offense meant to women, obviously.

[Oslo]

But if a male character says "that dude was hot", it suddenly MEANS something. He becomes seen as a gay character and with that comes a projection onto him of a whole bunch of stereotypical ideas. It's maddening. I mean, I understand it, but it frustrates me that sexual orientation is constantly a more defining issue for gay characters than straight ones.

This is basically my whole opinion in a nutshell. I'm entirely against essentialist views of gender/sexuality because they only lend themselves to these stereotypical projections, as you say. Ultimately, (I certainly hope) the fact that I'm gay is not the most interesting/significant part about me and it shouldn't be the same for my characters. Unless it's need-to-know info, my characters' sexual identity is not something I generally I demarcate. *shrugs* Same goes with their race/religion/birthday/favourite Disney film/etc.

[Gavin Luper]

This is basically my whole opinion in a nutshell. I'm entirely against essentialist views of gender/sexuality because they only lend themselves to these stereotypical projections, as you say. Ultimately, (I certainly hope) the fact that I'm gay is not the most interesting/significant part about me and it shouldn't be the same for my characters. Unless it's need-to-know info, my characters' sexual identity is not something I generally I demarcate. *shrugs* Same goes with their race/religion/birthday/favourite Disney film/etc.

Yes, indeed, it's the combination of all those factors and many more that inform a person's character, not just their sexuality. It shouldn't be treated as being "meaningful" any more than it is "meaningful" that a character is male or female.