What if Covenant was gay......

[Zarathustra]

Having gay friends, or agreeing that gay people should be allowed to get married, or not stoning them in the town square--that's different. That's tolerance.

Tolerance? How beneficent. I tolerate the fact that registered sex offenders live on my street, because there's simply nothing I can do about it. I know where they are (I'm in Chicago, big city-wide database), and I know what they look like.

To say that you tolerate homosexuals is a flat out insult.

Compare my words of tolerance to this:

Oh, and I'm pretty sure that Eragon is gay. Paolini's a pussy. (That's my first attempt at so-called gallows humor. Kind of. I loathe Eragon.)

And that's not insulting? You don't give any evidence of Eragon's homosexuality. You immediately follow up with the writer being a pussy, as if a conclusion of homosexuality can be derived from the writer's "manhood." And then you talk about how much you loathe Eragon . . . with the implicit conclusion that your loathing is connected to both unmanly men (pussies) and homosexuality.

There's nothing insulting about tolerating someone you personally find repulsive. The fact that I tolerate them, despite how repulsive I find them, should be a point in my favor, shouldn't it? I can't help the fact that I find it repulsive. That's called being heterosexual, not homophobic. I wouldn't be a heterosexual male if the idea of two guys getting it on wasn't a turn-off. Not all guys are indifferent about drag queens hitting on them. If that's the way you like to spend an evening, man, we're just different kinds of men.

but I definitely prefer to hang out with guys where the question of sexual tension doesn't even occur to either one of us because we both like women. I don't want to think, "Was he checking out my ass?" when I turn around.

I understand the desire to hang out with "your own". Gay men make that choice, as do gay women. So do different ethnic groups. It's about what makes you comfortable, where you feel you fit in, etc.


However, heterosexual men just need to get the idea that gay men are inherently predatory and are going to go after whatever the can get, straight or gay, out of their head.

Who said anything about being predatory? Are you predatory when you check out a woman's ass?

. . . it should be understood that the VAST majority of gay men prefer to be with their own. That's just common sense.

Yep, just like me. I prefer my own. Including characters I read about. And gay people would like to see more gay characters for exactly the same reason. The only difference is that gay people don't get criticized for wanting to see more gay characters. No, this isn't "heterophobic." But if I want to see less gay characters, I'm somehow homophobic. Does not compute.

And hey - if anyone gets checked out by a homosexual, aren't you being complimented? I feel complimented regardless of who finds me attractive.

Well, then you must be more desperate for compliments than I am. Do you really find it equally complimentary when an old or ugly lady checks you out, compared to when a hot young woman checks you out (assuming that they do check you out)? If you can admit that there is a spectrum of "complimentary," then you must acknowledge one side of the scale decreases. At the point when the compliment comes from someone you find sexually repulsive, their attention no longer becomes a compliment. I wouldn't, for instance, find it complimentary if my mother told me I have a sexy ass. Or my son. It would be disgusting. Just like if another man told me I have a sexy ass. Disgusting. But if that makes you feel good, well, like I said above . . . we're different kind of men. Sexual attention from other men does NOT make me feel all warm inside.

When I was in college, I worked at Maggiano's Little Italy, the very first one to open in the country. On opening night, one of the most popular, well known drag queens in Chicago, Chile Pepper, was in my section. She gave me a *lot* of attention, and was gracious with her compliments. I wasn't remotely interested in her, but I wasn't offended. She didn't try to stick her hands down my pants...so why should I care?

So no one should be offended by unwanted sexual advances? An employee shouldn't be offended by her boss coming on to her? Or a woman shouldn't be offended by cat-calling construction workers as she walks down the street? I think that any time someone continues to make unwanted sexual advances, it is offensive and insulting behavior. It's rude, and I personally wouldn't put up with it. But then, I'm not a pussy.

[burgs]

Oh, and I'm pretty sure that Eragon is gay. Paolini's a pussy. (That's my first attempt at so-called gallows humor. Kind of. I loathe Eragon.)

I guess my attempt at gallows humor failed. I've said worse about Eragon and Eldest, so didn't see this as particularly bad. You're right, though. After reading it again, I do seem to draw the conclusion that Eragon is gay because of my assertion about Paolini being a pussy. That's not my thinking at all. Especially because I know that Eragon's into older women, or elves, but also because "Paolini's a pussy" was my attempt at gallows humor, which Cail recently introduced me to. He must be more skilled at it than I. He's probably had much more experience with it.

[SoulBiter]

I find myself in agreement with Malik on this subject and for many of the same reasons.

I also dont understand why anyone would want to change a MC of a current story to be homosexual. Is the persons preferences important to the story or is it just being written to appease a certain audience or perhaps just the writer? Is it because you identify more with a Gay MC? If so then you have to see the other side of that coin where someone who is not Gay cannot seem to identify with the character or identifies more with a hetro character.

I read the Mercedes Lackey series where the MC was Gay and although I found the storyline to be OK, I couldnt identify with the MC and I found many parts of the book turned my stomach.

Just so that Im not totally derailing this thread. If TC were Gay there were many parts that would have to be re-written. Elena wouldnt exist, and if we replaced her with someone else, that person wouldnt have the same reasons for wanting to take TC with her. Atirian wouldnt have felt the need to try to bring TC to the land and so Hile Troy would never have been in there. So many pivitol things were a direct result of TC being a hetro male. The writer (SRD) wrote the books to tell a story and of course it wouldnt be the same story if the Character was significantly different.

[SGuilfoyle1966]

Well, Lena was a minor if I'm not mistaken, not sure about Triock, so that may be a discrepancy worth considering. It just occurred to me I have no idea how sgtnull feels about Covenant raping Lena, and considering his vocal positions on such matters I should know, heh. That would be interesting.
quote]

Covenant should have stood trial for his crimes. let someone wield the white gold. never liked the TC character. never liked that he got away with rape.

I absolute dig the 3D man sig, Sarge.
But did you read the books past the rape?
He was still paying for it on the next to the last page of The Power That Preserves.
I think it still has consequences in the Second Chronicles. Consequences are not necessarily justice.
But he didn't get away with it. He lost almost everything, and paid for it with his "real" life in Second Chronicles. there was no judicial accounting as we know of it, but put in the context of the Land itself, Atiaran was an Elder of Mithil Stonedown. Chose not to do whatever they would do.
Went before the Lords of the Land. They chose not to do what they could.
The child of that rape, admittedly marred by it, CHOSE him. that right there would scare the crap out of me.

As to the post right above mine, never heard of that SF tale nor that character, so if I start spending some time here, my ID is my real name, not an allusion to a homicidal rapist SF character.
Weird.

[SGuilfoyle1966]

i'm suspicious of discussions like this some times.
Why? He is what he is?
It is possible that there ought to be a gay character in here, but this wouldn't work in any way with Covenant raping Triock.
The thread asks two things. The rape of triock? What, other than creating an enemy if it could be pulled off, would that create in the way of consequences? The rape led to Elena, which led to several gifts, which led to the krill getting lit, which led to the Seventh Ward, which led to the breaking of the Law of Death, which led to the destruciton of the staff of Law, which led to the Sunbane?
the consequences of a heterosexual rape of a female character that produces a marred victim and a marred child of rape are non-ending, and in the end, the point of the story.
Can you conceive of any kind of homosexual rape that would have as many and as far-reaching repercussions as that? It's a distraction to dwell on things like this.
But again, the question of Covenant being gay? It's obvious he's not. Joan and Roger are no real proof. But the Linden thing?
He's definitely into her.
What's to say he's not "bi." Why not ask that question?
I'm not saying gay good/gay bad. I'm not preaching tolerance, intolerance fear or acceptance.
I just don't see the point of the question. The rape of Lena was the most important moment in the series because of the consequences. The rape of Lena doesn't make TC hetero, BTW.
I'm having trouble wondering why the two are connected in the question, and I just don't get it.
The whole Dumbledore revelation is just a pain in the ass. I haven't read the Potter books, but from what I've heard, it has no basis in the series and is just a PC bone thrown out there.

On the other hand, I heard Brinn is a cross dresser. Care to discuss?

[burgs]

The whole Dumbledore revelation is just a pain in the ass. I haven't read the Potter books, but from what I've heard, it has no basis in the series and is just a PC bone thrown out there.

Back in the 1950's, somebody might have said, "Hey, I'm not a racist...in fact, some of my best friends are black people! And I agree that they ought to have the right to vote and get married. But they ought not to be marry white folks; that's just disgusting! Actually, I get a little queasy if I have to drink from the same water fountain."

Terrific posts, both of them. Timewaster, you said what I wanted to say, but did a better job of it.

Dumbledore's sexuality is not an issue in the series. Most of the professor's sexuality is not. With the exception of Snape. I can't think of a single moment in the entire series, which I've read a few times, where it would have been necessary to bring it up. At all. That said, it would have been nice to know a bit earlier, because JKR had an enormous impact on the developing minds of millions of children. To show them a strong, likable gay character that defied stereotypes would have been terrific. That's my pansy-ass liberal bias, I guess. But don't tell me that to my face.

But while I don't know JKR, have never communicated with her on the level that we can with SDR, I have a hard time seeing her (largely because she gives one the impression of propriety) shoving this in as a PC moment to score points. She's already scored billions. Literally.

But did she really score points with Dumbledore? This thread, and some others I've seen on this website and others, have led me to believe, sadly, that the inclusion of gay characters would turn people off and cause them not to read the books.

Yet that's OK to say. I don't know why. Because if I said that I didn't like to read Toni Morrison (although I DO) because she's black and I just don't get her, I'd get slammed into the 31st century.

Someone asked why include a gay character. I would say: because it's realistic. Don't most people know *someone* that's gay? Hasn't everyone reading this thread *thought* about homosexuality? Of course, the answer is yes. So isn't an author who completely ignores the reality of homosexuality denying some portion of reality? (And fantasy not including African-Americans doesn't count here - not because I'm a racist, but because fantasy based on the Middle Ages is mostly based on a "white" Europe, which was a reality.)

[SoulBiter]

Someone asked why include a gay character. I would say: because it's realistic. Don't most people know *someone* that's gay? Hasn't everyone reading this thread *thought* about homosexuality? Of course, the answer is yes. So isn't an author who completely ignores the reality of homosexuality denying some portion of reality? (And fantasy not including African-Americans doesn't count here - not because I'm a racist, but because fantasy based on the Middle Ages is mostly based on a "white" Europe, which was a reality.)

I dont agree. Sure I know a few people who are Gay and have known others over the years. Heck my younger brother is Gay. But those people are the overwhelming minority of people that I have known in my life. And it sounds like you are rationalizing your position by saying its because everyone knows a few Gay people and thus there should be more Gay people in stories. Ive done many things over the years. Traveled, Army, etc etc and in very very few circumstances can I say that there was ever an (overtly) Gay person around. I say overtly because someone might have been Gay.. I just didnt know it and they did nothing to make me think that they were Gay.

That said, it would have been nice to know a bit earlier, because JKR had an enormous impact on the developing minds of millions of children. To show them a strong, likable gay character that defied stereotypes would have been terrific.

That statement says.. lets use literature.. especially popular literature to not just tell a story but to try to change the ideas and values (as Malik said.. Im not talking morals) of as many people (not just people but developing minds of children) as possible, so that they are more accepting of Gays. Thats one of the things I would be against. Its using fiction and/or childrens literature to promote an agenda rather than just to tell a story. Look at it this way. Would you think or feel the same way if someone used fiction and/or popular childrens literature to promote a hetro agenda rather than to just tell a story? Now if you wanted to tell a story and one of the characters happened to be Gay.... if it were just because in your story that person is Gay, then I would be much more accepting of the story than if you are doing it just to promote an agenda.

Yeah Im rambling a bit..but its early and I really gotta get back to work. Hopefully this made sense without being offensive or insulting or coming off as offensive or insulting.

[Charles Timewaster]

So, skipping ahead to the first male character who shows sympathy to Covenant...I think the victim will wind up being Foamfollower. In his traumatized state, Foamfollower wouldn't be able to power the boat, so it will drift backwards to Mount Thunder, whereupon Drool's minions would kill Covenant and take the ring. Later on the Elohim would probably stop Drool.

After thinking about this pretty much continuously over the past several days, I've worked out the rest of the story:

In Volume 2, we learn that Foamfollower survived Mount Thunder. In his maddened state, he borrows the Staff of Law and tries to summon Thomas Covenant. (The Elohim gave the Staff of Law to the Council of Lords at the end of Volume 1) Since Covenant is dead, he winds up summoning Hile Troy. Giants can't be harmed by fire, so Foamfollower survives the summoning.

High Lord Lena Mhorham-mate persuades Troy to take command of the Land's Army, and that part of the book plays out pretty much the same as before. The quest for the EarthBlood doesn't take place, and we make up for the missing pages by inserting the "Gilden-Fire" material and maybe some more songs or something.

In Volume 3, Foamfollower tries to summon Covenant again. Covenant is still dead, so he winds up summoning the little girl who got bit by the rattlesnake. Even in his maddened state, Foamfollower realizes that a four-year-old child isn't going to be able to defeat Lord Foul. But he can't figure out how to unsummon her, and she's disconsolate over being separated from her parents. So to cheer her up, he takes her on a quest to the Plains of Ra to see the ponies. In the second half of the book, the Elohim stop Lord Foul.

Volumes 4-10 are essentially unchanged, except that Covenant isn't in them.

[Marv]

Bloody hell, the chronicles, for the most part, are completely ASEXUAL! In real terms there are virtually no decisions made by any of the character's, or plot twists that occour, because of Covenant's sexual persuasion. So, change Joan for John, Linden for Luke and imagine that Roger was adopted and it's still the same friggin story-AND COVENANT IS STILL THE SAME MISERABLE, STOIC BLOKE HE ALWAYS WAS. If you think that someone's personality is determined by whether they fancy men or women you're living a pretty sheltered life. Infact, you're probably the type of person that thinks Will and Grace showcases absolutely everything gay people have to offer.

[[Syl]]

The vast majority of this thread has been split off and sent to the Tank. Feel free to continue the title topic.

[SGuilfoyle1966]

Bloody hell, the chronicles, for the most part, are completely ASEXUAL! In real terms there are virtually no decisions made by any of the character's, or plot twists that occour, because of Covenant's sexual persuasion. So, change Joan for John, Linden for Luke and imagine that Roger was adopted and it's still the same friggin story-AND COVENANT IS STILL THE SAME MISERABLE, STOIC BLOKE HE ALWAYS WAS. If you think that someone's personality is determined by whether they fancy men or women you're living a pretty sheltered life. Infact, you're probably the type of person that thinks Will and Grace showcases absolutely everything gay people have to offer.

Sorry Marvin. this is a two part question.
Gay character or not, it has to be, for lack of a better term, "heterosexual" rape because of the main consequence of the crime, which is basically the crime that frames, shadows, covers, the entire first trilogy. Elena.