What if Covenant was gay......

[The Laughing Man]

....and he raped Triock instead? Would that change anything? (I'm serious! )

[dlbpharmd]

Well, we wouldn't have Elena, would we?

[Marv]

Not for me.

It would be interesting to know what the critical reaction would have been had he been gay. A gay man recovers his potency and is instantly overcome with sex lust and rapes a young boy. Talk about a can of worms! Probably would have sold more books though.

[dlbpharmd]

Not for me.

It would be interesting to know what the critical reaction would have been had he been gay. A gay man recovers his potency and is instantly overcome with sex lust and rapes a young boy. Talk about a can of worms! Probably would have sold more books though.

But not in 1979.

[The Laughing Man]

Well, we wouldn't have Elena, would we?

touche'!

Not for me.

It would be interesting to know what the critical reaction would have been had he been gay. A gay man recovers his potency and is instantly overcome with sex lust and rapes a young boy. Talk about a can of worms! Probably would have sold more books though.

But not in 1979.

double touche'!!


being "famous" for the "method of introduction" most people use for the books to interest others, the rape scene would have the most influential impact on the story, IMO. But it gets to the core of our perceptions on the matter, and I think would introduce some components in the story the mainstream would have trouble accepting for one, and for another I think it's indisputable it would change the overall character of the entire series as well as people's perceptions and reception of them.

And it isn't supposed to. Why does it, or would it?

[I am not Joan]

There is homosexual rape in Mordant's Need. Is this somehow worse (or not as bad) as the rape in Covenant books or the Gap books?

Not being snotty - just wondering about peoples' perceptions.

[The Laughing Man]

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.

Any-way, I'm having trouble visualizing how the story wouldn't be changed significantly more than we are currently admitting or insisting on as a society. It should make no difference.


Curious.......

[Marv]

I suppose there would have been less sympathy for him over his marriage break up. Joan really picked a winner there didn't she!? Your husband has leprosy AND he's gay!!

[Ur Dead]

After Triock would have beat the snot out of TC. (Because he was so much more massive and stronger)
Triock would have denounced him in the Stonehenge and TC would have been hard pressed to give his message to the lords.

[Zarathustra]

It does make a difference. We shouldn't be so afraid of hurting another person's feelings that we're not honest with ourselves. Rape is wrong no matter what. Child molestation is even worse. The sex of the child has no bearing on that determination.

However, ignoring the rape, if Covenant were gay, that fact would have made a lot of people put the book down simply because they don't want to read about a gay hero. 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. There's a difference between tolerance and preference. I tolerate gay people in the world, 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. But that's just me. Preference. Likewise, I don't want to think, "Was Covenant trying to get a glimpse of Mhoram's package as it bounced around in his robe?" I don't care how tolerant you are--that would be a completely different story. And it should be.

A large part of enjoying a novel comes from being able to put yourself in the head of the character(s). You find things about them you can empathize with. Now, I'm not saying that it is harder or more uncomfortable to put myself in the head of a gay dude vs a rapist. Absolutely not. Remember, I'm ignoring the rape and applying his gayness to the rest of the book. With that said, I don't want to spend thousands of pages in the head of a gay dude. I don't want to try to find things about him I can empathize with. There's a reason why gay men aren't the leading role in movies and books. Despite the money Brokeback Mountain made, I'll never rent it. And there are millions of guys just like me. Gay characters make funny robots and funny interior designers and funny sidekicks. They don't make compelling leading men. And that's not because real gay men can't be triumphant or inspiring, it's just that most people don't want to spend time in a gay man's head.

And before you think I'm a horrible person because I can spend time in the head of a rapist, but not a homosexual--remember that I was making a huge distinction between being gay and being a rapist. The only thing that makes it bearable to spend time in the head of a rapist is seeing the process through which he is redeemed. But you can't even talk about that for a gay person, because the idea that they need to be redeemed from their sexuality is insulting.

There's nothing wrong with thinking that homosexuality is gross. No amount of political correctness or equal rights can ever change a biological imperative. Treating something that most people think is gross as if it were something we must accept as NOT gross, is asking too much. I don't want to read a book that judges me.

[danlo]

Drop the pen-knife and grab the olive oil!

[The Laughing Man]

cut off jeans and flannel shirt w/no sleeves, tied in a bellyknot?

[Aleksandr]

Re: A large part of enjoying a novel comes from being able to put yourself in the head of the character(s).

So you have no problem putting yourself in the head of female characters? If that's true, why should it be any harder to empathize with a gay character?

[The Laughing Man]

because he raped a young boy?

[Starkin]

Re: A large part of enjoying a novel comes from being able to put yourself in the head of the character(s).

So you have no problem putting yourself in the head of female characters? If that's true, why should it be any harder to empathize with a gay character?

Thank you, Aleksandr. My thoughts exactly.

[emotional leper]

Re: A large part of enjoying a novel comes from being able to put yourself in the head of the character(s).

So you have no problem putting yourself in the head of female characters? If that's true, why should it be any harder to empathize with a gay character?

Thank you, Aleksandr. My thoughts exactly.

Women are not homosexual men in a female body.

[The Laughing Man]

I wonder how long it will be before the first question about gay characters will come up in the GI?

[Starkin]

Women are not homosexual men in a female body.

True. But still, how much of a stretch would it be for a straight man to be inside the head of a gay character if he can see the point of view of a woman's? (Does that sentence make any sense? )

Men and women are pretty different from each other so I can see Aleksandr's point.

[Starkin]

I wonder how long it will be before the first question about gay characters will come up in the GI?

I've thought many times of asking SRD a "gay question": why aren't there any gay people's points of view in the Chronicles? Something like that. But then I wonder what the point would be.

I'm gay and would love to see more real gay characters in fantasy fiction. After all, if there are humans in any given fantasy setting, there more than likely will be gay people.

Ricardo Pinto in his "Stone Dance of the Chameleon" series has a main character who's gay. (He's gay in real life) And Anne McCaffrey and Robin Hobb have written them. No other straight author I know of has except Robert Silverberg. Maybe it takes a gay man and straight women to write true to life homosexuals?

Maybe these kinds of stories are out there and I just haven't read the right books?

Ah, well. Kind of off subject here, I know.

[The Laughing Man]

very nice to meet you, Starkin. First let me be clear that I have no specific objection to gay characters, and if I weren't so lazy I'd rattle off the ones I'm familiar with. But what I'm seeing here on the one hand is a sudden explosion of people focusing on whether or not the character is gay, kinda hyping and exploiting it, and thats what I object to, the opportunism of it all. It shouldn't be an issue, at least thats what we say.

On the other hand, as a person who accepts homosexuality, I found myself, and apparently many others, somehow discriminating in my perceptions of the concept. If I'm truly accepting of homosexuality, how can I perceive a homosexual act as different than a heterosexual act, and yet somehow I do. It's not "more wrong" in any way, it's just different somehow, and I can't explain it. If this subject makes anyone uncomfortable, thats because it's supposed to, heh.

All in all, I do hope I haven't offended anyone, and hope it's clear that this topic was intended as a challenge, to myself and everyone else, on what seemed to be a conflict between diversity and reality. That maybe we should stop patting ourselves on the back and realize we still have a long way to go before we can truly say we are a diverse and tolerant society.