We've had a few of these types of threads recently, but I'll be honest, this is the one that gets me. I don't have much trouble writing from the female perspective, roughly half the people I've met have been female and i'm the annoying type of guy that loves to ask questions. Ethnicity was never really much of an issue for me either, I grew up in a pretty diverse area. LGBTQ though? I mean there were a few people at my school who were openly gay... I knew one girl personally and loved talking with her, but that was more the exception than the rule. I think the problem is that LGBTQ isn't like race or sex. If you have black skin or a vagina, I'm probably going to notice. it's not always like that with sexuality. Trying to understand a LGBTQ mindset is difficult because you only get to know those who are open about it, which I think has distorted my view. So to answer this post, no, I don't think I can write that type of character. Maybe some day though.
Can't say I've ever met someone who was genetically one sex but identified as another. My understanding of that type of character would be pretty lacking. I'd be more than capable of characterizing them as their preferred gender, but i'd be missing out on a bit of their personality.
That'd be a really tricky but interesting character to explore, but certainly would be very hard to understand without having had the experience, or close connections to someone that has.
@Simpson17866 Would it have changed the tone and message of Fahrenheit 451 if Montag was gay? I don't think so. It would affect the story on a negligible amount that it would get lost in the more important aspects of the story overall. Let people question and ponder about it. At least they will be thinking as opposed to being spoon fed things that are essentially inconsequential. The best part of reading is using the imagination to fill things in for ourselves, to wonder and enter the flights of fancy that others create. Just because some demand answers to such things, does not mean you have obligation to provide them. Let them think what they will, instead of providing them with your explanation about them.
It does certainly have some "interesting" effects on how people talk about orientation: When conservatives say "straight couples make love, gay couples fu screw," what they're basically saying is that everybody who is either heterosexual or bisexual is also heteroromantic, and that everybody who is homosexual is also aromantic. Besides creating the false impression that gay marriage is "less real" than straight marriage, this insistence that gayness is "about" sex in a way that straightness "isn't" also distracts from the reality that pedophiles are disproportionately likely to be straight (94% of pedophiles against 85% of general population). "Well, of course I can trust my 10-year-old daughter's safety to a man who's romantically interested in females, but why would I trust my 10-year-old son's safety a man who's sexually interested in males?" "Maybe because in reality, your son is actually safer around a random gay guy than your daughter is around a random straight guy?" "Oh, please, reality has a well known liberal bias!" "... What." The fact that the lie "gay is 'about' sex, straight isn't" is so popular means that I don't even like using the word "homosexual" unless I have time to go into the difference between sexuality and romanticism. When my family first tricked me into watching (and loving) Frozen, I liked that so many people were using Elsa as a gay icon and I liked reading fanfictions where she falls in love with a princess, but I personally liked to tell myself that she was aro/ace like me, and I was disappointed that I couldn't find many of the aroElsa stories that I'd been told existed. Don't care about that anymore. Every discussion about whether Frozen 2 will have a romantic story about Elsa has phrased the discussion in terms of Elsa's "sexuality," and that creates the false impression that her falling in love with another woman would be "more sexual" than Anna falling in love with a man. If I find a good fanfiction about aroElsa, then I'd love to read it, but I don't want them to do that in the official sequel anymore, I want them to Give Elsa A Girlfriend to show how stupid it is for so many people to be saying that it would be "sexual" in a way that Anna having a boyfriend isn't. You're right, there are plot-focused stories that can get away with a more bare-bones look at the character without delving into the specifics, and right now I'd agree (though I'd have to re-read the story to be sure ) that Fahrenheit 451 is probably one of them. But how many stories can you think of where the character was described outright as being straight in a story where s/he could just as easily have been gay? When a character's orientation is not mentioned, they're assumed to be straight, so "not mentioning orientation" is not actually "not taking a side" in the way that it looks like it is at first glance.
I think part of the problem is the word: Sexuality. Or even Sexual orientation. I think including the word sex makes the simple minded among us automatically ascribe that attitude. That's where the inclusion of such characters in a romantic, not sexual, story can help normalize perceptions. And considering it would be a romantic story, or a story with love, it makes 'orientation' in the medium relevant. In my story for example, she deeply loves two girls (at different times) but never has sex with them. Both of them she 'loves' superficially, as she doesn't really know them, but she longs for romance. For love. Not sex.
Has anyone else noticed a trend in media that features homosexual characters where morally ambiguous or outright detestable things are tied to queerness and the lgbt characters don't get happy endings? If you need an example of what I'm talking about, look at something like Gabriel Knight: The Beast Within. The author herself admitted that she made the main antagonist bisexual in keeping with the stereotype that bisexuals are hedonistic undiscriminating people who will have sex with anything, anywhere. And then there's the issue of her directly linking homosexuality with lycanthropy, whose victims are depicted as unapologetic murderers whose only consolation is to convince themselves that what they're doing is perfectly natural.
To quote S~A~W, "Yeah. Right." Gabriel Knight the video game? I guess being all over the map is par for the course. As far as using sexuality in the sort of fiction being discussed here...apparently...I doubt the readership will number to the amounts required to change social attitudes. I can't imagine what makes me say that.
No examples come to mind at the moment (I'm very tired) I'm sure but there've been equally disturbing allusions between lycanthropy and the AIDS epidemic. See also: tvtropes. Yeah, definitely a thing.
@Simpson17866 While reading Wired Kingdom by Rick Chesler, I have gone back and forth on whether the MC is straight or not. She seems to show little interest one way or another, so I just let it be and get on with the story. I may never get a definitive answer, and that is ok. It does not affect her abilities as an FBI agent working a case, but I get to imagine something outside of that. Think of it this way. Somebody saves your life. Do you really care if they identify as straight, gay, what have you? Of course not, because their actions saved your life. So why impose such things in a fictional construct so vehemently? You're defined by what you do, not what you are.
Jane Jensen's story was originally implemented in the classic FMV adventure game, however I'm more so referring to the novelization in which Jensen all but writes "THIS IS THE VILLAIN AND HE'S A BISEXUAL WEREWOLF AND HE WANTS TO MAKE GABRIEL A BISEXUAL WEREWOLF TOO BECAUSE HE'S EEEEEEEEVIIIIL but also kinda lonely and sympathetic i guess" in every scene where the main character and the main antagonist interact with each other.
I personally would go in the opposite direction – using the word "orientation" to emphasize that romantic orientation is as much "orientation" as sexual orientation is – but yeah, normalization is what's important. Especially given the fact that when people hear the word "heterosexual," they already think "heterosexual-heteroromantic non-predator," so clearly it is possible. If the story is about me and they only show up for one scene, then you're right, orientation probably wouldn't come up. If the story is about me, but that person becomes part of my life, then yes, orientation would probably come up because I try to bring up the fact that I'm an asexual aromantic virgin whenever possible (it normally isn't, but I'm always trying). If the story is about them... @taariya Yeah, that's disgusting, and to this day I'm still horrified that I almost did the same thing.
If your MC guy is at a bar, and he sees a guy at the bar...alone, then goes up to him, sits down and asks if he can buy him a drink...then says something like, "I haven't seen you in here before...." eventually this is going to obviate itself. It's a lot like saying "black politician" instead of "politician", or "female pilot" instead of "pilot". Let the story unfold and reveal. I'm telling you, if you provide unnecessary information (even if you do it cause you just like to do it) it will appear to be a pointless appendage, and inefficient writing which blunts the potential for power. And, publishers will certainly notice.
I'm struggling to see your point here, especially in light of your earlier posts in this thread. Is it the narrative coming outright and telling that a character is gay, black, female, etc. that you have a problem with, or is it them being such without a plot reason? Because the first one is understandable, although I'm also pretty sure everyone here knows not to tell in that manner already. It's understood in this discussion that showing it through action tends to be better. If it is the whole "plot reason" argument, though, that's nonsensical. There often aren't plot reasons for characters to be the white, male, or straight either. There may be no big plot reason for the mercenary to scratch at his bushy red beard, or the cop to steal a glance at another woman's buttocks, or so on and so forth, but they do make the characters and the world they inhabit seem more real. From your posts, it seems you're saying that weakens the writing and turns off publishers. My experience is just the opposite: publishers and readers like the little details, they like getting a better picture of the world and the characters. There are a fair number of authors out there who mention their characters' hair color, eye color, body type, skin color, sexual preferences, diet, wardrobe, or mannerisms, etc. without great plot relevance, but who are making more money than all of us combined are ever likely to. Make of that what you will.
We seem to once again be debating what I call the "generic by default" principle. I refer to the idea--and this is my understanding of it, but since I disagree with it I may not fully understand it--that if a detail doesn't have a specific, known, purpose, it should be excluded from the written story, and in fact the author doesn't even need to--in fact, perhaps absolutely shouldn't--know it. But people need details. I don't believe that readers start with a blank slate and then logically assemble the skeletal pieces of a situation that we hand them. I believe that they need more. They need context, background, texture, links to their own understanding and experience. Recently I was reading one of those "all A are Q..." etc., etc. syllogisms, and I was struggling to keep it in place in my head. When I changed it to "All bats are mammals..." etc., it processed with essentially no perceptible thought. One could argue that I didn't need that detail, that it cluttered the pristine purity of the syllogism and should hamper my ability to process it, but my experience was the opposite. So I think that readers need to latch on to details, to help them process. It may not matter whether the protagonist is a female twenty something barista who grew up in suburban St. Louis and is obsessed with Japanese comics, or a male middle-aged church janitor who was a medical doctor before he immigrated from Korea, and who is president of the local model railroad club. Maybe all the plot needed was an adult with both a job and a hobby. But the reader needs more. And that ignores the question of whether a writer always knows, or always should know, the reason for every detail, whether the plot is always built with step by step intent, with never ever a flight of fancy. I very much doubt that that is the universal way that all successful writers of fiction work. In fact, I think that what look like meaningless details very likely do have meaning. We don't plan and flowchart our dreams, but they often have meanings that take some time to tease out. And the mind that writes the dreams also writes the fiction. Now, it's nice when a detail also weaves in with the plot, making a rich complex tapestry of meaning, but I simply do not accept the idea that when a plot doesn't need a decision about a detail, it's better, it's a "should", to leave it forever undecided.
I thought we were getting away from this, but it feels like you're back to the strawman "everyone must always" argument. Of course we should let the story, and how we tell the story decide, and of course we shouldn't force things. Nobody is forcing anyone to make their characters queer.
Huh? How did you come to that conclusion? Of coarse not. The point is that some people here are stating you shouldn't tell a character's orientation. Others say you should. I say, it depends. It's not one way or the other. And it's not even that they're gay or not. I mean establishing orientation in whatever form.
The problem - if you're writing to publish and to be read instead of writing for yourself and never sharing with other people - being that when you don't establish the character's orientation, the character is assumed to be straight.
Everything's up to the reader, if we allow it to be. I mean, to take that to an extreme, we could just write: "action scene" and say that the details of the scene are up to the reader. But we don't do that, because we want to create a richer experience and present our own ideas in a compelling way. If we leave everything up to the reader, why do we bother writing at all?
But if characters violate gender stereotypes they're assumed gay. A female soldier or a male fashion designer for example. Did anyone at all assume Vasquez from Aliens was straight? Bahaha.
Wasn't she in a romantic relationship with that really pale guy with the buggy eyes? Did I imagine that?
Haven't seen itin awhile, but I remember her having no portrayed relationship. But I bet if you asked most people if she was straight or lesbian they'd say lesbian.