I think you've missed the point... Firstly, he's gay. That doesn't make him a paedophile. Secondly, why should it be out in the open? Do you go out of your way to make sure your heterosexual characters are obvious? Hitting on every character of the opposite gender? As far as I see it, fiction should mirror reality, and very few of the homosexual men I know are actually camp, or make it particularly obvious that they are gay. I mean, I know, because I'm good friends with them, but I'm sure they have endless acquaintences who don't know they are gay, simply because they don't make a big deal out of it. Why should they? Do heterosexual people go out of their way to let people know (well, the ones who aren't horribly insecure about their sexuality)?
Because, well, I agree that: and like I said But I kind of get what you're saying. Unlike gender or race, homosexuality can be Nobody Else's Business. You can examine a work and say it characterizes women or people of color badly, even that there aren't enough of such characters, but to say "There aren't enough gay people here" just sounds nosy, or "This gay character wasn't characterized well" well? fine line: at one end they're queening out, at the other they're written asexually but the creator can just say they're gay. But, in a world where they're forced to make it Nobody Else's Business at baseball-bat point, in some countries at rifle-point, then to declare a character as such but (because they're fictional characters) not have to make the readers face such a fact and deal with the characters as people-forms that include that facet -- I think it really falls short of any effective assertion of tolerance. It's not identity synthesis, when there's nothing of that facet shown to synthesize. I'm happy for your friends, that they can afford to be so secure with their orientation. Personally, I'm just breaking into the romance angle. Without a romantic dynamic, they're asexual to me. Why, does anybody assume the characters are by-default heterosexual if they're not homosexual I still maintain, if you keep something about a fictional character hidden, then it's not a part of them. That goes for heterosexuality, too. But I have read a lot of stories with a heterosexual romance angle that goes totally out of the way of the story, just to fill some quota: "Won-won!" much? And, aww, sweet that Sam's gonna marry Rosie. Um. Who's Rosie and why should we like her, again? She didn't journey with you and we never checked up on her back in Hobbiton... And, if we can change media, I can name too many TV shows that maintain a male and female can never ever just be friends. (What, would it call the more socially-accepted orientation presumption of these characters into question if they didn't get together? ) In principle, I like that showing a foundation of friendship is taking over from "first love at first sight, forever," but for the most part, from what I've seen, it's not any more smoothly executed. ... and, that's all just as bad as turning "homosexual" into a personality instead of a facet of a personality, as mentioned in the first post. That is a mirror of reality, too-- either showing how the one holding the pen sticks with stereotypes; or, the writer who consciously made a character who accepted their difference and has become overcompensatingly proud of it, even defined by it. But just personally I don't want to write like that. It's not the social comment I want to make with the story, it's not what I feel is a well-crafted character or story from me... to mirror reality, I feel, would infer the way the real world should be from exactly the way it already is-- and it isn't like it should be.
Without reading any posts other than the original one, I think it's highly individualistic, as with anything. I do get a feeling that a lot of the really "flamboyant" gay men act that way because it's expected and it helps them fit into a niche (the flamboyant niche), similar to how some kids dress like punks, bikers dress in leather and act all tough, etc. I once saw one of the really lispy, enthusiastic people from "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy" when he was "out of character" talking to somebody in an interview and he sounded pretty much normal, not at all the way he sounded on the TV show. I got this impression that he feels he has to "gay it up" for the TV show because if he acts too "straight," people won't take him seriously because what do straight guys know about fashion, right? (*sarcasm*) A few flamboyant gay people might just naturally be flamboyant in personality. There are straight people who are the same way and as a result, they're often pegged as being gay when they're not. (I have a character exactly like this in my stories.) Note that this issue applies to lesbian stereotypes, too--"She's butch! She must be a lesbian!" *rolling eyes* Also, the more flamboyant ones, there might only SEEM to be so many just because they're so, well, flamboyant. They stand out. Meanwhile people don't notice the majority of "regular" gay people who act just like regular people, living up to the "expectations" of their gender, because they don't make a point of being obvious about it. The squeaky wheel getting the grease. Most straight people would probably peg these people as straight because they don't know better. Please note I'm not deriding either or any group, I just think these might be some reasons why this stereotype exists. I believe I learned to write convincing gay characters when I stopped focusing on them being GAY and focused on them being individuals who just happen to fall in love with someone of the same gender. Once in a while one of them is flamboyant, because in real life, there are people like that (the reason stereotypes exist is because SOMEBODY perpetuates them). But most of them are just regular, the way I bet most gay people are. *shrug*
Just to chime in here, but Rowling did actually make some subtle hints to this. Spoiler If you paid really close attention to how he seemed to fawn over Grindelwald (the guy next door, in a sense), you'd see there was a kind of intellectually driven love/respect thing going on. Also, though this isn't a telltale sign if a person's gay or not, in the sixth book when he went to visit Tom Riddle, he was dressed in a "flamboyant" suit. It was originally attributed to him being a wizard and not knowing how muggles dress, but it could be (mis)attributed to him being gay.
Well to your first comment the whole Harry thing was just a joke. And I'm not saying it needs to be obvious. But not hinting at it at all or enough to make someone think that character might be gay -- I don't think there is even a point of making him gay, or saying that's the way you pictured him, because the reader isn't going to identify with it. I surely didn't - I never would have thought that. Just my two cents though but I'm no genius.
I prefer her subtle (but apparently not deliberate) hints with Remus/Sirius. Spoiler I got a stronger vibe with those two, but couldn't really pinpoint why. Of course, the fanbase being as crazy as we are, there must be a similar article out there with as much evidence for a Snape and Hagrid pairing-- or Harry and Hermione, which turned out to be equally canonical --but I think that list has a few good examples (and a few straw-clutchingly shaky examples,) of showing: Remus stares at Sirius for about a page and half in OotP, and takes on responsibilities usually left to the host and not the guest in Sirius' house. Sirius makes a deprecating remark about the Marauders (including himself) and then immediately excludes Remus from it. The cool Remus Lupin only loses composure when the situation has to do with Sirius, and the rebellious Sirius Black would sit down and shut up at a word only from Remus. Things like that. That's the kind of showing I'm talking about. I didn't need to squint between the lines, I already got the vibe even before reading that list. And neither of them needed to dress flamboyantly for added evidence.
I took the gay man test for the fun of it. My man is gay. He likes to read poetry, and he listens to classical. All the question were very stereotypical. I don't like that. Some guys like to read poetry and listen to soft classical music and they don't have to be gay. They can be just as much straight.
I really don't care if some one is gay, bi or otherwise. I have a friend who is Asexual, and I used to think I was the same. What you are does not make you who you are.
