In response to the boyfriend being important to the story? If so, then yes I would say so, but that doesn't mean they need to be involved so much. Their effect can be felt in the writing without them being there every step of the journey. It's more about how your first person character reacts in the story than the boyfriend's involvement. For a random example, your character could pass by a florists, and is reminded of the boyfriend by flowers he had received from there from him. He recalls a time that was nice for him because of it, and it makes him feel better when he was down in a funk. The boyfriend isn't there, but he has affected the character by past experience. So he is relevant, but doesn't need to be there going "Hey, remember when I got you flowers?". You can involve him in as many degrees in your story as you like, but it can work both minimally and maximally with his involvement in the story.
But it's meaningful to the character. Stories aren't only about plot. Who says it's just to be a token? Should every author research the average human and make every character match that average human in every regard, unless there's a good excuse for not doing so? ("He's BLOND?! Don't you know that natural blonds only make up two percent of the human race? You obviously threw in a token blond minority just to be a token!")
Are you serious? I mean, keeping aside that I'd totally read that because it sounds like a hilarious premise, are you seriously equating acknowledging the existence of lgb people - who we know totally exist on the Earth right now - with including something anachronistic and yet unknown to humanity in setting a purposefully 'real life' and grounded by definition in a certain timeframe?
The character doesn't exist. It can't be meaningful to the character unless you mean meaningful to the plot.
When you say "the story", do you mean just the plot? Because I'd say that marital status would certainly be important for characterization, and could very likely be important to atmosphere, setting, etc. So, sure, if a detail isn't important to any of the aspects of telling a good story, we should leave it out. But there's a lot more to a good story than just the plot, and I wonder if maybe you're over-focusing on that? Is there any reason to believe that's what's happening in this case? ETA: My posts weren't showing up properly, so I missed @ChickenFreak 's post 77. If I'd read it I could have just agreed, rather than recreating it in my own words.
So you're arguing for a plot-driven story. But many stories are not plot driven, they're character driven. And if this story is as it was described in the OP, it definitely seems character driven. And even if it were plot driven, part of the plot is apparently that the MC is being bullied - it's hard to believe being gay wouldn't come up in a situation like that, either because he's called cruel names by his bullies, or because he goes to his boyfriend for comfort, or because he feels like he can't go to his girlfriend for whatever reason, or...
I believe it makes as much sense to speak of plot vs. character as it does to speak of mind vs. body. They are the same thing, just looked at from different perspectives. Further, I believe that atmosphere, setting, etc. are just part of that same thing (after all, it is our context which enables us to express who we are in the way that we do it). I'm concerned because there isn't a reason for the gay character to be added. If there were such a reason, if the addition of the gay character is meaningful, then it obviously is not a token.
Why does diversity pushing matter unless it is a bad character? Sometimes I say to myself things like: "Hey, I don't have any red-haired characters in this idea. You know what? I should consider making this new one red-haired for diversity." And I don't feel guilty because diversity is interesting and it really exists. Why should we not then celebrate the harmless differences we have, make them special?
So your position is that every character should be straight as default, and there needs to be a reason for one of them to be gay? Do you realise how insulting and damaging that hetero-normative attitude is? Do you also believe every character should be white unless they need to be another race?
Well, I disagree with that approach, but assuming it's yours - it seems pretty clear that being gay would be part of the characterization, and would therefore according to your scheme be part of the plot, and would therefore be important to the plot. The gay character is the MAIN character! How are you seeing this as an addition? (Are we talking about different stories? Are you still referring to the OP?)
Absolutely not! My position is that sexual orientation (gay, straight, bi, furry, other) shouldn't be mentioned unless it is meaningful to the story. The flip side is that, if I want to specify a character's sexual orientation, then I look for ways to make that orientation meaningful to the story. That's part of giving the character depth. It will shape the character to a greater extent than just telling the reader what turns the character on. I believe a character's skin color shouldn't be mentioned unless it is meaningful to the story.
So I'm not allowed to describe a character appearancr or express their taste and habits unless it's "meaningful to the story." I think a character should express a lot of who they arwme, show their complexity. And sexuality is the kind of thing that usually is relevant or mentioned especially when there is a partner. Skin colour even more so. I would also like to add that character traits do not exist much if they don't exist in the story. Not showing mentioning or inplying it is like it disappearing.
You're allowed to do whatever you want. Its your story. I'm just stating what I want to see in stories. I'm allowed to dislike what I want to in stories. In my opinion, choosing to not make it meaningful is implicitly ignoring the social and psychological differences which do exist.
That's not what you said at all. You said a gay character shouldn't be "added", not that it shouldn't be mentioned that he's gay.
What I said is Tagging a character with a sexual orientation should be done only if doing so is meaningful to the story. How do you add a gay character unless you mention that they are gay (assuming you aren't going to resort to gay stereotypes)?
I don't "add" a gay character at all. Some of my characters are gay like some of them are blonde, some have brown eyes, some are sarcastic and some are generous. There's no reason to avoid mentioning any of those things.
Or demonstrating (showing) them. We might not say a character is sarcastic, but we'd show her making sarcastic comments. We might not say a character is gay, but we'd show him making out with his boyfriend. Whatever. It's all part of creating the fictional world.
A writer should give the character depth instead of just slapping labels on them. That depth will give meaning to everything the character does (and, consequently, be meaningful to the plot). If a character is tagged with a trait that isn't meaningful, then it is just a label. It doesn't provide character depth. Assigning labels isn't very good world building. Creating depth is.
And a character being gay can be very much part of that depth without directly affecting the plot, just like them being sarcastic is. Straight is not normal and gay is not other. They can be gay just because they are, not because it affects the plot.
I feel like there's kind of a strawman argument going on here. I don't think anyone is advocating "just slapping labels" on anyone. I don't think anyone's saying we should shoe-horn in minority characters just for the sake of it, without considering how the characters will impact on the plot. So - I think we all agree that gay characters are fine in fiction, should be used as the writer wishes, should, like all characters, be multi-dimensional, do things that are tied in to the plot, etc. Is anyone actually disagreeing with what anyone's saying in this thread, or just disagreeing with some strawman that isn't relevant to the current discussion?
