How should I write a convincing gay MC?

I belong to a minority population, and had lived in big cities. I have met people who are plain racist, but in general I have to say people here respect diversity. In a country where people speaks a different language every few kilometers if you go along the highway, respect and acceptance of diversities, I think, are the binding factor that keeps the country together.

And yes, I am an Indian

 

I think it is possible to write gay characters as normal people though - there is a diversity in personality and what a gay person likes and dislikes etc.

I have four in my first book none are alike:

Socrates: Is a little vain and elegant. He has been neglected and abused growing up, comes across as kind and capable. Has black moods and depression where he goes out of his mind (it's part of a fantasy story). He can be a little needy and clingy. Childish at times. Has a temper and can fight. Nifty with a bow and arrow. Can skin and cook a rabbit. Cares about what he wears having lived twenty-eight years of his life in uniform.

Nate: Part sparrow, wears a brightly coloured eye-patch (helps his sparrow eyes focus), not terribly concerned about his dress, likes plain and smart. Has a sense of humour, trouble sitting or staying still. Has been brought up by loving foster parents (his Mum kicked him out of the nest). He is head of the Secret Service. Became best friends with Socrates when they were seven.

Uncle Tom: Has been married twice and has four sons, and a stepdaughter. He is tall skinny, grey hair. Kindly uncle type, strict with his kids. Loyal to his twin brother the king. Has a sense of humour etc When not in uniform wears jeans and t-shirts.

The Abbot: Well um cherry-red hair, bright green eyes, a little rotund. Verbose and grandiose in speech. Is eight-hundred-years-old no idea how many previous partners he has had. Uncle Tom is the love of his life. They have in secret (not because they were gay but because Tom's father would have beheaded Tom for having a relationship with specfically The Abbot, and Tom's brother would have disapproved) raised five children, Tom's four sons and the Abbot's daughter. He comes across as fire and brimstone but can be affectionate. Is always in a robe or fighting suit. He has a son Shun who was brought up in foster care and he has an uneasy relationship with.

 

I'm not denying that researching a character is important. Oh, not at all! Didn't the author say that the character's gayness only just struck him, like a sort of after thought?

I don't know if there's a set experience for all black people in Philly. Do all black people from philly experience this? If they do, then just explaining the black experience of philly lets the reader know. However, if, as I presume, there's a variety of experiences to be had, this is difficult.

You say that the average black person in philly is unlikely to know how to swim well due to a lack of adequate locations to learn. I can accept this, presuming that the main character is specifically stated to be one of those people.

However, one would have to research, very specifically, the community in which the main character comes from, not the country. Each individual town can vary greatly in it's treatment of homosexual people. My own town was fairly passive about it, almost no one ever said anything at all. I encountered very little resistance in my own home and town. Outside, yes, inside no.

Would I have the same experiences, skill sets and reactions to things as a gay person who grew up in a hateful town? Absolutely not.

That alone is what I'm arguing, not just for gay characters, but for all characters. Any unique qualities they have can not be rationalized on the basis of them being gay or black or tall or thin alone. If they're a homosexual from a bible thumping town, that explains a lot, but not everything. Not every homosexual is going to react the same way, some will take it to heart and may kill themselves. Others might just wait it out and escape. Even others will just hide it.

As for the man who approaches fat women because he does not find thin women attractive. I'm not sure I understand the meaning here precisely. I read into this that he doesn't find thin women attractive, he finds fat women attractive. Thus, he seeks out heavier women because of this.

All I can tell you is that I have made the effort to try and find particular groups of people attractive before, and there was absolutely no result. I'm still unfortunately attracted to a very select portion of the population. Tall, thin men with broad shoulders and certain facial features.

Perhaps, because of my own inability to sway my attraction to people, I've come to view the world differently than you?

To me, that man approaches heavier women because he finds them attractive. He doesn't find them attractive because he DECIDED to approach them.

Anyway, to each his own I suppose? Character development is important to both of us, I think we can each see that.

We're even arguing the same thing in some ways, just going about it different. Yes, you can nuance your gay character with qualities imbued in him from his experience as a gay man, as you say. I maintain, however, that his experience as a gay man doesn't HAVE to have made him terribly different.

 

I agree completely. Gay or not, it's the person's life experience that makes them who they are.

The (fictional) town Heridon lives in has little to no problem with homosexuality. It's a fairly laid-back fishing community (it's at the Gulf). Heridon moved to this town from his home of Austin, Texas to study at the college there.

At any rate, off to write the bio of Heridon's BF.

Um..no offense, but as in any relationship, does one guy often take the "leading role" while the other looks up to him as the protector and guider or sumsuch?

 

I'm bumping this for emphasis. Desire is desire. 'Nuff said. Puzzling over the social dynamics of gay relationships is going to make the character shallow and uninteresting, just the same way you make can a date uninteresting by following the flowers, coffee dinner, movie, candy kiss formula. It's just not real.

 

Link -- why does it seem to fit that he's gay? I'm not sure if you've addressed that yet, and it's so important to think about.

 

Well, I think it's because Heridon has this desire to protect someone, to shelter them. Although he had a relatively peaceful childhood, there were events where he was in danger and no one was around to protect him. (For instance, he almost drowned once going white-water rapids when he was a highschooler and the people he was with acted like it was no big deal he almost died.)

So his boyfriend, Jeremy...Heridon sees him as almost vulnerable, where someone could take advantage of him and make trouble. Heridon wants to help him, protect him. Of course, Jeremy surprises him by revealing that he isn't completely vulnerable. While Heridon focuses his energy on sports and historical studies, Jeremy focuses his energy on things that Heridon isn't good at.

Jeremy believes in taking things a step at a time while Heridon focuses on the big picture, and this tends to overwhelm him. Jeremy takes it and breaks it into easy peices. Jeremy also helps keep Heridon on Planet Earth when the latter is careening out into "DISASTER! RED ZONE! BAD!" land.

It just feels fitting to have them two together.

 

I get where you are coming from Link - my characters weren't created gay - they just were.

Socrates was outed by a very upset Paul Jackson (he later became Nate) and it allowed me to resurrect him it just worked. There was no doubt about who his partner was.

I was more surprised than anyone when The Abbot kissed Uncle Tom - they kept it well hidden until that point.

Joe Cream and Tim Black (I so would not have named him Cream if I had known he was gay lol) but they work together.

Still don't know if Allsopp and Bliss will or not.

My fairies were the only ones I knew were gay from the start.

 

Heridon and Jimmy (Heridon's nick-name for Jeremy) only started getting together a few months ago in my head. I had originally wanted to have Heridon crush on and later fall in love with one of the girls in his group, but it didn't fit.

Holly had known Heridon since they were middle-schoolers, so they're more like brothers/sisters.

Sandra hates football and she's only starting to realize Heridon's not the cliched football jock who's a dick to everyone. (She just met him, she and Holly having going to different schools during childhood.)

Kamiko is too rigid and strict, contrasting completely with Heridon's go-lucky, easy attitude toward life.

Pairing him with the two other boys:

Matt has a crush on Sandra, so no-go.

John is straight also, however he seems to be filled with anger and deep-seated angst that Heridon probably doesn't want to deal with. As far as he's concerned, John's problems are his problems alone. (the anger and angst having nothing to do with Heridon, btw. It's something else entirely that I have yet to decide on.)

 

Yes, if you're vacuous.

The philosopher Martin Heidegger talked a lot about the meaning of words. He proposed that when people first invented speech the words they used had direct an exact meaning, but as time went on words had less and less.

He used the example of the word "love" and stated that the first person who used the word felt and used the sound because they were one in the same thing. Now, a person can say, "I love my new shoes and I love my mother," in the same sentence and not sound insane. That's because the word has lost the intense feeling it once must have had.

Heidegger, in part, was talking about exploring the meaning of life for the individual and that the words people use have many meanings. So, one word "love" has many, many meanings and isn't about one thing. You can't assume that your definition of the word is the same for another and it could be the exact opposite of what you call love. The word contains many meanings, just like the word desire.

Humans aren't like animals who go into heat based on smelling some scent or because it's a certain time of the year. If you believe that, then you're dumbing down the human experience and, in my opinion, you've become part of the problem, and a censor.

 

From what you have said I agree it makes sense - Heridon comes across as gay. Question what makes sense about Jimmy being gay ?

If not maybe he has someone completely seperate from the group. From you short descriptions I'd be more likely to do something with John it may explain his anger and angst.

The gay men I have known over the years have experienced depression or anger and angst as teens - (I know it is a generalisation).

 

(Ok, I'm back from the dead. . But seriously now ...)

--Being sensitive and caring does not equate being gay
-- Two men (men in general) can have VERY intimate relationships (minus sexual attraction) without being gay.
-- For many people (including heteros) sexuality is part of one's master status that significantly defines them. James Bond would not be 'JAMES BOND' without his virile, womanizing ways. Until society as a whole begins to see gayness as a humdrum phenomenon, it will remain a big deal in a person's identity.
There was a time when one said they were black, a woman, or handicapped would engender wry coughs (I know it still happens; we've still some way to go), but gayness is a new 800 lbs gorilla in the room. It's a big deal, and anyone who says it's not is kidding themselves.
-- From the point above, was Heridon 'born' gay, or did he 'choose' to be?
-- When did he acknowledge to himself that he was?
-- Can he be an effeminate, ultra-sensitive / caring guy who isn't gay? (I know of such men).
--Is he / can he be bi? Any sexual attraction to women at all?

Some of these questions / issues may have been discussed already, but I'm putting them out there for revision.

I've looked at men and said "Oh, he's 'good looking' " (subjective, of course), but I'm not gay --or bi.
I think it'd be interesting if everyone (other characters and readers) thought Heridon was gay, but he wasn't. His mannerisms could be 'gayish' (whatever that means) and he could have very close gay pals e.g Jeremy / Jimmy. He could be a champion of 'gay pride' and not be gay himself.
Many who fought for the abolition of slavery and for racial equality were not in bondage or 'colored' (whatever that means).

Just some food for thought.




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be good, wise and strong --or don't be at all

 

-- Can he be an effeminate, ultra-sensitive / caring guy who isn't gay? (I know of such men).

Kinda. He's really caring to the point of being protective.

Oh dear. Yeah, I REALLY have no buisness writing about gay people if I'm this confused. I agree with Cogito 100%. If I have absolutely no idea, I have no buisness in writing it without proper research.

However, I'm happy with learning about it, so keep on posting!

 

Just my opinion here, Link, but I don't buy it. The whole "little brother" thing -- that's some kind of neurosis or character quirk and doesn't account for what makes his sexuality an issue to begin with. Think about it: if you viewed a girl as your little sister and were attracted to her, that would be a little bit weird. Not to say that kind of situation can't exist, but thinking about it that way might cause you to reassess things. There's got to be some fundamental spark of attraction. If you really want to go this direction, I'd say you have to go deeper. Otherwise, I'd go along with Cogito and Bay. K's suggestions.

 

When did he realize he was gay and how did he handle it? What was the attitude of the people around him concerning homosexuality? How did he come out and what was the reaction? Those might be important factors in how he relates to his own sexuality and how open he is about it.

 

Oh man -- I know the signs of a pointless argument, and when someone relabels my opinion (vacuous?) and quotes Heidegger off the top, those are red flags. I don't think it's really productive to hijack this thread from Link for a philosophical discussion.

I should run away, fast -- but there's one point I want to make in response here that relates back to the original question. I think there's something ugly about pathologizing human emotions, desires or sexuality. Sure, social context and environment are a part of our experience as humans, but there's nothing reductive about positing the existence of human nature. The blank slate fallacy seems to be the direction you're taking things, and if so, we are not going to get along. I'd suggest that there's greater dignity in being an animal than you you seem to think. It's demeaning to suggest that a person's sexuality is "learned" because that implies it could be unlearned. Sexuality might not mean the same thing to everyone, but it comes from a primal place, and it's something we can all access.

If you'd like to debate this I'd suggest we do it in another thread?

 

If you get into arguments like this all the time then you are having one unique life!

 

Let's just say I've been on a lot of internet forums.

 

Ok guys, let's all be civil.

Do we really need re-edification on the nature / nurture discuss again?
It takes BOTH to create ANY human experience.

Humans have the 'natural' (biological) capacity for attraction, desire, sexuality and love.
But, it is through 'learning' and 'experience' that we demonstrate / exhibit these traits.

It's fascinating how my African pals adore 'big' women, but many of my American / European ones are repulsed by them.
But check the twist, I have a white South-African associate who loves chubby --and dark-- ladies. Go figure!
Last year, I read of a guy somewhere in Europe who was caught (and arrested) making ... 'love' to a bicycle. He had the 'natural' urge, but 'learned' to express it ... differently from (I'm guessing) the rest of us.

Humans are 'animals', with urges and impulses. But, unlike other animals, we have 'learned' to control and direct them. (Hopefully, most of us have. ).




---------------------------------------------------------------
Be good, wise and strong --or don't be at all

 

There's certainly an interesting discussion to be had in this, but I'll agree with your point about being civil. Especially since this is a thread about character development. No one's callin' no one vacuous here, m'kay?

The whole nature/nurture debate is so blasé at this point that no one even casts it in those terms. Science is the trump card, and everyone knows it. Anyway, I think for purposes of this thread all of that is way off track.

 

Apologies if I missed anything -- there was a lot to read. I found some specific points to respond to that I don't think have been fully addressed yet, so let's start there.

Maybe not in those words, no, but a person doesn't make a conscious decision of who they like, nor can they intentionally influence it to a huge degree. And society can't easily condition someone to like someone they have absolutely no natural attraction to, be that skinny people or the opposite sex. Believe me, I've tried to be attracted to women, and other people have tried to make me attracted to women. Just doesn't work. If it didn't have a very strong element of something hardwired into the brain, I'd at least be bisexual now.

This has to do with where he grew up, not that he's black. You need to be very careful, because you didn't say, but implied (probably unintentionally) that the reason they couldn't swim was because they were black. A white person growing up in the same environment would have the same disadvantages. And a black man who went to yale and had a yacht could certainly swim out to a yacht and reasonably take control of it. That doesn't make the former any less white or the latter any less black. The same applies to steriotypes of sexual preference.

Instead of thinking of it in terms of "does X happen in a gay relationship" think of it in terms of "does X happen in a relationship". There aren't really any major things that would be different besides practical considerations from both people having the same bits.

That's a good reason for them to be together, maybe, but it's not a good reason in and of itself that Heridon has to be gay. The dynamic would work very well in a Platonic relationship as well. That said, you're going to have a hard time coming up with a reason for him to be gay. If you ask me why I'm gay, I have no way to answer that besides, "I just am". The same should be true of your characters: they just are. There's no need for justifications or apologies beyond that.

Only if they think of it specifically in terms of a Platonic fraternal relationship. If they're just good friends, and Heridon happens to be rather protective, I don't see any problem with that at all. It doesn't strike me as weird or unusual. It's not uncommon in any relationship of any orientation for one partner to be protective of and look out for the other. I tend to be that kind of person myself, but it doesn't at all mean that every guy I date (or any guy I date, for that matter) is like a little brother.


Now my own opinion:
As Frostcat said, dont' worry about writing the character to be gay or not. Believe it or not, gay guys are just like everyone else. Being gay is just one part of our personalities. Figure out who your character is, what his likes and dislikes are, what habits he has, etc., and you will have no trouble writing a believable character. And if some of those traits happen to fit one stereotype or another of gay guys, well, that's fine too. We don't all act completely "straight" (I fit several gay stereotypes, not because I like guys, that's just incidental).

 

Agreed mostly. I don't see any "problem" with it. That wasn't what I was trying to say at all. And perhaps "neurotic" won't apply, but at the very least, "quirky" will. Protectiveness is a thing but it's not a cause for attraction -- would you agree? Have you ever been attracted to someone because you were protective of them? (Willing to entertain the notion that I'm wrong.)

I tend to think that the spark doesn't come from that place on its own. The "little brother" or "little sister" dynamic would definitely be weird to me, sexually speaking. Now that doesn't mean "wrong," necessarily -- but weird, definitely. Could happen, yes.

 

As long as you're not using "quirky" in a negative sense, I can't argue with that. And, no, I've never been attracted to someone because I was protective of them, but they do often come together (though certainly not exclusively, in either direction -- I can name at least a dozen counterexamples for each).

 

I just think you are over thinking it - their personality will have more to do with what kind of lovers they make than whether or not they are gay.

You are bloke so just write a male character than finds another bloke attractive.

I just write mine from the perspective that as a straightish woman I know what to do with a man when I get my hands on him. So I use that knowledge to write my gay characters.

 

Ah, a good nights sleep was exactly what I needed.

Certainly protectiveness is unlikely to be the default cause of attraction. Feelings can be confusing however! I have a heterosexual friend who to have a relationship because he thought he was attracted to a girl. As it turned out, he was just very comfortable with her. The relationship went quite poorly after the first date when they both realized they didn't like each other, at all, in that way.

Arathald
That's what I was trying to get at, of course! Unfortunately I think I failed at it, debating is, perhaps, not my forte. It's the situations that make us who we are. Does being black or gay, or white for that matter, sometimes cause us to end up in different situations? Definitely. It's not because we're gay, black or white per se, though. It's because other people see us that way.

A gay person who was 'out' at a young age suffers different pressures than a gay person who comes out at a later age. A black person in philly suffers different pressures than a black person in some countryside town.

Allegro
I don't think anyone is suggesting that humans go into 'heat' on a perfectly timed basis. Though I will put forth that not all animals go into heat due to external sources. Some animals simply go into heat and then find a mate.

I assume that you're saying that Heidegger states that we only gave words one meaning, at first. So "Love" only meant the love between two romantically involved people. That or you're saying that there's a cosmic dictionary that we're straying from. I think that would be amusing and ironic!