I wouldn't argue that this story fell into that trap, though it did skirt the edges. It's just important not to have gay people portrayed as evil or as virtuous, but to have them as characters first and foremost. Otherwise, you're still labeling them; if stories about gay people are only about BEING gay, then they're not really full characters. Stories about straight characters don't revolve around BEING straight, even if they're romance stories. Straight romances are about the object of affection and the obstacles in the way of uniting with them.
Basically, having "gay" as the only and defining character trait someone has can be just as restricting as never using gay people at all. Their sexuality should only come into it if the story (as this one is) revolves around romance in some way.
...snip...
(There are much, much better examples out there; this is just the only one I can be fairly sure other people have heard of. Though honestly, "The Petrified Girl" over in Podcastle was also a pretty good story that had gay characters without being about their gayness.)
Oh, I definitely concur Scattercat! But that's not what I was addressing; not exactly at any rate. Please feel free to point out if you think I'm splitting hairs, here, but I feel that what WillMoo was originally saying was impossible:
Why do stories with gay stories with gay characters only have plot lines that revolve around their gayness? Isn't it a bit of soft bigotry to assume that the characters are so one dimensional that that is the only issue going on in their lives?
To be gay is to have that trait influence every point in your life in the same way that being straight influences every point in your life at least insofar as in our current society it does. Since that is where the reader exists, that is a reality of the audience in my mind and an immutable fact at that.
This said, the plot lines will always revolve around how that character interacts with their environment. That environment will always be touched by the elements that the author brings in to their character. If the element is different from the default standard in such a way as to merit mentioning in a significant way, it really has to be a part of the plot. By definition, then, I feel that it is impossible -unless telling a tale in a completely gay-accepting society to an audience of gay-accepting people for whom this is the norm- to simply drop in a gay character and have it accepted that their actions and persona is to be taken for granted as a character trait that needs no further exploration in terms of the plot.
Now, to undercut what I've just written, I will admit that there are plenty of stories that have characters with laundry lists of traits that never are given exploration within the confines of a story. Horror stories spring to mind for this, although they are hardly unique in this manner. Having just watched "the most dangerous night on television" last night, though, this is easy to recall.
"Economy of character" doesn't always demand such rigor as I describe, above. Sometimes a trait is merely there to give the illusion of depth that the author doesn't have time (or word-space) to devote to give the story fuller impact or realism. I concede this.
What I will state to the contrary (and please don't think I'm laying out a straw man with the above, it was not my intent although I can see how it could appear to be so) is that if you have a main character, all of that character's traits should be relevant in some way -major or minor- to the plot, character interactions, character development, dialogue, internal dialogue, or actions taken during the progress of the story. In short, if you have a gay main character, there is no way for that "gayness" not have the story revolve around it or be touched by it in some fashion.
I would say this is generally a meaningful fashion, given how much sexual orientation impacts everyone's daily life in terms of:
- Who they are attracted to,
- Who they talk about when they mention, casually, who they like,
- Past significant others,
- The use of pronouns when talking about attractions,
- Children and spouses,
- Sex,
- Emotions,
- Interactions with society, the law, religion, friends, family, etc...
But, anyway, I think I've rambled enough in this post.
I hope I've not been seen as uncivil, Scattercat. I know how these long posts can carry a lack of emotion (or even negative emotion) in text-on-screen while my intent has been to be friendly and conversational.
I definitely look forward to your reply and that of anyone else wishing to participate on either side of this discussion!
Yours,
Sylvan (Dave)
