quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: "BUT it is very cowardly of her to [announce Dumbledore's homosexuality after book 7 had already been released for a while]. "
Pfft.
I agree that JKR behaved cowardly.
But most of us who think JKR to have been cowardly about the "gay" thing tended to have seen her as a coward already for not having *any* gay characters in the books.
I disagree with the idea that unless an author specifically addresses X topic, she is a coward.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Here's the thing, there are characters in the books who have or give off an underlying gay vibe, but why would the books identify those characters as Gay?
How does that fact come into play in the story at all? It doesn't.
Second, while JKR said Dumbledore was gay, that was a very brief condensed statement of the overall circumstance. It seems in his youth Dumbledore had an infatuation with Grindelwald, an infatuation that cost him dearly, but many youth have infatuations that they simply don't recognize as such, and that infatuation doesn't necessarily mean they are gay. Though, in Dumbledore's case, and based on JKR's statement, it seems in this case it does.
Further, JKR said that after that point, Dumbledore lead a mostly celibate academic life, and that seems consistent with my vision of Dumbledore.
Next, when we meet Dumbledore, he is well over 100 years old. When was the last time you discussed sex and sexuality with anyone over 100? My point is, that Dumbledore's previous sex life, whatever it may have been, is simply not relevant to this story. However, the implied infatuation with Grindelwald is, but it is only seen and understood from Harry's perspective, so I really don't see the sorted details coming out.
Saying Dumbledore was 'gay' is a very shorthand statement, and I have no doubt that there are a lot of subtle details that moderate that condensed statement.
Finally, what do we know about McGonagall's sex life? What do we know about Filch's sex life? What do we know about the intimate relationship and/or sex lives of any of the adult characters? Nothing? Why? Because it has nothing to do with the story.
We also don't see anyone brush their teeth or go to the bath room, or for that matter, take a shower or bath. It might be very indirectly hinted at once or twice in the entire series, but certainly in 7 years, people must have gone to the bathroom, taken a shower or bath, or brushed their teeth. So, why isn't that in the story? Why don't we get those 'all important' details? Why? Because those details aren't important. McGonagall's sex life doesn't matter, and it would be pointless and distracting to put it in there. Dumbledore's alleged sex life doesn't matter to Harry's story, so it serves no story purpose to put it in there, other than what we have been told in the books.
This is a piece of information that came about because a reader specifically asked if Dumbledore had every been in love. This was asked in the context of a book signing in which about 1,000 people participated. With 1,000 books to sign and 1,000 questions to answer, the best you can hope for, as I have pointed out, is an extremely condensed version of events. So, JKR gave the short version in answer to the question. But I suspect, if this was Dumbledore's story, and not Harry's, there would be a lot of subtle and complex aspects to that brief statement 'Dumbledore's gay' that would lend a lot more detailed context and understanding to it.
I don't think this was never something JKR intended to volunteer. She was asked a question, and she answered it. Simple as that.
Dumbledore's sexual history or personal feelings, are no more relevant than any other characters sexual history or personal inclinations. Further, this is not a book about anyone sexual feeling or personal inclinations, so why would we expect this information on any character much less specifically Dumbledore?
It is a nice little backstory bit of information and insight into a character, but it really has nothing to do with the story at hand.
I don't understand why people are making such a big deal out of this.
Steve/bluewizard
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I am writing a novel in which there are no gay characters.
If that makes me a coward, then I suppose I'll have to live with it.
Seriously, though, including gay characters in a book meant for young people is going to alienate certain parts of your readership. On the flip side, there will be some groups of people who applaud it and commend you for it and you may therefore GAIN some readers. Either way, you have to accept the consequences for choosing to do it or not.
My feeling is exactly like Steve's - if a character's sexuality is relevant to the story, then fine, include it. If it isn't relevant - then don't discuss it! There's no reason for it. I happen to think Tamora Pierce's inclusion of a lesbian relationship in her book for young people was a mistake - it didn't really add anything to the story, felt rather forced, and definitely turned off a large number of her readers. My daughter included, who will no longer read anything by Pierce simply because lesbian love stories are not her preferred form of entertainment.
As for whether Rowling is a coward for including/not including his sexuality in the book or coming out with it afterwards - I have no real opinion. She can say whatever she wants about her characters. It doesn't necessarily affect how I read those characters myself when I read the book. I'm not saying I complete discount an author's vision, but at the same time I don't consider myself ruled by it when I read their work and interpret it for myself.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:My daughter included, who will no longer read anything by Pierce simply because lesbian love stories are not her preferred form of entertainment.
There are lots of things included in a book that aren't my preferred form of entertainment. Does your daughter really only read things that consist entirely of her preferred forms of entertainment?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Does your daughter really only read things that consist entirely of her preferred forms of entertainment?
Umm...since she's reading for fun, then yes, she's going to read primarily that stuff that she likes. When a major part of the book hinges on a lesbian love affair, and she is a heterosexual young female who has no interest in reading about two women's sex life (not that it was terribly explicit, but it was explicit enough) then why read it, when there are lots of other options out there?
There are certain things that are deal-breakers for me with authors. Regardless of how good the story is, it it includes violent scenes of torture, I'm not going to read it, or I'll stop reading it when I get to that point.
For some people, descriptions of sex that bothers them is a deal breaker. I don't think that's a bad thing - there are lots of other authors out there for her to read, and she doesn't seem to be suffering any great mental anguish from no longer reading Tamora Pierce's books.
You mean there aren't certain things that you just don't want to read about, and if you encounter them you aren't turned off by it? I guess I should applaud you for being so open-minded. Myself, since reading is entertainment for me (excepting the reading I do for school), I only want to read those things that I enjoy. I have too little time for recreational reading to waste it on things I don't want to read about.
My daughter feels the same way. She doesn't want to read about two girls falling in love. She shouldn't have to. No one is forcing her to, so she votes with her wallet (or mine ) and chooses not to buy books by that author. That's the way the system works, and that's all I wanted to point out. There are some people who love Pierce's stories, and buy them because they contain homosexual relationships, or just don't care either way about the character's sex life. Good for them, good for Pierce - I'm not saying the author did anything wrong - she wrote the story she intended to write. But neither does my daughter do anything wrong when she chooses not to read it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:When a major part of the book hinges on a lesbian love affair, and she is a heterosexual young female who has no interest in reading about two women's sex life (not that it was terribly explicit, but it was explicit enough) then why read it, when there are lots of other options out there.
Ah. That's different, to my mind, than simply not preferring a form of entertainment; it's actively disliking that type of entertainment. I don't prefer to read descriptions of green hills, but I won't avoid a book simply because it includes hilly passages. I dislike books about cancer victims, though, and thus avoid them.
It's not that your daughter doesn't prefer it; it's that she actively dislikes it.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
If it isn't my preferred form of entertainment, then I don't have time to do it. I am trying to get a phd, so full time research plus in theory working on thesis and I have a young daughter and my husband works part time, school full time and we can't afford daycare and live away from family. So, I would not choose to read anything that wasn't a first tier entertainment at this point in my life. Which mean no lesbian love affairs, no dead babies, pretty much no real life.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Which mean no lesbian love affairs, no dead babies, pretty much no real life.
That's me too. I'm not big on books that hinge on love affairs, period. I'm not any more bothered by homosexual sex scenes than I am sex scenes in general - I pretty much don't find any explicit sex to be my favorite parts of books. I usually read sci-fi and fantasy to escape and not think about my real life for a while, and I don't want to read about babies dying either. Or any type of torture or really gory violence.
My daughter is on the same page with me on all that - she can't stand explicit violence either. Of course, she is a typical teenager and loves reading romances (she's a big Twilight fan, which I can't say I am), but while she likes romance, she doesn't like homosexual romance.
And I should note this is her choice - I didn't say she could no longer read them, she herself came to me, told me about the book, and said she didn't care for it and didn't want any more of them. I had bought one of the books in the series for her birthday. We haven't bought any others because we don't know if the story line continues in it and why waste money on a book if you don't think you'll like it? There are tons of other authors out there, after all.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I have every Tamara Pierce book ever published (I think) and I really had to search my memory to figure out what on earth your daughter could have been refering to. Then I finally remembered that there is a lesbian relationship, but it's in a book that is a sort of sequel to two series, not part of a series on its own. (And to say that a "major part of the book hinges on" it would be a stretch.) As far as I know there is no book that comes after it, so if your daughter liked the writing otherwise, she could certainly read any of Pierce's other work without worrying about it.
Although the book that I'm thinking of does reveal that two of the adult women in the earlier books are also in love, much like the Dumbledore situtation you would not know that from reading the books in question, since the sexuality of the teachers is never mentioned. But I suppose if you'd already read the later book you might read the earlier ones differently.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
I'm still trying to scrub my mind clean of the imagery suggested by the words "McGonagall," "Filch," and "sex" in the same line.
[ /pointless aside]
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
Yeah, I was in the same boat as DKW, thinking to myself, "I know I've read all of Tamora Pierce's books more than one, and I really can't think which one Belle could be referring to." Then I remembered Daja in Will of the Empress, which is the last book in the series. (Though to my mind, it was kind of a disappointing read because of the endless bickering between the characters.)
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Why do you think Filch calls his cat Mrs.....
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: "BUT it is very cowardly of her to [announce Dumbledore's homosexuality after book 7 had already been released for a while]. "
Pfft.
I agree that JKR behaved cowardly.
But most of us who think JKR to have been cowardly about the "gay" thing tended to have seen her as a coward already for not having *any* gay characters in the books.
I disagree with the idea that unless an author specifically addresses X topic, she is a coward.
I agree with you, Scott. Beyond that, I disagree with OSC's assertion that it was cowardly of Rowling to mention it afterward. I don't think bravery and cowardice enters into the picture at all. I have extensive notes on my characters. In the case of my current protagonist, I could tell you what size clothes he wears, when his birthday is, where hi grandparents live . . . all of which are things I have not thus far gotten around to using in the story, and which I have no expectation of mentioning in the story. I know some writers are far more seat-of-the-pants than I am, but I also know that quite a few writers like to develop the crap out of their characters as well, so they feel like they know them better than they need to, like they are just scratching the surface with their characterization.
In my case, it's something I take from my philosophy as a teacher: teach from the overflow. As a teacher, the knowledge I'm expected to impart should be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the knowledge I possess, so that I'm always ready to make connections, to answer unexpected questions, etc. I've adopted this same approach a writer: know more than I expect to need, so that when I find myself writing about a character, I don't need to reach for an easy cliche because I don't already have something planned.
So I can very easily imagine Rowling having decided long ago that Dumbledore happened to be gay, and having it never come up in all the books because, well, why would it? It seems very plausible to me.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
In my opinion, since whether or not Daja was going to return with her friends hinged on whether or not she stayed with this lesbian love interest, and the book was rather a lot about whether or not they were going to return, it's not a stretch to call it a major part of the book.
And yes, they did refer to other characters as being gay, which does affect how you read the other books.
But again, everyone will look at books differently. My daughter found it uncomfortable to read about and didn't like it. It's turned her off all Pierce books since. That's the risk the author takes when they introduce objectionable material into a series.
quote:So I can very easily imagine Rowling having decided long ago that Dumbledore happened to be gay, and having it never come up in all the books because, well, why would it? It seems very plausible to me.
I agree with you in that I find it plausible. And I agree that she made the right decision to leave it out, since his sexuality is never important to the story.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Belle, I would not call a portrayal of a homosexual relationship "objectionable material." It might be objectionable to some. I suspect I would find a lot of the religious things in your life highly objectionable, but I doubt you'd appreciate me calling it that without a qualifier.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I don't think it's cowardly to say it after the fact. It's neither brave, nor cowardly, it's just a thing. And it's worth saying in this particular setting, because Harry Potter is in many ways far more than just the books, it's sort of an entity unto itself and so these 'extra details' are of use and interest to the audience.
Belle: Tamora Pierce has always 'challenged' her readers. I remember someone somewhere commenting about Alanna's use of (magical) contraceptives and teenage sex. I read these books when I was perhaps eight or nine years old, but it wasn't anything I hadn't heard before from my mother, at least in vague terms. I do not believe that Pierce thinks she is being "brave", I believe she thinks she is accurately representing the various realities of young people in the world today- and she is.
I agree that some authors set out to be "brave" and others avoid certain topics out of fear. I think most simply write what they want to write about, and their world reflects what they're thinking about. Harry Potter does not deal specifically with the issue of homosexuality (or indeed, race), but it does deal extensively with the difficulty of being something different in a suspicious society- a werewolf, a half-giant, a hero, a suspected-convict, a muggle-born. It is concerned very much with personal identity. Much of fantasy- from The Faerie Queene, to The Lord of the Rings, to Harry Potter- examines the issues of our world in this way, through the lens of a different world.
In this way, JKR does take on difficult issues. It's up the reader to take what they learn in fantasy land and apply it to real life.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
What's really sad is that if any of the characters were openly gay, particularly any of the male teachers, the books would probably have been denounced and protested by an even larger number of people than already had a problem with the "witchcraft."
I'm not saying that she intentionally left sexuality out of the book for sales numbers, but lots of books and movies change their content to get a different rating or appeal to a different audience.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I think she did intentionally left sexuality out of the book for sales numbers....but I also don't see what it would have added to the story, at least for the most part.
She was able to tell a compelling story about young people that didn't include sex or sexual orientation.....and that is a problem how?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
To be absolutely fair, most children's books do not contain sexuality beyond what Rowling included. It's partially what makes it children's fiction.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I would call any overt sexuality in a young adult book objectionable material, regardless of the orientation.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Does your daughter really only read things that consist entirely of her preferred forms of entertainment?
To read OSC and some of his anti-"literature" lackies.. that's probably exactly right.
It's endlessly befuddling how OSC scoffs and turns his nose up at the pretensions of others without recognizing the terrible irony of his own pretensions. There's something so horribly rigid and stifling about a whole group of people who claim that everything outside their wheel-house is rigid and stifling. If you read, for instance, editorials from IGMS, you'll get a sense of the wonderful obtuseness and bullheadedness that OSC seems to foster among his colleagues.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I would call any overt sexuality in a young adult book objectionable material, regardless of the orientation.
So references to "shuddering in extacy" while "penetrating" the larval queen in Ender's Game is objectionable? Is that overtly sexual?
Or what about Bonzo calling Ender a "catamite?"
Good little boys and girls surely looked that word up when they read the book. I did- although I knew pretty much what it meant.
And let us please not forget the brave alteration of Ender's Game, to exclude the use of the word "nigger," (let's be grown ups), in later editions. Osc claimed that this decision was one he made independent of financial concerns (I believe he claimed this)... but it's rather convenient that this and other changes, despite being unnecessary from the standpoint of anyone who reads and understands the point of the offending passages (as OSC admits himself), ensure that Ender's Game remains on children's reading lists in school, church, and bookstores.
So who's a coward? And who has good reasons for making their own editorial choices? And who's a mind reader now, if Puppy is reading this thread?
I suppose if you go to a convention and ask Card if Ender would ever use the "N-word," he'd say yes. But wait... it's not in the book. How can this be?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: If you read, for instance, editorials from IGMS, you'll get a sense of the wonderful obtuseness and bullheadedness that OSC seems to foster among his colleagues.
Which editorials from the Intergalactic Medicine Show do you take umbrage with, Orincoro? Please link.
(I wonder if you're confusing IGMS with the Rhino Times?)
quote:There's something so horribly rigid and stifling about a whole group of people who claim that everything outside their wheel-house is rigid and stifling.
I'm not sure that I understand this comment. Can you explain what you're trying to get across?
quote:So references to "shuddering in extacy" while "penetrating" the larval queen in Ender's Game is objectionable? Is that overtly sexual?
Or what about Bonzo calling Ender a "catamite?"
EG has only recently been specifically targeted at young adults. I never considered it a YA book; it certainly wasn't published as a YA book, and it didn't win both the Hugo and Nebula awards as a YA book.
quote:And let us please not forget the brave alteration of Ender's Game, to exclude the use of the word "nigger," (let's be grown ups), in later editions. Osc claimed that this decision was one he made independent of financial concerns (I believe he claimed this)... but it's rather convenient that this and other changes, despite being unnecessary from the standpoint of anyone who reads and understands the point of the offending passages (as OSC admits himself), ensure that Ender's Game remains on children's reading lists in school, church, and bookstores.
Neither is it cowardice to remove a non-essential passage from a book that will impede that book's coverage. Alai and Ender's friendship is preserved even without that conversation; there is still Salaam.
What did that passage contain that you feel was so important to the story that removing it constitutes cowardice?
To be clear, I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing for here, Orincoro. Can you explain?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Belle, I would not call a portrayal of a homosexual relationship "objectionable material." It might be objectionable to some. I suspect I would find a lot of the religious things in your life highly objectionable, but I doubt you'd appreciate me calling it that without a qualifier.
By "objectionable" I mean something that people may object to. Which makes it an extremely broad term, I agree.
I also would call excessive violence, profanity, racial slurs, sexual content (including heterosexual content) and sexist language "objectionable."
Doesn't mean that everybody will object to it - but it means that a portion of the population will. I'm not using "objectionable" as a term to denounce homosexual relationships - and I must repeat I don't have a problem with Pierce writing about them, because there is an audience out there for them, obviously. My daughter just isn't in that audience.
I'd be fine with you calling religious content in a book objectionable, by the way, because it is - religious content by its very nature is going to be objectionable to people who do not share that faith.
quote:Belle: Tamora Pierce has always 'challenged' her readers. I remember someone somewhere commenting about Alanna's use of (magical) contraceptives and teenage sex. I read these books when I was perhaps eight or nine years old, but it wasn't anything I hadn't heard before from my mother, at least in vague terms. I do not believe that Pierce thinks she is being "brave", I believe she thinks she is accurately representing the various realities of young people in the world today- and she is.
She can challenge her readers all she wants to - and by the way, it was me who brought up that here, when I started a thread asking what people thought was appropriate in young adult lit. OSC posted in it, IIRC.
I had a slight issue with that in the book, but it didn't stop me from letting my daughter read it. She actually enjoyed the Trickster's series, and that was why I bought the Will of the Empress, for her birthday, which she returned to me and said she didn't like.
Once more, to be clear, I have no problem with Pierce putting such content in her books - certainly she can write what she wants. But, when an author does include objectionable material (as in the list I posted above, and including OSC use of the n-word), they must accept the consequences, which can mean an alienation of possible readers.
If you want to do that, then you as an author make that choice. OSC chose to change his book, and make it more widely available because he felt the racial slur added nothing tangible to the story. Personally, I applaud that move - I think it was not only a sound business move but showed sensitivity to a large portion of his reading audience who find that word highly offensive.
I think Pierce could have left the both the premarital sex out of the Trickster series, and the lesbian affair out of the Empress one and still had a fine story. That's not what she did, however, and for my daughter, the latter one was a deal-breaker for her. I don't mind that Pierce pushes the envelope with her readers, but you have to remember when you push people, there can come a point where you push too far. She reached that point with my daughter.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Belle, I just want to say that your posts show class and reasonableness.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:agreeing with Icarus:
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I find that objectionable.
Good post, Belle, although I do see the irony of OSC belittling Rowling for a similar choice in HP. I bet she felt it wouldn't add to the story, and might take something away.
Just like the N-word.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It galls me, but I must agree with ScottR.
(I still loathe him, though.)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: Which editorials from the Intergalactic Medicine Show do you take umbrage with, Orincoro? Please link.
(I wonder if you're confusing IGMS with the Rhino Times?)
quote: But I want them with a beginning, a middle, and an end. I want them filled with interesting people (if you're thinking of them as characters you're already two steps in the wrong direction; make them think and move and talk and act like people and then you'll have something). I want stories that make me feel something inside, so that when I'm done I'm glad I read them. And I don't care whose name is on them when they show up on my computer, all I care about is what's in the story.
If that's your approach to reading, too, you're in the right place. If not, well, I think the point needs no further explanation.
Now there is nothing inherently wrong with this... except it belies an anti-academic, anti-stylistic bias that in fact discourages a diverse and creative literary atmosphere- essentially making the cure exactly the same thing as the disease.
quote: quote:There's something so horribly rigid and stifling about a whole group of people who claim that everything outside their wheel-house is rigid and stifling.
I'm not sure that I understand this comment. Can you explain what you're trying to get across?
I refer to OSC and his ilk's agressive, passionate, often incoherent rantings against liberals, intellectuals, and "literary academic types." They assume first that there is an ounce of solidarity among the vast swatches of people mentioned, and second that these people are themselves guilty of all the wrongheaded, anti-creative, illogical machinations that OSC and others display in their tirades. Everything about OSC's politics screams from the deepest well of hypocrisy- I hate you for disagreeing with me, and I don't need you to agree with me, and you shouldn't judge me just as I sit and load a mountain of judgment upon you.
quote: Neither is it cowardice to remove a non-essential passage from a book that will impede that book's coverage. Alai and Ender's friendship is preserved even without that conversation; there is still Salaam.
What did that passage contain that you feel was so important to the story that removing it constitutes cowardice?
The circumstances of the boys' initial alliance are changed by the edit. The question is, do I feel the change is a substantive one, or merely a surface rearrangement of the same conflict that brought them together? I feel that the removal of Alai's racist comment about Shen, and Ender's reproach, and the subsequent changes do present a fundamental reordering of priorities. Where the first edition acknowledges conflict between the two, and a conscious acknowledgment and dismissal of their ethnic "baggage" in order to form an alliance, the removal of that material changes that relationship. The racial stuff was presented in a light so as to expose its absurdity and lack of weight between the two boys, and the situation showed both of them learning and teaching each other how to overcome the cultural images and stereotypes that would have crippled their interactions in the past- it gives us hope for people to reach a greater interpersonal understanding.
The edit, iirc, might as well not be there, it's merely a transition into the two boys working together- and for what? Mutual respect and understanding are the result of the race tension being diminished, and how and why should that be replaced with something more "acceptable?" The point of the scene was to show that the racism they were both playing at would have to be dismissed, and replaced with mutual respect. It was a symbol of their ability to reason and react beyond the constraints of their given backgrounds, and form deeper bonds. The edit assumes that relationship is pretty much already there, and requires no thought or effort- which defeats the point in my reading of it.
So finally, why is that cowardice? Because from his explanation of the change, I believe that OSC felt the same way, and I believe the edit was done for financial and political purposes, and I believe it was damaging to the text.
Edit: If he had truly believed that the edit made the text stronger, then why did he initially defend the passage in just the way I am doing? Why did he, even in his decision to change the passage, reserve the right to say that the change hadn't seemed necessary. Why, above all, does he have the right to change the book once it has been published. I understand he has the right to do what he wants with his book, but I believe that once something is published, it's out there, and it has a life of its own.
Han Shot First. Basically.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Belle, I just want to say that your posts show class and reasonableness.
Go to hell. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Who is being referred to in the phrase "OSC and his ilk?"
This raises so many questions for me.
Does OSC have an ilk?
What is an ilk?
Are ilk bigger or smaller than reindeer? Can ilk fly?
Where can I get my own ilk? And what do I feed them?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Now there is nothing inherently wrong with this... except it belies an anti-academic, anti-stylistic bias that in fact discourages a diverse and creative literary atmosphere- essentially making the cure exactly the same thing as the disease.
Hmm. Well, I won't disagree that Edmund Schubert (who wrote that editorial and who is the editor of the magazine) hasn't included much in the way of stylistic explorations in IGMS.
But I don't think that paragraph intends what you conclude from it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Bob: you probably don't realize it, but you already have an ilk. They're very sneaky.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Bob: you probably don't realize it, but you already have an ilk. They're very sneaky.
My ilk and I are greatly disturbed by this news.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Orincoro:
I think you're giving weight to a two-paragraph snippet that doesn't merit the kind of consideration you seem to be imposing upon it.
quote:If he had truly believed that the edit made the text stronger, then why did he initially defend the passage in just the way I am doing?
Has OSC maintained that the text is stronger because of the deletion of the n-word?
Or that it's merely more palatable to a wide audience?
quote: Why, above all, does he have the right to change the book once it has been published. I understand he has the right to do what he wants with his book, but I believe that once something is published, it's out there, and it has a life of its own.
Han Shot First. Basically.
Again-- I think you're giving weight to this that I don't think is merited.
Changing the story so that Han shot after Greedo changed Han's character. Omitting the n-word from Ender's Game changes...no one, really.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Now there is nothing inherently wrong with this... except it belies an anti-academic, anti-stylistic bias that in fact discourages a diverse and creative literary atmosphere- essentially making the cure exactly the same thing as the disease.
Hmm. Well, I won't disagree that Edmund Schubert (who wrote that editorial and who is the editor of the magazine) hasn't included much in the way of stylistic explorations in IGMS.
But I don't think that paragraph intends what you conclude from it.
I take the two together. You're right to say that that particular quote is not him sitting there waxing his anti-academic mustache, but it comes from the same small minded thinking.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:If he had truly believed that the edit made the text stronger, then why did he initially defend the passage in just the way I am doing?
Has OSC maintained that the text is stronger because of the deletion of the n-word?
Or that it's merely more palatable to a wide audience?
Iirc, he has said that it makes the text either "better" or "stronger" or something along those lines. In his defense of the change, though I cannot remember where it is published, (I think somewhere on this site) I believe he states that the use of foul language weakened the book more than it was worth for character development. I think it weakened one thing more than anything else, and that was the profit margin.
Maybe I'm getting entirely the wrong impression about the man, but it would be hard to believe he has the same qualms about artistic integrity than some writers. I site his "translation" of Romeo and Juliet, his latest novel, his long and fruitless attempts to make a Hollywood blockbuster out of a book, even though he has said there is little reason to do so, artistically, and to round it out, week after week of reviews about "everything" that are more often than not devoted to shopping and preferred methods of material consumption.
So yeah, the "Han Shot First" thing rings true to me because Card seems to be on a trajectory similar to that of Lucas- where the "vision" that was once about creating an epic masterpiece or a body of challenging work becomes about something quite different- an empire of merchandise and multi-platform marketing of the same material over and over again.
quote: Changing the story so that Han shot after Greedo changed Han's character. Omitting the n-word from Ender's Game changes...no one, really.
You say this as if it is inarguable. But I've pointed out why I think it's significant. The problem is that having both of us read and reread the book (probably in the original), neither of us is detached enough to say. OSC would be my least trusted observer of effect at this point, followed by big fans.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
"cowardly" was too strong an expression by me -- if I was writing it now I'd probably revise it to merely "timidly".
But my main point holds: that one could choose to perhaps bash JKR as a coward for the heteronormativity of the Harry Potter universe in the books - but that heteronormativity existed before her revelation about Dumbledore, it wasn't made by it.
quote:My feeling is exactly like Steve's - if a character's sexuality is relevant to the story, then fine, include it. If it isn't relevant - then don't discuss it! There's no reason for it.
This is a situation like Ged's skin-color in Earthsea. It's nice to say "we're casting him as white because we are color-blind and his race doesn't play a role in the story anyway", but in reality it's only white people who tend to have the luxury of color-blindness and the above sentence really translates to "we're casting him as white because we want all our protagonists to be white, unless there's a explicit need for them not to be".
Likewise you can say that a character's sexuality shouldn't be discussed unless it plays a role in the story -- but frankly I only ever see that attitude in regards to *homosexuality*, never to heterosexuality.
For example, I didn't see OSC (or anyone else) object to the outside-the-books revelation that Neville Longbottom eventually married Hannah Abbott, thus indicating that the two characters were straight. They were simply assumed to be: Heteronormativity.
Anyway just like Ged's non-white race, same deal with the homosexuality. All too well to say "not discuss sexuality unless it's needed", all too well to say "we're colorblind in our casting"... except reality shows that this attitude isn't real, it simply means "we want the Others to be either invisible or in the spotlight, never allowed in the crowd".
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: This is a situation like Ged's skin-color in Earthsea. It's nice to say "we're casting him as white because we are color-blind and his race doesn't play a role in the story anyway", but in reality it's only white people who tend to have the luxury of color-blindness and the above sentence really translates to "we're casting him as white because we want all our protagonists to be white, unless there's a explicit need for them not to be".
This is, if it is completely serious, deeply ignorant on your part. There is no one with the luxury of color-blindness, unless you mean "luxury" and "color-blindness" with a deep sense of irony, which you give no hint of.
Your "translation" is an oversimplification. The idea that you can infer that there is a stated and explicit "preference" as opposed to, say, a shared cultural image, ignores the complexity of cultural imagery. The fact is that there is a deep culture among most white people that a "god" persona is attached to the image of a white bearded man of their same features. This goes back to before Christianity, and before the modern (flawed) concept of race.
This is the very reason why the casting of blacks such as Morgan Freeman as "God" in a mainstream American film is so effective. People are aware of the shared image, and the palatable alteration of that image is interesting to them, and artistic.
If we did everything according to what we somehow knew we "preferred" then we would probably never do anything interesting. So it's quite right to point out that people should think about the images, but assigning this motivation to it is wrong.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Aris, why wouldn't most of the characters be straight? The numbers that come up in these threads are that 1-3% of the population is exclusively gay and up to 10% have tried it at some time.
After that, it's just simple math. How many characters are there? How much is one percent? You need to have a hundred characters before someone statistically "has" to be gay.
Personally, I don't feel fiction necessarily needs to be represnetative. Usually, the author is telling a particular story or making a point. If they don't really have anything to say about what it means or feels like to be gay in a straight world, why bother? My attitude would be either address it in a way that it means something or don't bother. Otherwise you're just pandering.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Now there is nothing inherently wrong with this... except it belies an anti-academic, anti-stylistic bias that in fact discourages a diverse and creative literary atmosphere- essentially making the cure exactly the same thing as the disease.
Hmm. Well, I won't disagree that Edmund Schubert (who wrote that editorial and who is the editor of the magazine) hasn't included much in the way of stylistic explorations in IGMS.
But I don't think that paragraph intends what you conclude from it.
I take the two together. You're right to say that that particular quote is not him sitting there waxing his anti-academic mustache, but it comes from the same small minded thinking.
You know, when someone criticizes OSC for rabid anti-academic polemic, I can kind of understand where they're coming from.
But criticizing Edmund Schubert as being engaged "small-minded thinking" for saying:
quote: But I want them with a beginning, a middle, and an end. I want them filled with interesting people (if you're thinking of them as characters you're already two steps in the wrong direction; make them think and move and talk and act like people and then you'll have something). I want stories that make me feel something inside, so that when I'm done I'm glad I read them. And I don't care whose name is on them when they show up on my computer, all I care about is what's in the story.
If that's your approach to reading, too, you're in the right place. If not, well, I think the point needs no further explanation.
I don't understand how you get to "small minded thinking" from what Edmund wrote.
Now, granted-- I happen to like Edmund. We got a chance a year or so ago to sit down and talk at length about writing, writers, and IGMS. Maybe my personal feelings about the guy-- that he is keenly intelligent, generous, funny, and a pretty fine human being-- are coloring my perception of what that paragraph actually means.
Thus, I don't find your argument as nearly convincing, Orincoro. Specifically, you said that his attitude:
quote:discourages a diverse and creative literary atmosphere
How does requiring that a story have "a beginning, middle, and end" and characters who speak, think, and act in realistic ways discourage literary diversity?
And in what way does favoring these elements make one small-minded?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:How does requiring that a story have "a beginning, middle, and end" and characters who speak, think, and act in realistic ways discourage literary diversity?
Because quite a lot of modern literature is experimenting with the assumptive need for these things.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The fact that other markets are experimenting with it does not imply that because this market is NOT, it is necessarily discouraging that experimentation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think he's saying that because this specific individual is discouraging that experimentation, this specific individual is discouraging it in the portion of the market he "controls."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Well, if that's the case, then I guess that Orincoro is right.
But the argument then becomes useless, as most magazines have some sort of submission guideline. Are all of those editors ALSO discouraging literary diversity?
Shall we call them small-minded as well?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not going to defend Orincoro for being inconsistently elitist. That particular tendency of his annoys me. As far as I'm concerned, Schubert has every right to say "I want only the kinds of stories I like," and that's fine by me.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: For example, I didn't see OSC (or anyone else) object to the outside-the-books revelation that Neville Longbottom eventually married Hannah Abbott, thus indicating that the two characters were straight. They were simply assumed to be: Heteronormativity.
But I did object to Ron, Hermione and Harry's future career choices as revealed in later interviews And perhaps if I knew who Hannah Abbott was, I might object to this revelation as well. Of course, my issue with Dumbledore being gay is more tied with who his infatuation was with then him being gay.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: [QB] Aris, why wouldn't most of the characters be straight?
You're misunderstanding my point. The problem isn't with most of the characters being straight.
The problem is with people saying "ALL THE CHARACTER SHOULD BE STRAIGHT, UNLESS THERE'S A DAMN GOOD REASON THEY AREN'T".
People argued that if Dumbledore's sexuality wasn't significant enough to include in the book, then it wasn't significant enough to mention AT ALL.
But they only said that about the *gay* character. They never said about the characters that were *straight*. They never argued that Neville Longbottom's sexuality shouldn't have been revealed because it wasn't significant to the story. They didn't call Rowling a coward for revealing Hannah Abbott to be straight.
They did all those things for the gay character instead.
See the difference? See the point of asymmetry?
quote:If they don't really have anything to say about what it means or feels like to be gay in a straight world, why bother?
That's exactly what I mean about heteronormativity, and if you don't get the wrongness of the dilemma between "invisibility" and "pandering" then you never will.
What did it mean that Dean Thomas and Lee Jordan and Angelica Johnson and Kingley were black in a mostly white world?
I guess JKR shouldn't have included any black characters either. But I guess she's pandering.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: they only said that about the *gay* character. They never said about the characters that were *straight*. They never argued that Neville Longbottom's sexuality shouldn't have been revealed because it wasn't significant to the story. They didn't call Rowling a coward for revealing Hannah Abbott to be gay.
They did all those things for the gay character instead.
See the difference? See the point of asymmetry?
Do you retract the idea that Rowling was " a coward already for not having *any* gay characters in the books?"
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Do you retract the idea that Rowling was " a coward already for not having *any* gay characters in the books?"
I already said in a previous post that I had worded that too strongly, and that I ought have probably merely used "timid" instead.
But other than that, no I don't retract it. And I don't see how exactly the part you quote relates to this point. (I gather you see some point of inconsistency or hypocrisy, but can you explain your point more clearly, please? As it stands I don't get it.)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
No, I don't see any inconsistency or hypocrisy in that stance (even softened); I think you're flat out wrong for maintaining it.
If Rowling had NEVER mentioned that Dumbledore was gay, would you still consider her timid?
What if a book (any book) never addresses homosexuality? Is the author timid?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
You're right, Aris, I really don't understand. I know a couple people who are very quietly gay and one guy I still think only decided he was gay because he couldn't get women to sleep with him. That's my entire experience right there.
I personally would have absolutely no business trying to write about the gay experience. I assume that like most people's attributes, it does influence how they perceive the world in some way. A black character and a white character even from the same backgrounds are probably going to view the same situation differently because of different cultural views and expectations. I would think gay and straight characters would be the same.
I don't think the point should be "is there a reason for them to be gay". I think if the gay character is exactly like the straight character, then you're probably doing it wrong, in my completely uninformed and presumptive opinion.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The fact that other markets are experimenting with it does not imply that because this market is NOT, it is necessarily discouraging that experimentation.
The paragraph is actively discouraging it. At the very least, the paragraph intimates that such experimentation is not welcome in the magazine.
quote: I think he's saying that because this specific individual is discouraging that experimentation, this specific individual is discouraging it in the portion of the market he "controls."
Precisely.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm not going to defend Orincoro for being inconsistently elitist. That particular tendency of his annoys me. As far as I'm concerned, Schubert has every right to say "I want only the kinds of stories I like," and that's fine by me.
It would be fine by me as well if the name on the magazine was not that of a man who rails endlessly against the institutionalization of particular styles at the exclusion of others. Mainly his is a preference for the traditional, but he blindly promotes and supports the same kind of exclusive boys-only environment he derides in other media.
And ultimately, I'm not a believer in the idea that traditional media can maintain a static context- I believe that media survive changing contexts, and that adaptability is their primary source of growth and continued fascination. I recently presented on that idea in relation to string quartets in a research conference, so I've been thinking about it lately. What bothers me most about the idea of this statement, even though I believe IGMS is a good publication, is that it is reactionary- and reactionary thinking discourages innovation. Even IGMS needs innovative ways of telling stories, or else they may as well print random words.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think if the gay character is exactly like the straight character, then you're probably doing it wrong....
Out of interest, what do you think would be different about the gay and bisexual people here on Hatrack if they were only interested in the opposite gender?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
In our society, being gay makes having children much more difficult. Adoption can be very difficult and surrogacy prohibitively expensive. I would imagine that would affect your outlook on life.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Even IGMS needs innovative ways of telling stories, or else they may as well print random words.
Printing random words would
1) Explicitly defy the submission guidelines that Edmund outlined in his letter.
2) Be experimental! Fresh! Free from the constraints of plot, style, meaning, this liberating mish-mash would ultimately achieve literary significance for the sublime reason that it means nothing, and so means anything!
It's like e.e. cummings for prose, man!
quote:What bothers me most about the idea of this statement, even though I believe IGMS is a good publication, is that it is reactionary- and reactionary thinking discourages innovation.
I know what the word reactionary means, but I'm not sure how you're fitting it into this context. Can you clarify?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The paragraph is actively discouraging it. At the very least, the paragraph intimates that such experimentation is not welcome in the magazine.
Yes, and I'm grateful. I get far too much experimentation (== magical realism, at the moment) in Asimov's.
quote: I'm not a believer in the idea that traditional media can maintain a static context- I believe that media survive changing contexts, and that adaptability is their primary source of growth and continued fascination.
If you're experimenting with a style that allows a deeper understanding of the work you're involved in, great.
If you're experimenting with a style that is exclusionary, or deliberately codifies and makes your story difficult for the average reader to understand, not so great, IMO.
There is no harm in Edmund's statement. I'm happy to have a magazine that I can depend upon to provide stories with beginnings, middles, and ends, that treat on characters with real emotions and reactions.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
2) Be experimental! Fresh! Free from the constraints of plot, style, meaning, this liberating mish-mash would ultimately achieve literary significance for the sublime reason that it means nothing, and so means anything!
This would be a fairly good example of a statement that is reactionary. It depends upon a necessarily incomplete set of facts and an underdeveloped sense of what is being criticized. It then uses this set of poor assumptions as ammunition in an argument that accomplishes nothing. If you understood my aesthetic sense, you would know that I am not so much interested in sublimity, I am interested in intellectual beauty.
You're quite right though, to compare the "sublime" with the "lazy." Lazy people have been avoiding beauty throughout human history. What I mean to indicate is that I don't consider IGMS to be lazy, but only reactionary. I think they make the same assumptions about non-traditional narrative structure- that it is foolish, primitivist, improvisatory, that Theodore Adorno continually made. Just look at the way OSC describes himself writing a novel- and you'll get a sense that granularity and coloration, (forgive my electro-musical jargon) are not elements of composition he finds rewarding at all. He is allergic to the process of material refinement- I think that's part of the reason he seems to be ever forgetting the content of his own books.
There was a time when compositional control of the elements of expression, for instance, the explicit orchestrations of Gustav Mahler, that introduced countless contradictions to traditional performance methods, was considered a new and dangerous thing- that it might actually destroy our ability to enjoy music. There was a time when film treated a scene just as it would be treated in a theater. But today, we have the Coen brothers, with their finite attention to the lengths of shots, the idea of accents playing a role in a film where 20 years before, they would never have been used. We are starting to love Mahler even more than Beethoven.
People like OSC evidently still think that there exists a sacrosanct and perfect future, from which the modern world has only derailed us. You don't have to look very hard at OSC's poetry to get a sense that he's trying very hard to insulate himself from something.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: Out of interest, what do you think would be different about the gay and bisexual people here on Hatrack if they were only interested in the opposite gender?
I think orientation is about as meaningful as skin color. It's not the attribute in and of itself that makes people different, it's the way the culture acts towards the attribute. It's the layers of experience you build up filtered through that treatment.
You know how they say a black man and a white man watching the same news clip will see two different stories? I assume it to be like that. I don't see how orientation is possibly not going to effect the way a person is treated somewhere, some time. There's going to be social pressures I never tune into that remind them they're different, if nothing else.
I'm not saying a gay character needs to act flaming to be believable. I met several guys when I was writing poetry that you really couldn't tell until they mentioned a past boyfriend.
But just like a rich character isn't going to be exactly the same as a poor character or an atheist and a Christian, I think there would have to be subtle differences. There's an awful lot of life going on all the time. We have to tune into what we're going to notice. I think it would effect a person's mental filters if nothing else.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I never compared sublime and lazy. Who are you talking to?
In that bit you quoted, I was underlining the absurdity of this statement:
quote:Even IGMS needs innovative ways of telling stories, or else they may as well print random words.
The one doesn't necessarily follow the other.
quote:If you understood my aesthetic sense, you would know that I am not so much interested in sublimity, I am interested in intellectual beauty.
I *don't* understand your aesthetic sense. Maybe that's the point-- do you think you have explained yourself well?
Case in point:
quote: look at the way OSC describes himself writing a novel- and you'll get a sense that granularity and coloration, (forgive my electro-musical jargon) are not elements of composition he finds rewarding at all. He is allergic to the process of material refinement- I think that's part of the reason he seems to be ever forgetting the content of his own books.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
quote:You don't have to look very hard at OSC's poetry to get a sense that he's trying very hard to insulate himself from something.
Err... in terms of validity, I'm going to rank this statement right up there with "All poetry is about sex."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's like e.e. cummings for prose, man!
Just to stick up for cummings for a second: the man was anything but random. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I know-- I like cummings. But the popular conception of him is that he's more nonsensical than Seuss.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:If Rowling had NEVER mentioned that Dumbledore was gay, would you still consider her timid?
Yes.
quote:What if a book (any book) never addresses homosexuality? Is the author timid?
First there's a difference between "addresses" and "refers to".
Secondly, it depends on the books. Harry Potter is a series of seven book that over its course makes mention of dozens upon dozens of teenage and adult pairings. Over that course, the very concept of homosexuality makes itself visible only in a single mocking comment by Dudley ("who's Cedric, your boyfriend"?).
Perhaps wizarding society was homophobic - but in that case homosexuals would almost certainly be among the people persecuted by the Death eaters. Perhaps it was exceptionally open to homosexuality in which case you'd get to see more homosexual relationships in the background, as no big deal.
But as the books stands, homosexuality is instead mostly invisible: and I can only explain that by authorial timidity, not by the context of the books themselves.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The books are told almost exclusively from Harry's point of view. Why is it so hard to believe that Harry wouldn't have seen anything about it?
I had no knowing direct encounters with homosexuality before I went to college, other than to hear it referenced as a way to insult people.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If I understand you correctly, you are critical of the series because it shows no homosexual pairings.
Is that correct?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I have no idea what you're talking about.
That's true. Why not stop being such an ass about it?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I had no knowing direct encounters with homosexuality before I went to college
But then the beast was out of the cage?
Really though... didn't know any gay people in High school? Not even the guy everyone *knows* is gay but never really says he's gay, but turns out to be? I just find it hard to imagine. I went to a Catholic boys school and there were still gay guys, but of the aforementioned "unofficial" variety.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Orincoro, the personal insults do not belong in a literary discussion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Really though... didn't know any gay people in High school? Not even the guy everyone *knows* is gay but never really says he's gay, but turns out to be? I just find it hard to imagine.
I don't have to imagine it. And I know lots of other people for whom it's true as well.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It is true for me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It was certainly true for me. I didn't meet anyone that was openly gay until I was in my twenties. I didn't know anyone in high school that I would have pegged as gay but in the closet, but then, how would I know?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think it might have to do with age. 15 years ago there weren't gay-straight alliances in high schools and it really wasn't talked about. I graduated high school in 1990, and I certainly didn't know any openly (or noticably) gay students or teachers. I also suspect that it became more open in some parts of the country before others.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I have no idea what you're talking about.
That's true. Why not stop being such an ass about it?
Sorry-- I wasn't trying to be insulting, Orincoro.
Can you explain what you mean in the paragraph I quoted?
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Actually, considering the rather broad marketplace of ideas and the history of literary experimentation, I'd say that advocating for certain formal requirements is not reactionary anymore. It's one wing of one way of a renewal/revival of fiction.
Didn't the post-structural experiments with fiction already kill the poet, the novelist, the narrator, the protagonist, the page, the plot, the book?
Although there have been interesting refinements and chimeras published in the last two decades, I don't recall seeing anything that formally does something that hasn't been done before. Probably part of the reason that literary authors are raiding the genres for ideas.
It's still a post-punk world, Orincoro. Don't try to tell me there is such a thing as an avant garde form of written fiction. Cause I ain't buying it.
Film and animation is a different story. As is game design. And there was an initial burst of literary experimentation on the Web, but that didn't last too long.
Also: I find it odd that you are limiting innovation to formal concerns. Much of the best innovation that happens -- especially in speculative fiction -- happens on the level of concepts/ideas/world building/magic systems/characters etc.
All that said: I'm not too fond of the whole transparent writing style movement either.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:It was certainly true for me. I didn't meet anyone that was openly gay until I was in my twenties. I didn't know anyone in high school that I would have pegged as gay but in the closet, but then, how would I know?
Same here. I couldn't tell you anyone from high school who was gay - and that was in a fairly big high school in the late 90's. There were rumors of course, but I think most reasonable students wisely assumed the rumors to be false.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Actually, considering the rather broad marketplace of ideas and the history of literary experimentation, I'd say that advocating for certain formal requirements is not reactionary anymore. It's one wing of one way of a renewal/revival of fiction.
That's a decent point. I don't believe in there being an avant garde in the sense of the 20th century, because we aren't there anymore. Just like T.S. Eliot, were he suddenly resurrected with the same creative ideas tomorrow but a hundred years later, would just sound like a jerk.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It was certainly true for me. I didn't meet anyone that was openly gay until I was in my twenties. I didn't know anyone in high school that I would have pegged as gay but in the closet, but then, how would I know?
I didn't say openly gay, I said gay. It wasn't that hard for me to figure it out- I did grow up outside of San Francisco, which probably creates a lot of gay awareness among locals.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Same here. I couldn't tell you anyone from high school who was gay - and that was in a fairly big high school in the late 90's. There were rumors of course, but I think most reasonable students wisely assumed the rumors to be false.
Why would they assume the rumors were false, and why would that assumption be wise? In all honesty, all the guys from my High school who were rumored to be gay were gay. It's not the same kind of rumor it becomes when it involves celebrities or historical figures. It's also, from my perspective, not a stigma anyway, so I had no ill reason to believe this about anyone.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It wasn't that hard for me to figure it out
The problem is that there were quite a few people that "everyone knew" were gay who weren't. That covered probably half the "everyone knew" people. A zero percent success rate on a sample that large doesn't lead me to consider the method "everyone knows" as having any merit, at least in my school.
I have no doubt I knew people in high school who were gay. But none of the ones I know about were "known" to be gay. I also have no doubt that many people, possibly including you, have a better barometer for such things.
However, for such a situation to have made it into the Potter books, Harry would have had to speculate about someone's sexuality. And that would have made him very, very annoying to me and, likely, many other people.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Why would they assume the rumors were false, and why would that assumption be wise? In all honesty, all the guys from my High school who were rumored to be gay were gay.
The guys in my high school who were rumoured to be gay were so rumoured not because anybody had any real reason to think that they were homosexual, but because somebody wanted to be mean to them and they didn't have the social know-how or support to squelch that rumor.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:The guys in my high school who were rumoured to be gay were so rumoured not because anybody had any real reason to think that they were homosexual, but because somebody wanted to be mean to them and they didn't have the social know-how or support to squelch that rumor.
Same here. People were mocked for being gay even if they belonged in a to a certain group.
There was a group (please forgive the perjorative term about to be posted) known as "band fags" because they didn't play sports but were involved in music instead. Now, only a subset of the band was labeled this way, there were some guys who played in the band who had friends among the jocks and were never called this, but think of guys who played instruments, never dated cheerleaders and were quiet and made good grades - that's who got called names like that.
None of them, to my knowledge, were actually gay, since as a member of the band and a friend to most of them I got invited to their weddings.
I did not meet or get to know openly gay people until I began working and attending college when I was 18-19.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:The paragraph is actively discouraging it. At the very least, the paragraph intimates that such experimentation is not welcome in the magazine.
Yes, and I'm grateful. I get far too much experimentation (== magical realism, at the moment) in Asimov's.
I haven't been reading Asimov's lately, but this is interesting--I'm not really used to thinking of magical realism as being experimental. It's pretty well established in mainstream literature, and Pat Murphy was playing around with it in The City, Not Long After back in...what, 1989? I guess I can't think of a lot of other authors who have tried to make it work is SF, though.
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader:
quote: Out of interest, what do you think would be different about the gay and bisexual people here on Hatrack if they were only interested in the opposite gender?
I think orientation is about as meaningful as skin color. It's not the attribute in and of itself that makes people different, it's the way the culture acts towards the attribute. It's the layers of experience you build up filtered through that treatment.
Nicely said.
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I think it might have to do with age. 15 years ago there weren't gay-straight alliances in high schools and it really wasn't talked about. I graduated high school in 1990, and I certainly didn't know any openly (or noticably) gay students or teachers. I also suspect that it became more open in some parts of the country before others.
Yeah, I agree that age is probably a factor here. I graduated from a very large high school(also in 1990), and while there was one person a couple of grades behind me who was out, he was the only person in the school who was, and I think that he was the school's first openly gay student in at least 15 years (which means he was probably the first ever).
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I'm not really used to thinking of magical realism as being experimental.
It's new enough to the general science fiction fan community that most people only know it through Bruce Taylor.
It's new enough to sci-fi for Tim Powers and KD Wentworth to both comment negatively on it as a rising style in 2005. (The year I went to Writers of the Future)
:shrug:
It might not be a recent artform, but I'm pretty certain that the approval of it is recent. Even a couple years ago, there were no MR stories in Asimov's.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: However, for such a situation to have made it into the Potter books, Harry would have had to speculate about someone's sexuality. And that would have made him very, very annoying to me and, likely, many other people.
I agree on that point of course.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle:
quote:The guys in my high school who were rumoured to be gay were so rumoured not because anybody had any real reason to think that they were homosexual, but because somebody wanted to be mean to them and they didn't have the social know-how or support to squelch that rumor.
Same here. People were mocked for being gay even if they belonged in a to a certain group.
There was a group (please forgive the perjorative term about to be posted) known as "band fags" because they didn't play sports but were involved in music instead. Now, only a subset of the band was labeled this way, there were some guys who played in the band who had friends among the jocks and were never called this, but think of guys who played instruments, never dated cheerleaders and were quiet and made good grades - that's who got called names like that.
None of them, to my knowledge, were actually gay, since as a member of the band and a friend to most of them I got invited to their weddings.
I did not meet or get to know openly gay people until I began working and attending college when I was 18-19.
I can easily believe that you wouldn't meet openly gay people depending on where you lived. Growing up in SF, I did know gay adults who were in business or were friends with my parents.
But I think the "band fags" thing, which I also experienced being in chorus and theater, is not synonymous with the belief that a person is actually gay. In my experience, and again, it may be unique to a Catholic school very close to San Francisco, the flamboyantly gay guys, of which there were a handful, were left alone.
I didn't like my school for a lot of reasons, but I will say that in the midst of all the problems created by keeping 1,000 adolescent males on a small campus all day together, there was a tremendous amount of tolerance for the actual differences between people- as I recall, most of the fighting was surface stuff, never attached to anything with meaning.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I'm not really used to thinking of magical realism as being experimental.
It's new enough to the general science fiction fan community that most people only know it through Bruce Taylor.
It's new enough to sci-fi for Tim Powers and KD Wentworth to both comment negatively on it as a rising style in 2005. (The year I went to Writers of the Future)
:shrug:
It might not be a recent artform, but I'm pretty certain that the approval of it is recent. Even a couple years ago, there were no MR stories in Asimov's.
But in some ways didn't MR come out of the science fiction genera to begin with? Is there not an element of MR in Harlan Ellison, "I have no mouth, and I must scream?" Or what about Zelazny- "For a Breath I Tarry."
I guess I don't know the definition of MR people are working with today- I don't have much experience with it outside of Toni Morrison, and I find her books kind of indulgent and wallowy.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
We had, uh, three or four boys come out as gay (to their friends) in JUST my friend/close acquaintances group, which numbered about 30 or so. A couple more came out of the closet to no one's surprise right after they left for college.
'Course, like Ornicoro, my high school was in the Bay Area. But, then, every one of the people who came out as gay were 1st or 2nd generation immigrants - mostly Asian. And the immigrant community (or at least that immigrant community) isn't super friendly to homosexuality.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
You're also, like Orincoro, about 10 years younger than most of the people who said they didn't know anyone who was gay in High School. A lot has changed in the last 10 - 15 years about how open people are. If there were any homosexuals in my high school, I had (and still have) no clue who they are.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
There was one guy in my class who came out not too many years after we graduated, and, I think, one girl. I was surprised to find out, but not floored.
There were 32 people in my graduating class. I graduated in 1992, by the way. I don't know of anyone else in my small school who might have been gay. I don't know how they would have been treated if they'd come out during HS. We were like a small town.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am older than most of you and I went to HS with at least one (it was a long time ago, there were others I just can't think of their names) "out" homosexual. He was really struggling with the issue, though, which is probably why I remember him so clearly.
And I knew at least a handful of gay adults.
I was also involved in theatre and music which likely makes a difference.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: If I understand you correctly, you are critical of the series because it shows no homosexual pairings.
Is that correct?
Not necessarily pairings, but rather because (as I said outside a single comment by Dudley) it shows no reference to homosexuality at all -- and as many people stated rumours of homosexuality at least are dime a dozen in schools.
For example does anyone really think that the Slytherins wouldn't be making up rumours about Ron & Harry after Harry was assigned to save Ron from the lake in Goblet of Fire?
The absence of such at that place was downright unrealistic.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: If I understand you correctly, you are critical of the series because it shows no homosexual pairings.
Is that correct?
Not necessarily pairings, but rather because (as I said outside a single comment by Dudley) it shows no reference to homosexuality at all -- and as many people stated rumours of homosexuality at least are dime a dozen in schools.
For example does anyone really think that the Slytherins wouldn't be making up rumours about Ron & Harry after Harry was assigned to save Ron from the lake in Goblet of Fire?
The absence of such at that place was downright unrealistic.
In American schools, I would agree with you. But what about amongst the British (which is where this is taking place)? Isn't there some joke- he's not gay, he's British?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's actually less credible in Britain, as I understand it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Not necessarily pairings, but rather because (as I said outside a single comment by Dudley) it shows no reference to homosexuality at all -- and as many people stated rumours of homosexuality at least are dime a dozen in schools.
For example does anyone really think that the Slytherins wouldn't be making up rumours about Ron & Harry after Harry was assigned to save Ron from the lake in Goblet of Fire?
The absence of such at that place was downright unrealistic.
All right-- thank you. I definitely disagree with you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: If I understand you correctly, you are critical of the series because it shows no homosexual pairings.
Is that correct?
Not necessarily pairings, but rather because (as I said outside a single comment by Dudley) it shows no reference to homosexuality at all -- and as many people stated rumours of homosexuality at least are dime a dozen in schools.
For example does anyone really think that the Slytherins wouldn't be making up rumours about Ron & Harry after Harry was assigned to save Ron from the lake in Goblet of Fire?
The absence of such at that place was downright unrealistic.
...
I have three possible answers to this.
1. for charles schultz to never have had anyone call peppermint patty and marcie a couple of lesbos in the strip on occasion must have been similarly 'unrealistic.'
2. insert hardy boys reference here, etc etc
3. oh my god, unrealistic things in Harry Potter?
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
This has absolutely nothing to do with the thread, but everything to do with the thread title. I just finished reading The Kite Runner and I think it's a stunning literary treatment of cowardice and bravery.
That is all.
Posted by IcedFalcon (Member # 11593) on :
JKR seems to keep her business well. Has anyone thought she made the gay comment as a means to promote the franchise through a hot button issue that is taboo?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Or maybe she was just answering a question from the audience. At a forum designed to answer questions from the audience.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: It's pretty well established in mainstream literature, and Pat Murphy was playing around with it in The City, Not Long After back in...what, 1989? I guess I can't think of a lot of other authors who have tried to make it work is SF, though.
I think of MR as well-established in the fantasy literature; e.g., John Crowley (Little, Big, 1981, World Fantasy Award), Charles DeLint (just about everything he does), and some of Megan Lindholm (aka Robin Hobb). Neil Gaiman? I know there are others, but those are the first that come to mind.
I quite like urban fantasy/MR as a subgenre. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Or maybe she was just answering a question from the audience. At a forum designed to answer questions from the audience.
Now that's a stretch, don't you think? Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Or maybe she was just answering a question from the audience. At a forum designed to answer questions from the audience.
Whenever I see someone making a remarkable understatement which points out the actual non-issue-ality of a conflict like this, I always imagine the poster involved, in this case dkw, saying it immediately prior to whipping out a pipe and puffing it in a spruce manner, as if to visually exclaim, 'hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?'
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
dkw works a pipe well, 'tis true.
*nods
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: It's pretty well established in mainstream literature, and Pat Murphy was playing around with it in The City, Not Long After back in...what, 1989? I guess I can't think of a lot of other authors who have tried to make it work is SF, though.
I think of MR as well-established in the fantasy literature; e.g., John Crowley (Little, Big, 1981, World Fantasy Award), Charles DeLint (just about everything he does), and some of Megan Lindholm (aka Robin Hobb). Neil Gaiman? I know there are others, but those are the first that come to mind.
I quite like urban fantasy/MR as a subgenre.
Do you view urban fantasy as being exactly the same thing as magical realism, though? I don't, but I've been sitting here for the last five minutes trying to articulate why, and failing miserably.
To take Pat Murphy as an example, though, I'd say that The City Not Long After is clearly a post-apocalyptic magical realism novel, whereas Nadya: The Wolf Chronicles is just as clearly a fantasy novel that happens to be set in a meticulously researched and depicted frontier North America.
I want to say that whether something is MR or fantasy has everything to do the the degree to which the fantastical elements permeate the story. In TCNLA, while the MR elements do form key events in the novel, they aren't constantly there. In NtWC, though the societies depicted are breathtakingly realistic, the main character's a freaking werewolf. Instant fantasy, for me.
But DeLint...the fantastical elements certainly pervade his work, but at the same time it does feel to me as though there are MR elements to his work.
I'm feeling kind of stumped.
[ May 10, 2008, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'd say that the difference in the two-- Magical Realism and Contemporary Fantasy-- is the reaction to the strange. It's been my experience with the genres that in CF, characters who encounter the strange tend to react with wonder, terror, awe, etc.
In MR there is less of an emotional reaction. There is also minimized explanation of the strange. For example, in Robert Silverberg's Against the Flow our protag starts traveling back in time. No reason or mechanic is given; the character doesn't even try to find out, IIRC. This is typical in my experience with magical realism.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: In MR there is less of an emotional reaction. There is also minimized explanation of the strange.
Guys, I don't know -- I'm unfortunately not up on literary terminology, and I may well be using terms very loosely. Heaven knows I haven't been in the literary loop for a long time, if ever.
But the elements of strangeness, of the fantastic, that are accepted as commonday and never explained -- I see that in Helprin and Crowley, certainly, and not always in De Lint, but in some of his works. Same as for some Ray Bradbury (but again, not consistently). It may be that I just won't get some distinction you are making. More's the pity!
---
Edited to add: I am trying to edjumacate myself on the specific qualities of MR by reading some online essays here and there. Intriguing!
[ May 11, 2008, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I'd say that the difference in the two-- Magical Realism and Contemporary Fantasy-- is the reaction to the strange. It's been my experience with the genres that in CF, characters who encounter the strange tend to react with wonder, terror, awe, etc.
Ooh, yeah, I'd agree that that's it precisely.
quote:Originally posted by CT:Guys, I don't know -- I'm unfortunately not up on literary terminology, and I may well be using terms very loosely.
Oh, pfft--like I'm any more steeped in literary knowledge than you are. I'm just sitting here thinking about stuff that I have unexamined perceptions of and trying to untangle it all.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Oh, pfft--like I'm any more steeped in literary knowledge than you are.
Um, yeah? Duh.
quote:I'm just sitting here thinking about stuff that I have unexamined perceptions of and trying to untangle it all.
One of the most fun parts of life.
Have you read Little, Big and/or Winter's Tale? If not, would you like to? (I keep extra copies to lend from when I see them in secondhand stores, and I never require book reports. *grin Hey! We never finished talking about China Mountain Zhang. You probably already know this (and we've probably already discussed it, but the world is frequently anew to me -- a major benefit of age), but she's doing well past the Hodgkin's Lymphoma.)
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
No, I haven't read either of those! And yes, I'd love to!
I do the same thing with CMZ and David Brin's Kiln People, and would with Peter Watts' Blindsight if it weren't so hard to find copies of it.
You're right--that CMZ discussion never did get finished, did it?
I was aware of her doing well past the Hodgkin's Lymphoma, but your mention of it made me remember that it's been ages since I've looked at her blog. Ever checked it out? It's generally fairly interesting (though for some reason I seem constitutionally incapable of actually following people's blogs consistently).
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Sign up for Google's RSS feed reader. You can get a thingamajiggy for your google toolbar that will change colors when there's anything new.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
) and chooses not to buy books by that author. That's the way the system works, and that's all I wanted to point out. There are some people who love Pierce's stories, and buy them because they contain homosexual relationships, or just don't care either way about the character's sex life. Good for them, good for Pierce - I'm not saying the author did anything wrong - she wrote the story she intended to write. But neither does my daughter do anything wrong when she chooses not to read it.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
As far as I'm concerned, Schubert has every right to say "I want only the kinds of stories I like," and that's fine by me.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)