The world upside down
If there is one thing that every writer on earth knows, or ought to know, it is that you write to the customer's specifications. If the customer wants you to write an adventure story with a blond blue-eyed male protagonist, that is what you do, or else you don't accept the contract.
Now, there is apparently one literary agency that has an issue with featuring gay characters in what is commonly called "young adult" fiction - meaning fiction whose intended demographic is not adult at all. And let us be clear on one thing: until one generation ago, nobody would even have imagined that such things would be considered in mainstream "teen-age" - as it was called then - publishing. And I have to say that the invention of "Young Adult" as a completely new category strikes me as nothing but an insidious play with words; because you would hesitate to deliver morally subversive material to a "teen-ager", whereas a "young adult" suggests someone who has the maturity, insight and responsibility to handle it. But the demographic intended is exactly the same: that of Diana Wynne Jones, JK Rowling and Artemis Fowl - 13-18. Why, therefore, a new expression should be invented to describe a demographic that had been known to publishers as a distinct target for centuries - well, I'll leave that to you to work out.
Let us move on. Let us start from the premise that it is entirely good, and that there is no reason whatever to have any hesitation, about placing such characters in stories meant for such readers. Let us, in fact, suggest that there is no such thing as reading that can be harmful for thirteen- and fourteen-year-olds; that, after all, is the point of calling such readers "young adults". Let us accept as a premise that the agency which rejects stories featuring homosexual characters has nothing to say for itself except stupidity and ignorance. What do you do with a prospective client whose viewpoint you disagree with? Why, you don't take your work to him. I would never sell a single page or a letter of translation to a Jew-basher or a racist or a Fascist, not if I were conscious of their views, and much less if working with them involved such views in any way.
But that is not enough for our modern freethinkers. Oh no.
Two years ago I defriended asakiyume and sartorias because they had taken part in the scapegoating of a certain religious minority - one, by the way, for which I myself don't have much time as a religion (although I have met plenty of fine people among its members). Then I regretted it and re-friended them. And now I find myself wondering what the Hell ever made me do it. Someone started a campaign to force this agency to accept material featuring homosexuals. Whether or not they want it, they must buy, take on, promote, and sell material that apparently contradicts their views. And sartorias and asakiyume don't even seem to realize how viciously illiberal, how liberticidal, how atrociously intolerant and tyrannical this demand is. It is the world upside down. It is the seller telling the buyer what the buyer should buy. It is an assault on the freedom of conscience, of thought, of expression, of trade, of sale, of purchase; and it had never occurred to me before that freedom to trade could be found to be so profoundly connected with freedom of conscience.
The worst thing is that both of them have got themselves vast, squawking, disgustingly unanimous mobs of supporters. Truly, there never is an idea so bad that it cannot rouse enthusiasm.
If you have an issue with a client, drop them. If you don't want to support a view, don't support it. But it's neither your business, nor mine, nor anyone's to tell anybody what they should buy and sell; what they should do with their business; and what they should think right to sell to teen-agers. End of story.
Now, there is apparently one literary agency that has an issue with featuring gay characters in what is commonly called "young adult" fiction - meaning fiction whose intended demographic is not adult at all. And let us be clear on one thing: until one generation ago, nobody would even have imagined that such things would be considered in mainstream "teen-age" - as it was called then - publishing. And I have to say that the invention of "Young Adult" as a completely new category strikes me as nothing but an insidious play with words; because you would hesitate to deliver morally subversive material to a "teen-ager", whereas a "young adult" suggests someone who has the maturity, insight and responsibility to handle it. But the demographic intended is exactly the same: that of Diana Wynne Jones, JK Rowling and Artemis Fowl - 13-18. Why, therefore, a new expression should be invented to describe a demographic that had been known to publishers as a distinct target for centuries - well, I'll leave that to you to work out.
Let us move on. Let us start from the premise that it is entirely good, and that there is no reason whatever to have any hesitation, about placing such characters in stories meant for such readers. Let us, in fact, suggest that there is no such thing as reading that can be harmful for thirteen- and fourteen-year-olds; that, after all, is the point of calling such readers "young adults". Let us accept as a premise that the agency which rejects stories featuring homosexual characters has nothing to say for itself except stupidity and ignorance. What do you do with a prospective client whose viewpoint you disagree with? Why, you don't take your work to him. I would never sell a single page or a letter of translation to a Jew-basher or a racist or a Fascist, not if I were conscious of their views, and much less if working with them involved such views in any way.
But that is not enough for our modern freethinkers. Oh no.
Two years ago I defriended asakiyume and sartorias because they had taken part in the scapegoating of a certain religious minority - one, by the way, for which I myself don't have much time as a religion (although I have met plenty of fine people among its members). Then I regretted it and re-friended them. And now I find myself wondering what the Hell ever made me do it. Someone started a campaign to force this agency to accept material featuring homosexuals. Whether or not they want it, they must buy, take on, promote, and sell material that apparently contradicts their views. And sartorias and asakiyume don't even seem to realize how viciously illiberal, how liberticidal, how atrociously intolerant and tyrannical this demand is. It is the world upside down. It is the seller telling the buyer what the buyer should buy. It is an assault on the freedom of conscience, of thought, of expression, of trade, of sale, of purchase; and it had never occurred to me before that freedom to trade could be found to be so profoundly connected with freedom of conscience.
The worst thing is that both of them have got themselves vast, squawking, disgustingly unanimous mobs of supporters. Truly, there never is an idea so bad that it cannot rouse enthusiasm.
If you have an issue with a client, drop them. If you don't want to support a view, don't support it. But it's neither your business, nor mine, nor anyone's to tell anybody what they should buy and sell; what they should do with their business; and what they should think right to sell to teen-agers. End of story.