A Rant by an Angry, Gay Writer

[jimkeller]

You're probably aware, if you're reading this, that I'm a writer. I write non-fiction and fiction under various pen names. You're probably also aware, if you're reading this, that I am a gay man. That makes me a gay writer, and a member of the LGBT community. I do not purport to speak for the entire LGBT community, nor all gay writers, but as

Comments

[argentla]

Don't forget your het-girl heroine's fabulous-but-sexless gay male sidekick!

[jimkeller]

Exactly!

[jimkeller]

I feel like I should clarify a point which came up in a private e-mail:

I don't mean to condemn SF. Not by any stretch of the imagination. A big part of what drew me to the genre is that it was one of the few places where, as a kid in the '80s, I saw glimmers of acceptance. I very much appreciate all the acceptance that came before me, and the great work done by SF writers past of presenting gay issues to the public in a less-threatening manner.

But it is now time for us to take it to the next level, where we all stand as equals, not as "you're not as unwelcome here as elsewhere."

[argentla]

In re: Jack Harkness, I can't entirely overlook the feeling that the Dr. Who and Torchwood producers have positioned him as omnisexual (rather than gay, like the actor playing him) to maximize the possible sex appeal of an unnaturally pretty actor. Kudos for not simply making him straight, but it's still more self-interested than necessarily enlightened.

[jimkeller]

I suspect that's a factor, certainly, but Davies has also been very outspoken that he wants to put gay characters on television to make people feel as if they know gay people, therefore making it harder for them to support continued oppression. He's guilty of presenting a straight-friendly rather than authentic version (just watch Queer as Folk sometime if you don't believe me), but it was an important step forward that he took with his career so far.

The challenge is that people now think that Davies-style, straight-friendly gays are an authentic portrayal, since at least one openly gay writer/producer is writing such a portrayal. And it's not. And I don't think Davies would tell you it was.

[argentla]

Full marks, though, for a bisexual (or omnisexual, since his proclivities include any number of alien species) male character, rather than applying that role to a Spandex-Clad Space Woman.

[jimkeller]

Part of me worries that the strides made in the horror genre are because homosexuality itself is seen as fear-inducing...

[jimkeller]

Please do let us know when it's available. I'd love to read it!

[jimkeller]

Another clarification, this time in response to Facebook comments. If you publishers and editors out there mean to say, "We prefer to see authentic LGBT characters dealing with their issues in the context of a larger story which is about more than just the gay issues," then you need to re-work your guidelines. "No gay issues" means something very different and very specific to those of us in the LGBT community.

[jimkeller]

I'm inclined to think it's a case where editors have seen too many clumsy attempts to "teach" with a story, and have not stopped to think about what it means to be a member of the LGBT community (which, of course, is why we write those stories that "teach"). They genuinely want to be more inclusive, but they don't want those awkward, preachy stories (and, really, who does?), and it hasn't occurred to them what they're asking when they say "no gay issues." If I'm right, they need to both be more descriptive in what they want and what they don't want, and more honest with themselves about what they're going to get with an authentic LGBT character. Even a character who is remarkable in having gained acceptance and put all the misery behind will still, as I mention above, be bringing issues to the table in any well-written story. It's just part of the character's makeup.

[jonahmama]

I agree that the guidelines should be rewritten to be more specific. I think what they actually mean is that they don't want stories in which one-dimensionally gay characters (who appear to have no other distinguishing characteristic besides being stereotypically gay) appear for the sole purpose of addressing "gay issues." They want real characters dealing with real issues that flow out of characters and stories naturally rather than forcibly. Yes, they should spell that out in a way that sounds less exclusionary

[jimkeller]

It's a sad truth that no matter how carefully you word something, someone out there will misinterpret it. I think they'd be better served by saying they want authentic LGBT characters and wan to encourage LGBT writers, but don't want stories that preach. In fact, most of the publications in question say that anyway. The fact that they then go out to also say "no gay issues" is part of what set me off in the first place.