# Gay/ Lesbian Protagonist/ Antagonist???



## phoenixwings (Dec 5, 2011)

What are your thoughts on this?


----------



## Bloggsworth (Dec 5, 2011)

I have no objections to a lesbian protagonist, in fact I'd probably surrender....


----------



## ProcrastinationStation (Dec 5, 2011)

I don't quite understand the question. I would have no problem using a gay or lesbian character as the protagnoist or antagonist. Nor could I imagine someone would unless they were ridiculous characters or used in a moronic way as the antagonist. (main character must stop them infecting people with homosexuality etc etc)
Though one thing I have noticed about my work, unless it is necessary to the story, or if I mention a husband/wife most of my characters could go either way. In fact in short stories most of the characters are single because it is easier than having to deal with the added element of a spouse/partner

What I am working on now there is one couple and one woman with a child, I don't think I mentioned what happened to the husband, or if she had one in the first place. I havn't mentioned the relationship status of any of the other characters nor which gender they go for if they were to start a relationship.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Dec 5, 2011)

My thought is, "What's the point?"  Unless the protagonist's romantic relationships are an important part of the plot, it feels like you'd just be adding that trait to get another mark on your "character diversity checklist."

Most characters, regardless of whether or not their preference is explicitly stated, are asexual.  It's just the nature of stories.  For example, even though Rowling officially said that Dumbledore is gay, he's still asexual.  Nothing in the stories indicate that he has an sexual preference at all, so for all intents and purposes, he's just a regular guy that has a big "I am gay" stamp on him.  He's not actually gay.

In the same way, there's absolutely no reason to make your protagonist gay unless there's something you want to accomplish by doing so.  If it's not going to make a difference to the story, don't bother.


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 5, 2011)

I guess I don't really understand the question either. Like any demographic, if it's important for the story, it will be mentioned/emphasized/included. If not, it won't.


----------



## The Backward OX (Dec 5, 2011)

Do you mean, what are my thoughts on a story about homosexuals? If you know enough about them to write a story about them, go for it. If you mean something else, why bother?


----------



## Rustgold (Dec 6, 2011)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> My thought is, "What's the point?"  Unless the protagonist's romantic relationships are an important part of the plot, it feels like you'd just be adding that trait to get another mark on your "character diversity checklist."
> 
> Most characters, regardless of whether or not their preference is explicitly stated, are asexual.  It's just the nature of stories.
> 
> In the same way, there's absolutely no reason to make your protagonist gay unless there's something you want to accomplish by doing so.  If it's not going to make a difference to the story, don't bother.



This.  Btw: Personally, I wouldn't read a book with a 'gay' protagonist (or other main character), because I'm not interested in that type of thing, or that type of book.  You'd simply be narrowing your book's target market.

But if you're more interested in making social/political statements within your literature than the writing itself, then go ahead.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 6, 2011)

"Brokeback Mountain", a story about two straight men struggling with their romantic and sexual feelings for eachother, was very successful.

I think it takes bit more skill to handle controversial topics, but if you can pull it off well, it makes it all the more indelible in the mind of the reader.


----------



## Robdemanc (Dec 6, 2011)

Is it a romantic story with a gay theme?  Then I presume it would be a prerequisite to have the protag or antag as gay characters.   But unless the story has anything to do with sex and sexuality, or your making a homosexual point about something why would it matter?

Or if you are asking about the market for such work then I would say the general hetrosexual reader would not be too interested in a gay romance.

Or are you asking whether a gay character could take on a hero role then yes I suppose but you will have to do it subtly and don't make it look like  you are making a point.


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 6, 2011)

Robdemanc said:


> Or if you are asking about the market for such work then I would say the general hetrosexual reader would not be too interested in a gay romance.



Not sure about that so much. The m/m romance 'genre' is growing, and from what I understand from a friend who's been quite successful with it, it appeals to both gay and straight. Not sure about lesbian romance, however.


----------



## SeverinR (Dec 6, 2011)

If done properly, there are special publishers that focus on these books.
GLBT publishers

There will be some people that will avoid the book, but any contraversial issue will.

Like others have said, why is it important?
Why does the main character have to run through the book with a banner saying " I'm gay"?

How about a good story, and when the time comes, let it come out in a modest way. Say a member of the opposite sex hits on the mc, and the mc admits it?

Most people aren't activists, they don't hide it, but they don't flaunt their sexuality either.  

IMO I have only read one author that kept my interest in a story of gay lovers. I felt uncomfortable with it, but the way she wrote it, it wasn't down and dirty and it was just a believable characteristic. 

 I will admit, lesbian romance is less uncomfortable for me, I see the beauty of women, so I can understand a female seeing it too.

To write it well, you can not make it the cliche homosexual.  You need to have a believable character, and I think if writing in the real world, you must portray the bigot attitudes and discrimination from those that know.


----------



## Robdemanc (Dec 6, 2011)

shadowwalker said:


> Not sure about that so much. The m/m romance 'genre' is growing, and from what I understand from a friend who's been quite successful with it, it appeals to both gay and straight. Not sure about lesbian romance, however.



Really?   What about a story that implies it?  Would that tease the readers?   I have a scene in one of my books and after re-reading it it seems to imply a romantic setting between two male characters.  They are arch enemies but become friends by the end of the book and I don't want to get rid of the chapter because at some point they need to be alone to exchange intelligence.


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 6, 2011)

Robdemanc said:


> Really?   What about a story that implies it?  Would that tease the readers?   I have a scene in one of my books and after re-reading it it seems to imply a romantic setting between two male characters.  They are arch enemies but become friends by the end of the book and I don't want to get rid of the chapter because at some point they need to be alone to exchange intelligence.



I don't see any problem with implying it. Certainly there are hetero relationships in books which are implied but never come to 'fruition' in the book itself. If nothing else, it allows the reader to carry it further in their imaginations, if they wish.


----------



## yingguoren (Dec 6, 2011)

Some people are gay. So yeah, a protagonist or antagonist could be gay just as they could be straight. I agree though that you should either make it relevant to the story or keep it subtle and matter of fact. Like 'this is my partner'. Okay, whatever, moving on!


----------



## Robdemanc (Dec 6, 2011)

shadowwalker said:


> I don't see any problem with implying it. Certainly there are hetero relationships in books which are implied but never come to 'fruition' in the book itself. If nothing else, it allows the reader to carry it further in their imaginations, if they wish.



I don't think its much of an issue really.  Its just that when I was going over it and came to this chapter I thought it was the only part in the story that could be deemed 'romantic' in terms of the setting.  The two characters are not gay anyway so its more of a moment of 'male bonding' perhaps.


----------



## SeverinR (Dec 6, 2011)

Robdemanc said:


> I don't want to get rid of the chapter because at some point they need to be alone to *exchange intelligence*.



Is that what they're calling it now?:rofl:

Wait they're not really gay?
Then its not a problem, you(the author) wrote something that some people might believe is something else, but it turns out not to be true.

Male bonding?  I don't know, with me there is a grand canyon between male bonding and gay lover.


----------



## Robdemanc (Dec 6, 2011)

SeverinR said:


> Is that what they're calling it now?:rofl:
> 
> Wait they're not really gay?
> Then its not a problem, you(the author) wrote something that some people might believe is something else, but it turns out not to be true.
> ...



LOL; It was this thread that reminded me of it for some reason.  They are sworn to secrecy about a project and the only chance they can talk about it is away from the research plant in a forest (it may get funnier now), one is chasing the other, they are enemies, but they are in danger in the forest and must stick together ;-)
this gives them a chance to exchange intelligence...:courage:


----------



## Offeiriad (Dec 6, 2011)

Both of the pieces I'm working on have Lesbians as the MC because I am. It's moderately important to the plot in both cases, but I don't shove it in anyone's face just like I don't in real life. I think of my longer work as an urban fantasy of sorts first and foremost, the other, just mainstream fiction. If I ever get to the publishing stage before I die, perhaps I will have to rethink things, but for the moment, I am happy to not consider either one as LGBT.

Being a Lesbian doesn't define who I am as an individual, it's just part of who I am and I write my characters to be the same way.


----------



## phoenixwings (Dec 6, 2011)

Sorry for the confusion. 

I had been pondering the idea for months, ever since i had completed my first draft when the idea wrote itself on the page. I had no intentions of making it LGBT but as it emerged i thought it's the way to go. 

Since my first draft though i have come a long way. 

I believe that everybody has a story, whether they are gay, straight, transexual etc. To say that the trait should only be used when necessary in novels is absurd. What if that was the same for people in real life? Would we just turn our backs and walk away just because of one trait? I don't think so. 

My novel consists of ancient Greek history (which doesn't become clear until the middle of the book) and focuses on the Gods of Goddesses only set in modern day, but with that issue history will come into it. With this being said, i think that this is more than a possible twist. 


It sounds complicated but i guess you'd have to read my prose to see if it works. Lol!


Thanks for replying.


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 6, 2011)

phoenixwings said:


> To say that the trait should only be used when necessary in novels is absurd. What if that was the same for people in real life? Would we just turn our backs and walk away just because of one trait? I don't think so.



If their sexual orientation is important to/part of the story, of course it should be mentioned. If it's the focus of the story, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But I don't mention a character's race unless it's important to the story. I don't mention their age unless it's important. I don't mention the scenery or the type of car they drive or what their apartment looks like unless the story needs it. It has nothing to do with turning one's back. It's all about _the story_.


----------



## adriansia (Dec 7, 2011)

I don't see why not. Currently my project has three homosexuals (two lesbians and one gay) as important characters.

Regards,

Adrian Sia


----------



## yingguoren (Dec 7, 2011)

shadowwalker said:


> If their sexual orientation is important to/part of the story, of course it should be mentioned. If it's the focus of the story, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But I don't mention a character's race unless it's important to the story. I don't mention their age unless it's important. I don't mention the scenery or the type of car they drive or what their apartment looks like unless the story needs it. It has nothing to do with turning one's back. It's all about _the story_.



I completely agree with this, and I say that as a gay man.

When we meet people for the first time, we don't ask them whether they're gay or straight any more than we might ask what type of car they drive. We only learn those things when it becomes relevant to our friendship with them, like if we're meeting their partner or we get to know them well enough to share information about partners.

If their sexuality is something that you want to include to develop the character then show instead of tell. Have a scene including their partner or, if they're single, a bit of harmless flirting.


----------



## starseed (Dec 7, 2011)

Everyone else pretty much said what I was going to say. Just like you wouldn't point out that someone was straight unless it was relevant to the story, you wouldn't point out that they were gay. However if you've come to the conclusion they were gay I assume it's because of something story-related, so there you go.

The only people who would be put off by this are the people you aren't writing for. So have at it.


----------



## The Backward OX (Dec 7, 2011)

yingguoren said:


> When we meet people for the first time, we don't ask them whether they're gay or straight any more than we might ask what type of car they drive.


Obviously you don’t move in the same circles I move in. If I don’t ascertain a guy’s sexual orientation pretty damn quick after first meeting, I risk being propositioned. And that, my friend, can be quite uncomfortable. Pun not intended.


----------



## yingguoren (Dec 8, 2011)

The Backward OX said:


> Obviously you don’t move in the same circles I move in. If I don’t ascertain a guy’s sexual orientation pretty damn quick after first meeting, I risk being propositioned. And that, my friend, can be quite uncomfortable. Pun not intended.



So? If a guy propositions you then you just say at that point 'sorry, I'm straight'. End of. No harm done. If it's handled well then there needn't be any embarrassment on either side.

I wouldn't feel uncomfortable about being propositioned by a woman. I don't understand this macho thing that some straight men have that they think their manliness is somehow damaged if a gay man finds them attractive.


----------



## starseed (Dec 8, 2011)

LOL right? I can't imagine a simple "No thanks, I'm not interested" being any more uncomfortable than immediately asking someone's sexual orientation upon handshake. Perhaps ox is far sexier than the rest of us and has to put up a stronger defense to keep the herds of gay men away.


----------



## Rustgold (Dec 9, 2011)

Actually there's a perfect example just today of why you shouldn't do this if it's not relevant to the plot.

Neighbours actor slams racist comments

They've totally clueless as to the real reasons for this hostility.
Basically, if Channel 10 brought in these actors and said "We've got some really great new talented actors for our show," then no hostility would have occurred.
But Channel 10 said "We're bringing in these new actors to fit a racial profile."

There was no plot importance to the show, just a desire to shove a certain political/social agenda down everybody's throat.  For all everybody knows, these actors could be the best in Australia for the last 20 years; but nobody knows because Channel 10 didn't focus on their talent (assuming they have any).  Instead of promoting the sought after tolerance seeking ideals, forcing agendas which have nothing to do with plot risks permanent strong backlashes.

They're totally clueless as to the actual reasons for this backlash; but they're big enough (and in a restricted enough market) where they don't need to understand.  Unless you're just as large (and hold people just as captive), you can't afford similar inabilities to comprehend.


----------



## ScientistAsHero (Dec 9, 2011)

I don't really feel that Channel 10's wanting to give Neighbours a little more ethnic diversity is a bad thing. They specifically said that ethnic minorities have been unrepresented in the show's history. I don't know anything about the show, as I've never seen it, but as long as there's not a real-life reason why it would be unrealistic to have an Indian family living in Melbourne, I just can't really see a problem with it. As long as it doesn't interfere with your plot, why do you need a compelling reason to introduce a character of a specific ethnicity? If I'm writing a story and I envision the MC's neighbor as a black guy, why should I feel that I need to "justify" making him black? I just don't get it.


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

I think there's something more to the outrage than 'they don't need it for the plot'. :jaded: And if this show is about a typical Australian neighborhood, then it _is _part of the storyline and makes sense to have 'representative' people in it.


----------



## ProcrastinationStation (Dec 9, 2011)

VanishingSpy said:


> I don't know anything about the show, as I've never seen it



Be thankful for that! It's (in my opinion) just a crappy soap opera, but as I don't like soap operas in general, I am a little bias, just slightly though. 

I don't watch it myself (my cousin used to, dunno if she still does) but from what I recall, they are right about being underrepresented, but I don't think it would add or detract anything from the show, other than make it a tad more realistic, but as soaps aren't known for their realism I doubt that is what they had in mind. 
I wouldn't really notice either way unless the characters were racist or something.


----------



## Rustgold (Dec 9, 2011)

VanishingSpy said:


> I don't really feel that Channel 10's wanting to give Neighbours a little more ethnic diversity is a bad thing. They specifically said that ethnic minorities have been unrepresented in the show's history... I just can't really see a problem with it.
> 
> why do you need a compelling reason to introduce a character of a specific ethnicity? If I'm writing a story and I envision the MC's neighbor as a black guy, why should I feel that I need to "justify" making him black? I just don't get it.


Those comments appear contradictory.

Your second group of comments do show why people (omitting the few actual racial bigots), are being less than kind.

If a talented person happens to be Indian, Chinese, Turkish, Swedish, etc, who'd cares?  If you plot requires a person from a specific group (such as WW2 war movies) then thats what's required.  Many top shows contain people from different groups, and nobody has a problem with it.

The problem we see in this case is what you acknowledge in your second group of comments.  In this case Channel 10 chose to introduce specific agendas which have zero importance to plot, and are rightfully being caned for it.  When you choose to create non-plot based agendas (of any description), they stick out a mile.

PS : If the actors involved in the Channel 10 controversy are decent actors & decent people, then I feel sorry for them; because the reasoning given for their introduction really harms their acting integrity among viewers.  And that's what occurs when you introduce any non-plot based agendas; the credibility of your material is damaged, regardless of its actual quality.




shadowwalker said:


> And if this show is about a typical Australian neighborhood, then it _is _part of the storyline and makes sense to have 'representative' people in it.



I haven't even thought about that until now, but I don't know of a single non-white person currently living in my street (which contains about 40 homes).  In fact (with the possible exception of 11 months renting in a block of flats), to my memory, I've only had a non-white 'neighbour' for two short periods so far in my life (once in Vic a family of Aborigines rented a nearby home - technically wasn't in same street but was near a T intersection; second time in Qld, the husband of a neighbour was allegedly 1/16th Aborigine - and he was much too good for his trashy bigot of a wife).

Should it be that we're specifically required to have minorities in simply to meet some agenda quota?  That's the declaration when you introduce non-plot based agendas.  It's simply bad form.


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Rustgold said:


> I haven't even thought about that until now, but I don't know of a single non-white person currently living in my street (which contains about 40 homes).  In fact (with the possible exception of 11 months renting in a block of flats), to my memory, I've only had a non-white 'neighbour' for two short periods so far in my life (once in Vic a family of Aborigines rented a nearby home - technically wasn't in same street but was near a T intersection; second time in Qld, the husband of a neighbour was allegedly 1/16th Aborigine - and he was much too good for his trashy bigot of a wife).
> 
> Should it be that we're specifically required to have minorities in simply to meet some agenda quota?  That's the declaration when you introduce non-plot based agendas.  It's simply bad form.



Your particular neighborhood may not be representative of the city where this show takes place, however. In my small town, we have maybe a dozen non-white families. Go 30 miles north to the nearest city, however, and that demographic changes drastically. If this show were to take place in a town like mine, then no, having non-whites would be unrealistic. If, however, the city it represents is like the above... So if the premise of this show is to reflect an Australian city and focuses on the lives of the people in it (a 'people show' versus say a detective show where the focus is on the crime and solving of it), then it should, indeed, reflect an Australian city, with the incumbent population.


----------



## Rustgold (Dec 9, 2011)

So by your reasoning, shows with lots of non-traditional actors should be required to have more whites in?


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Rustgold said:


> So by your reasoning, shows with lots of non-traditional actors should be required to have more whites in?



I'm saying that the cast of a show should reflect the premise of the show - just as the characters in a book should reflect the focus of the story. If the show is as discussed - a people show about a typical city - then it should have characters that reflect the population it's about.


----------



## Rustgold (Dec 9, 2011)

So at somewhere around 008% of the Australian population (and pretty close of zero in the type of suburb Neighbours is said to represent), your reasoning is that there shouldn't be any Indians in it?
2006 Census Table : Australia

Lets have an honest answer here.  If a show has lots of non-whites, should they be forced to introduce whites into the show to meet racial quotas?


But the issue is caused not by the mere fact that some people happen to be from a non-traditional group, the issue is of Channel 10 specifically seeking out a specific group for reasoning other than plot.  At the very best it's tokenism against people of Indian descent.  Try to paint it as multicultural, however there's nothing in the plot which requires any type of racial quota, and the seeking of racial quotas isn't plot based.

Whether there's 3 or 50 people who happen to belong to any group doesn't matter.  What matters, as shown by the hostile reaction relating to Channel 10's activities; is that when you chose to introduce agendas which aren't required for plot, you do damage the integrity of your product, regardless of the quality in the product.


----------



## ScientistAsHero (Dec 9, 2011)

I must say I have no idea about Australian demographics, and like I said I haven't watched the show. If the plot of a show or book takes place in a particular setting, and the introduction of an ethic group is then introduced that makes no sense in that context, simply to add more racial diversity, there I can see a problem. However, I don't know what goes on on "Neighbours" besides the little I've gleaned from comments here, so I can't say if that's the case or not. Maybe it's a cultural difference, I don't know. Add an Indian family to a sit-com or drama here and no one would bat an eye. Unless there was some compelling reason why the addition of the Indian family would NOT make sense in relation to the show's plot, I doubt anyone would care.


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Rustgold said:


> So at somewhere around 008% of the Australian population (and pretty close of zero in the type of suburb Neighbours is said to represent), your reasoning is that there shouldn't be any Indians in it?
> 
> Lets have an honest answer here.  If a show has lots of non-whites, should they be forced to introduce whites into the show to meet racial quotas?
> 
> ...



Okay, let's get something straight here. I am not at all familiar with the demographics of Australia - nor do I care to be. If - and I said _if _- they want the show to represent a certain area and _if _that means they need a certain group to do so, they should. Because that's what the _show _is about. If they're doing it just because of some PC crapola, then my response is the same as it was about putting _anything _in a story - only if the _story _requires it.

But I'll give you another _honest _answer - I doubt very very much if the outrage has anything to do with the "plot" of the stupid show.


----------



## Anders Ämting (Dec 12, 2011)

phoenixwings said:


> What are your thoughts on this?



...Non in particular, really. Most characters I write are straight,  because I relate better to them. I did have an RPG character once who  ended up bisexual. Could probably write a gay character as well, you  know, if I saw a good reason.



Gamer_2k4 said:


> Most characters, regardless of whether or not their preference is  explicitly stated, are asexual.  It's just the nature of  stories.



I disagree: The only characters who come across  as asexual are A) those who were meant to be asexual and B) poorly  written characters.

Even if people normally don't dwell on their sexuality, it still  affects how they act and react around other people. A straight man  meeting a woman, for example, is going to evaluate her attractiveness,  even if only fleetingly. If I was writing a gay character, but not  really spelling it out or making it part of the plot, I could see ways  of using that to work in some nice subtle nuances.



> For example, even though Rowling  officially said that Dumbledore is gay, he's still asexual.  Nothing in  the stories indicate that he has an sexual preference at all, so for all  intents and purposes, he's just a regular guy that has a big "I am gay"  stamp on him.  He's not actually gay.


 
I may misremember, but wasn't the whole gay angle used in the last  book to imply foul play in regards to Dumbledore's friendship with Harry  and his delay in fighting Grindewald?


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Dec 12, 2011)

Anders Ämting said:


> I disagree: The only characters who come across  as asexual are A) those who were meant to be asexual and B) poorly  written characters.
> 
> Even if people normally don't dwell on their sexuality, it still  affects how they act and react around other people. A straight man  meeting a woman, for example, is going to evaluate her attractiveness,  even if only fleetingly. If I was writing a gay character, but not  really spelling it out or making it part of the plot, I could see ways  of using that to work in some nice subtle nuances.



A straight man may evaluate every woman's attractiveness, but you're right that it's often fleeting.  In fact, I would argue that it tends to be so fleeting that it would only make it into a story if you're compulsive about the level of detail you include.

Perhaps we're arguing from different personalities, too.  I treat my female friends literally no differently from my male friends, and my writing reflects that.  Many of my characters could be genderless for all the difference their gender makes in the story.  Why? Because at the end of the day, besides the traditional "love interest" character, gender often doesn't matter.  Characters can still have full, intricate personalities without those personalities being dependent on their gender.  A cheerful character can be cheerful regardless of whether it's a male or a female.  Same with a corrupt one, or an angry one, or a sad one.

I guess I'm a firm believer in equality for the sake of equality.  I'm no feminist - that is, I don't go out of my way to "make women equal to men" or whatever the heck it is that they believe.  I simply ignore the issue altogether.  Someone wants to protect the main character? Then he (or she) should protect the main character regardless of what gender the latter is.  Someone is trying to lie? It shouldn't matter who they're lying to.

Long story short, it frustrates me in real life to see people get preferential treatment because of their gender, so I avoid it in my own life and I avoid it in my stories.  And just as I personally can treat men and women the same while having a complex and realistic personality, so can the characters I write, and so can the characters anyone writes.


----------



## WDLady (Dec 12, 2011)

I see nothing wrong with this as long as it's a good story and the characters are well developed.  I have so many different characters in my story all the time, ranging from gay, lesbian, black, white, biracial, and so on.


----------

