- Joined
- Aug 27, 2009
- Messages
- 793
- Reaction score
- 152
- Location
- Austin, TX
- Website
- www.katherineokelly.com
A little while back, I cringed through a thread about matriarchies in the sci-fi/fantasy forum. I say "cringed" because the thread was intended for brainstorming how to develop a fictional female-dominant society, but the thread was constantly derailed by mansplainers who kept advocating for eternal patriarchy under the guise of "realism." Men have always been oppressive and in charge, thus they will continue to always be oppressive and in charge, seemed to be the consensus of the pro-patriarchy camp. Those of us interested in exploring gender egalitarian or matriarchal cultures had our ideas slammed for lack of "plausibility."
...Which brings me to the idea of "plausibility" in portraying a character who's gay/queer, but whose queerness is not a source of pain or conflict. Some slam such ideas as escapism, infantalizing, or overly idealistic. Others say they're not interested in reading LGBT fiction because it's always so damn depressing/moralizing.
I saw this comment and response in another thread (names removed because I'm not trying to single anyone out, just illustrated the idea):
I see both sides of the argument. On one hand, I don't think a conflict-free sunshine-and-rainbows queertopia would make good fiction or realistic characters, but can we write a few stories that stretch realism for a minute for the sake of letting gay characters let it all hang out without having to cover, hide, or suffer persecution for it? Can we allow conflict to come from sources unrelated to the character's queerness?
It's exploring these ideas that attracts me to fantasy/sci-fi/speculative fiction. Unfettered by the rules and history of our own world, we can create a fictional culture where bisexuality is the norm, or transgender leanings are perceived as sacred. I like writing nonhuman characters in nonhuman cultures that explore these culture-bending themes because no one can say, "It couldn't happen!" when the society in question is centaurs or goblins instead of humans.
Moreover, there's plenty of absurdity and lack of realism allowed in the straight/white/male-centric fiction. Does anyone think for a moment that James Bond is anything close to a real human being? So why is he allowed to be absurd and escapist, while queers and women are held to strict standards of realism?
I think about modeling, too. By that, I don't mean moralizing or modeling good behavior, but simply modeling what might be possible in the future, even if it's not possible now. For instance, the idea of a black president was at one time incredibly unlikely given the current and historical social climate, but that didn't stop movie-makers and fiction writers from putting black presidents in their fiction. Years later, it's a possibility and reality. Similarly, even if an unashamed, uncloseted, unpersecuted queer character isn't likely in today's social climate, can't we write such characters into our fiction to help legitimize the idea for the future?
Is fiction in which queerness isn't marginalized liberating or overly idealistic? Where and when do you believe realism vs. escapism has its place? Of course, this thread isn't looking for One Right Answer (so, please, let's keep it civil), but I'm interested in hearing individual opinions, even musing on both sides of the issue instead of "choosing a side."
...Which brings me to the idea of "plausibility" in portraying a character who's gay/queer, but whose queerness is not a source of pain or conflict. Some slam such ideas as escapism, infantalizing, or overly idealistic. Others say they're not interested in reading LGBT fiction because it's always so damn depressing/moralizing.
I saw this comment and response in another thread (names removed because I'm not trying to single anyone out, just illustrated the idea):
I absolutely detest YA stories where the gay character is harassed, suffers terribly, makes angsty and boring ass speeches about tolerance, etc. Add to these tired themes,they are only in the story as a a sidekick to the straight folk. Why can't a gay character be like;This is me and if you don't like it,kiss my ass?
My guess would be, because an attitude like this in the real world frequently results in extreme harassment and/or death, particularly among the rather cruel world of high school. Harrassment of QLTBAG folks is sadly still the norm, not the exception in most parts of the world.
I see both sides of the argument. On one hand, I don't think a conflict-free sunshine-and-rainbows queertopia would make good fiction or realistic characters, but can we write a few stories that stretch realism for a minute for the sake of letting gay characters let it all hang out without having to cover, hide, or suffer persecution for it? Can we allow conflict to come from sources unrelated to the character's queerness?
It's exploring these ideas that attracts me to fantasy/sci-fi/speculative fiction. Unfettered by the rules and history of our own world, we can create a fictional culture where bisexuality is the norm, or transgender leanings are perceived as sacred. I like writing nonhuman characters in nonhuman cultures that explore these culture-bending themes because no one can say, "It couldn't happen!" when the society in question is centaurs or goblins instead of humans.
Moreover, there's plenty of absurdity and lack of realism allowed in the straight/white/male-centric fiction. Does anyone think for a moment that James Bond is anything close to a real human being? So why is he allowed to be absurd and escapist, while queers and women are held to strict standards of realism?
I think about modeling, too. By that, I don't mean moralizing or modeling good behavior, but simply modeling what might be possible in the future, even if it's not possible now. For instance, the idea of a black president was at one time incredibly unlikely given the current and historical social climate, but that didn't stop movie-makers and fiction writers from putting black presidents in their fiction. Years later, it's a possibility and reality. Similarly, even if an unashamed, uncloseted, unpersecuted queer character isn't likely in today's social climate, can't we write such characters into our fiction to help legitimize the idea for the future?
Is fiction in which queerness isn't marginalized liberating or overly idealistic? Where and when do you believe realism vs. escapism has its place? Of course, this thread isn't looking for One Right Answer (so, please, let's keep it civil), but I'm interested in hearing individual opinions, even musing on both sides of the issue instead of "choosing a side."
Last edited: