"But why make them gay if they don't have a love interest?"

I think you're overthinking it. Why make them straight, if they're not in a relationship? Because sexuality is a part of character, and informs more than just choice of partner.

What Albedo said.

Secondary character or main?

a gay secondary character with no relationship is a bit problematic.

CL Polk said:

a gay secondary character with no relationship is a bit problematic.

Click to expand...

why?

CL Polk said:

a gay secondary character with no relationship is a bit problematic.

Click to expand...

Why? I can't see why it would be....

(The only time I can see it being a problem if a queer character doesn't have a relationship is if all straight characters get love interests and all queer characters don't, or something trending in that direction.)

As a data point, in the 6 short stories I have had accepted for pro publication, I've had 4 queer characters who have relationships shown (3 main characters but not the main protagonist and 1 a supporting character) and 2 queer characters who do not have relationships shown (1 a main protagonist and 1 a supporting character). And one of the latter ones made the BSFA long list and the Nebula recommended reading list.... honestly, I think it's fine either way.

For me, it's fine as long as there are hints that they're gay. You have to give me something.

Otherwise, with no hints or mention of differences from the "default" characteristics, just like I would assume a POC character is the "default" white, I would also assume the gay character is the "default" straight.

Though secondary single LGB characters bug me now, because LGB characters tend to be secondary and celibate, while the straight peeps always have all or most of the relationships. And then, sometimes, if the LGB characters do get into a relationship, then they tend to have super-chaste relationships and/or killed off... Be aware of troublesome tropes like that.

ETA: To be clear, my advice is: Go forth and write the characters as they come to you, like everyone else said.

slhuang said:

Why? I can't see why it would be....

(The only time I can see it being a problem if a queer character doesn't have a relationship is if all straight characters get love interests and all queer characters don't, or something trending in that direction.)

Click to expand...

Um, yeah. Pretty much this. The secondary LGBT characters feel more pushed to the side, and usually the straight people get all of the fun relationship (and sometimes a lot of the sexy) stuff. When a secondary LGBT character does get into a relationship, it's usually very minor and chaste, compared to the sexy relationships that the straight people get.

Sometimes, some LGBT characters get killed off, too...

I'm starting to notice the troublesome past trends in some pop culture stuff...

slhuang said:

As a data point, in the 6 short stories I have had accepted for pro publication, I've had 4 queer characters who have relationships shown (3 main characters but not the main protagonist and 1 a supporting character) and 2 queer characters who do not have relationships shown (1 a main protagonist and 1 a supporting character). And one of the latter ones made the BSFA long list and the Nebula recommended reading list.... honestly, I think it's fine either way.

Click to expand...

Did the supporting LGBT characters give any hints that they're LGBT in any way, though?

I mean, the problem, for me, with pop culture LGB representation in the past, was that many LGBT characters in pop culture tend to end up single or celibate, killed off, and/or just super-minor as to be "just there" (like a token POC character).

It feels like the writers are just writing a token minor character to look "diverse", and throwing scraps to those of us hungering for more LGBTQA representation...(I'm also not fond of queerbaiting, either, though there are several stories/movies/tv shows/comics or Kansas/anime where I have to tolerate it.)

bunny-gypsy said:

Did the supporting LGBT characters give any hints that they're LGBT in any way, though?

Click to expand...

The two supporting characters on my two different lists were from the same story --

One of them: Oh, yes. Many. It's a fundamental part of his character arc, but we never see him date in the story.
The second one: Not until she gets married and it's to a wife. It's just kind of incidental.

I like to mix it up. But 85% of the short stories I've written have main characters who are explicitly, textually queer, so I've played with a lot of variations.

I do definitely agree with making queerness explicit in the text, though. Readers will miss it otherwise. But there are plenty of ways queerness impacts people outside of relationships.

slhuang said:

I do definitely agree with making queerness explicit in the text, though. Readers will miss it otherwise. But there are plenty of ways queerness impacts people outside of relationships.

Click to expand...

For sure. That's what I'm referring to when I mentioned the "hints or mentions".

I'm not fond of anything like the JK Rowling approach. I loved the Harry Potter books and movies, but I didn't like how she revealed Dumbledore was gay, after the fact.

JKR: He's gay.

Me: *blinks* Really? ...Um, ok. I had absolutely no idea or clue. Didn't really get that...at all...in the books nor in the movies. Sure, whatever you say, Rowling. <_<;; *has strong urge to roll eyes* Thanks for telling us...Too little, too late, though.

But that's just my personal preference.

ETA: Again, my advice is to go forth and write the characters and be true to the characters. However, be sure to have hints or something, or otherwise, I will automatically assume the character is a single straight guy, instead of a single gay guy. Can't represent a group, if we readers can't tell what group is being represented. (That's if you want readers to know about said representation, or want to attract those readers who do want the representation.)

Why make a character a person of colour, if it's not essential to the text? Why make them female or male, or old or young, able-bodied or not, or from one country or another? Because they're people, and people come in all sorts of variations. Those variations don't have to define or guide the plot or theme of the book, but they do inform and colour the text in ways which writers might not realise until they've finished their books. Just write it. Make your characters real and varied and interesting and conflicted. Your book will be the better for it.

CL Polk said:

Secondary character or main?

a gay secondary character with no relationship is a bit problematic.

Click to expand...

I think this can be a risk if all the other characters have relationships, but the gay character is unusually chaste. It used to be common in TV, especially, for queer characters to have much less on-screen romance and sex than their straight counterparts.

But otherwise, I can't see what's problematic about it.

Sage said:

Actually, I think that Dumbledore's relationship with Grindwald makes a lot more sense once you realize he was probably swept up in his attraction to, if not love for, him.

Click to expand...

Ah, I can't remember that, for some reason. It's been a long, long since I read or saw the movies, but I guess it does make sense...in retrospect.

It's just a personal gripe of mine, is all. I just don't like learning about new canon facts about characters outside of the books/movies/whatever, and then only finding out in interviews or media news stories. What if I didn't watch/read those media stuff? I don't think I would have ever caught on, because I didn't think Dumbledore was gay the entire time reading and watching that franchise, before that interview.

That kind of thing bothers me deeply. Can't explain why; it just does.

DancingMaenid said:

I think this can be a risk if all the other characters have relationships, but the gay character is unusually chaste. It used to be common in TV, especially, for queer characters to have much less on-screen romance and sex than their straight counterparts.

But otherwise, I can't see what's problematic about it.

Click to expand...

That's usually the problem I see. (Besides queer peeps suffering and/or dying most of the time. I have a mental countdown once a queer character shows up or starts having a serious relationship.)

It's sort of changing, I think, depending on the mediums, for the better, little by little. (I think novels have more erotic or sexual queer relationships than most mainstream movies and tv shows. I think I remembered a recent Shondaland show that showed a lot of queer sexual relationships? How To Get Away With Murder, I think it's called?)

bunny-gypsy said:

For sure. That's what I'm referring to when I mentioned the "hints or mentions".

I'm not fond of anything like the JK Rowling approach. I loved the Harry Potter books and movies, but I didn't like how she revealed Dumbledore was gay, after the fact.

JKR: He's gay.

Me: *blinks* Really? ...Um, ok. I had absolutely no idea or clue. Didn't really get that...at all...in the books nor in the movies. Sure, whatever you say, Rowling. <_<;; *has strong urge to roll eyes* Thanks for telling us...Too little, too late, though.

Click to expand...

The language used, and the memories regarding his relationship with Gellert Grindelwald did suggest that Dumbledore was in love with Grindelwald to a lot of readers even before the statement by Rowling. That said, a lot of out queer folk have had the experience where someone was surprised that we identify as queer, as if there were visible indications of queerness functioning as neon signs.

What I think is part of the issue in the case of Dumbledore is ageism, frankly.

CL Polk said:

Secondary character or main?

a gay secondary character with no relationship is a bit problematic.

Click to expand...

That's an awfully declarative statement. That rather depends on the character and the text.

You can have all sorts of sexual orientations and be single. To argue the opposite is potentially falling into the chasm of gay = sex. You don't stop being queer because you're not in a relationship.

AW Admin said:

The language used, and the memories regarding his relationship with Gellert Grindelwald did suggest that Dumbledore was in love with Grindelwald to a lot of readers even before the statement by Rowling. That said, a lot of out queer folk have had the experience where someone was surprised that we identify as queer, as if there were visible indications of queerness functioning as neon signs.

What I think is part of the issue in the case of Dumbledore is ageism, frankly.

Click to expand...

Like I said, it's been awhile since I read the books or watched the movies, especially the latter half of the series.

I don't know if ageism was on my mind, at the time. I just remembered being annoyed of being told outside of the books/movies. (I was pretty young, too, and was struggling with figuring out my sexuality and gender stuff.)

AW Admin said:

That's an awfully declarative statement. That rather depends on the character and the text.

You can have all sorts of sexual orientations and be single. To argue the opposite is potentially falling into the chasm of gay = sex. You don't stop being queer because you're not in a relationship.

Click to expand...

I can't speak for CL Polk's intended message or meaning, but I can understand being a bit frustrated if all of the straight characters got all of the interesting romance stuff, and the only token gay had a very celibate relationship or not have a relationship, at all.

I don't think it's unreasonable to be a tiny bit irked by that kind of trend in the past. (Luckily, that's changing, and society's changing as well. )

But again, I don't know if that is what CL Polk is referring to.

I apologize for my forwardness and to be argumentative (and it could be that I'm in one of my down moods, at the moment), but I tend to have a strongly dim/pessimistic view of the limited amount of LGBTQA characters that I do see in my limited viewings and readings.

It's getting to the point where I'm always expecting most LGBTQA characters to die, angst, or be celibate or single, or just be the token secondary character. Again, it is the limited media I'm exposed to, but the little I've seen doesn't really provide much reassurance.

I'm glad things are definitely changing, though.

I'm just frustrated, being in a conservative environment. I feel very stifled and stuck, and I sometimes have trouble finding good, positive, or non-stereotypical representations of LGBTQA characters in my favorite kinds of fluffy, non-violent, or not-depressing shows/books/movies/etc. (I'm going through one of my periods of internal anxiety and depression, at the moment. The whole being Christian while being LGBT thing is also stressing me out, as well.)

So... if you write a secondary character who is gay but doesn't have a LI, that's a problem. But if you write a secondary gay character that does, that's a problem because it falls into the trap of gay = sex.
And if you write a gay character that is secondary, that's a problem because they are secondary. Why aren't they the main character?

So... explain this to me again?

I thought it might be....

mirandashell said:

So... if you write a secondary character who is gay but doesn't have a LI, that's a problem. But if you write a secondary gay character that does, that's a problem because it falls into the trap of gay = sex.
And if you write a gay character that is secondary, that's a problem because they are secondary. Why aren't they the main character?

So... explain this to me again?

Click to expand...

I think it depends on how much exposure one has of LGBTQA characters in their media, I guess. (I don't know CL Polk's message, so I'm not going to speak for her.)

I myself just had bad exposure to certain types of LGBTQA tropes (the celibate gay friend/minor gay character, evil and/or dead lesbians, dead or suffering gays, etc), so that colors my view of how I feel LGBTQA characters used to be represented in the past media I was exposed to.

*shrugs* I could be wrong, of course.

I rarely see LGBTQA as protagonists in the stuff I watch/read/play, so it still feels like there is still some progress to be made, especially in mainstream stuff. (Or maybe LGBTQA will never be mainstream, and I'll have to just keep accepting that, which could be a realistic option.)

This is a touchy subject for me, and I'm feeling on edge right now, so I'll just bow out of this thread (for now?). I apologize for the derail.

ETA: And I'm not disagreeing with anyone's advice on just writing a person (whether secondary or primary) who happens to be gay, and a relationship is totally not necessary. It was just a little derail of some things that could be little stickler points for some people (like me) in pop culture stuff. That's all. *sigh*

I get what you're saying. It's just that I really don't see how anyone can write a gay character that doesn't carry some sort of baggage in the view of some readers.

These kinds of considerations don't matter when it's a straight character so to load it on to gay characters seems to be ... I don't know... self defeating? If you are going to get in the neck no matter how you write a gay character, why would you?

mirandashell said:

These kinds of considerations don't matter when it's a straight character so to load it on to gay characters seems to be ... I don't know... self defeating? If you are going to get in the neck no matter how you write a gay character, why would you?

Click to expand...

You're going to get it in the neck no matter how you write a character who is not like you (sex, race, orientation, religion, whatever). So just write it, and if people give you shit about it, decide whether their complaints have merit. If you decide they do not, ignore them.