I know I'm probably going to get crucified over this, but I just can't leave the subject alone. I want to know the Sheroes stance on sexuality in the Tammyverse.

1) What do you think about the characters that have been confirmed as gay or bi, in Emelan and Tortall?

2) What characters that haven't been confirmed as gay or bi do you think could/should/might be portrayed as having alternative sexuality?

3) Does the Tammyverse treatment of alternative sexuality bother you, and if so, on what level? EDIT: By Tammyverse treatment, I mean how Tammy treats the issue in her writing, not how the characters treat each other.

4) What do you think about the way fanfiction adresses alternative sexuality in the Tammyverse?

Lea.

1) Knowing only the Tortall books, only minor characters have been gay. And none openly so. I don't really care about that though as it suits the setting.

2) I wouldn't mind having more developed openly gay character in the Tortall books, but I also realize that in the current settings this wouldn't be realistic. If Tammy were to do a book set in the Yamani Islands I would like to see a main character be homosexual, but not in a way that their sexuality is the focus. Just show them like everyone else except that they romance their same gender.

And as a personal preference, I wish Roger/Thom/Alex were all gay and having a complicated love triangle. So hot. On a more serious note, I do wish Tammy had kept that bit in the books, even if there wasn't a steamy love triangle.

3) Well if you mean do I dislike Tortall's homophobia? Yes, I do. Homophobia is always bad. But that's how medieval England was and Tortall is based off of it, so that's acceptable for historical accuracy. Do I dislike Tammy having homosexuality in books? No.

4) I don't read fanfiction.

Luv, Bec

"It actually DOES say "Adam and Steve," that's what you get for reading the translation." ~God

I have not thought about 2) and I do not read fanfiction so I will only answer points 1) and 3).

Generally, I like to see gay/bi characters in fiction because that's how it is in reality, too. I also like when it is no big deal.

I think that in the cases of Lark/Rosethorn and Lalasa/Tianne it would have been nice if it had been said outright in the books. In my opinion it would not have distracted from the main story to put in one or two sentences somewhere - just like Kel's stand on homosexuality is no big deal, either.

What I would not want to see is a big, heavy-handed discussion about how it is okay to be gay. I hope we don't see that in CIRCLE REFORGED.

Things that bother me:
Lalasa, raped by her brother, is a lesbian. Hello stereotype! It does not matter if that's how it is meant or not. That's what it looks like.




And SPOILER FOR CIRCLE REFORGED.
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER








I'm not happy that Daja is not heterosexual. First of all, with her it's so easy to fall into the butch-lesbian stereotype. She's not the most feminine girl and she's a smith. I really hope that stereotype is adequately addressed. It's going to be there whether it is talked about or not, like with Lalasa where it was not adressed.

Secondly, according to the excerpt "love finds Daja". That does not sound like she grows into realizing that she's homosexual/bisexual in general, it sounds more like she will fall in love with one person who happens to be a woman. If gay, then not just because of one person, please.

Dandelion, that's just creepy, because it's almost exactly what I was thinking.

Lea.

Heh. Glad to know I'm not alone .

And I've been thinking about making a post about this for a few days now (since I had the impression the new spoiler information had largely gone unnoticed).

Not by me. I mean, once is once, twice is meh, but three times is a pattern. Stereotypes aren't bad because they have no bearing on reality but because they are a shallow and over-simplified representation of a sector of humanity. Not to mention they are often debasing, like the idea that a lesbian is a woman who can't get a man. I hate that.

Lea.

I don't like stereotypes in books because unlike in real life, they have been consciously put there. Of course you get butch lesbians in real life. Often, though, those are the only lesbians people see and are aware of. The other ones don't get noticed at all. So as an author, if you have the choice, why not make those invisible ones visible instead of playing along with common-held, incomplete and false views?

Dandelion

Stereotypes aren't bad because they have no bearing on
>reality but because they are a shallow and over-simplified
>representation of a sector of humanity. Not to mention they are
>often debasing, like the idea that a lesbian is a woman who can't
>get a man. I hate that.
>
>Lea.


Hmm. Now I can see how with a minor character we might get that impression (if you picked uo that Lalassa was a lesbian from the book, which most of us did not), but with Daja? I don't think it would happen that way. She's a main character, she'll be properly developed as a person. I don't think it will be a problem.

I don't have a problem with Lalassa being a 'stereotype', because I don't think she is. The character does not like men, because of a specific situation. She does like women, she is a lesbian. This happens in real life, why should it not happen in fiction? Tammy never represents it in that way, either, those are the conclusions we have come to via Sheroes, where we have sensible discussions on the subject.

What the POTS series makes clear is that lots of women are badly treated by men, that this is an unfortunate fact of life that needs to be addressed. And, that some men prefer other men, some women prefer other women, that this is generally accepted as a fact of life that is kept very quiet in Tortall, although not in the Yamani Isles. No-where does it say that the two are connected.

See this is the thing about stereotypres - they are so insidious that we see them all around, they can be as much our own creations as the author's.

Kathryn.

"Age and treachery!"

I agree whole heartedly about the Lalasa and Daja sterotypes.

  

Um. Forgive me if this has been gone over too many times already, because repeated questions are always annoying, but when did we find out that Daja isn't straight?

Consult the bones!

"And I will not rest until every year, families gather to spend December 25th together at Osama's Homobortionpot'n'commiejizzporium."

  

Tammy told Ebeth and others at a dinner, and Ebeth told us.

Later Days.
D.J.

| Dyslexic | LJ | Resident Jock |

  

Thanks.

Consult the bones!

"And I will not rest until every year, families gather to spend December 25th together at Osama's Homobortionpot'n'commiejizzporium."

  

In re: the spoilery bit.

I have a fair amount of trust in Tammy to handle this well. Daja has always seemed to me to be the kid with the greatest sense of herself as an outsider, as not-like-the-others, if you will, and I have had a sense of her as bi since "Cold Fire."

I don't see her as butch because I don't think of much of anyone as butch. Let us say that I believe Daja transcends butch. She is who she is, and falls at neither extreme of the gender spectrum. I also think that Daja is quite dramatically beautiful.

I had interpreted "love finds Daja" to be a statement about how love happens (there you are, minding your own business and BLAM!). Daja's realizations about her sexuality could come earlier or later. Maybe she is bi. Maybe she spends a few early chapters struggling to come out to the gang (or maybe the gang spends a few early chapters wondering if they can tell her that they've figured that out, thanks, and there's this great girl...) Maybe she has a long chat with Lark about how she feels and what's going on (I'd like to read that). I can think of lots of ways for this to go well.

Alternatively, I interpreted "love finds Daja" to be symptomatic of the inane ways in which publishers write blurbs.

Question:

Probably stupid, but I am really slow and off my game tonight.

Is this on Tammy's website?

Or where do we find this blurb?

Was it on Cold Fire, 'cause umm, that would confuse me even more.

Later Days.
D.J.

| Dyslexic | LJ | Resident Jock |

  

Yep, it's on her website D.J.

http://www.tamora-pierce.com/about.htm#circreforg

  

Thank you because I am having very extensive moments of stupidity right now.

Later Days.
D.J.

| Dyslexic | LJ | Resident Jock |

  

The thing is, I don't <i>do</i> trust.

Lea.

Back on the stereotypes question:

I think there is no way to win this one. No matter which of the girls was not straight, there's a potential negative stereotype that causes problems. Sandry would be the ultra-femme "lipstick lesbian". Tris has all those emotional problems resulting from neglect in her early life. No matter which way it goes, there's a problem that will make some people unhappy.

Still, I think the butch-stereotype is most prevalent in people's thinking and the one that is most difficult to handle for girls who realize they are homosexual themselves (it is sort of tied to the other common one - she likes girls because she can't get boys).

I guess in the end it all comes down to how it is handled in the books. Let's see how it's done, and maybe it won't be bad. But I really do have doubts about this.

THANKS, ebeth!!!!!!!!!!

I am trapped no matter how I went with the Circle girls: Sandry the femme, Tris the hostile, and Daja the smith. For that matter, God help me if I claimed Briar was gay--stereotyped because he has no long-term relationships with women he's bedded, and he's sensitive and works in a "feminine" area.

What I'm bending over backward to do, and what I've gotten dinged for here, is let the sexual affiliation grow out of the situation, and not belabor it by saying things like "`OMG, Lalasa, you love other women!' gasped Kel. `Well, that makes perfect sense, since your brother abused you and you hate men! I just want you to know I support you in your quest for tenderness!'"

Is that what you want? I'm trying to treat gays and lesbians and those who are bisexual as part of everyday life. To do that, I can't spell it straight out when I'm writing a book about another plot entirely. For one thing, by dealing with it even in a sentence or two, when the book is about another event stream altogether, I might as well post a Sensitivity Sign with a big neon arrow pointing to the moment, so everyone knows I'm making A Correctness Statement. For another, the book isn't about that. There are so many writers, far better at this than I am (Brent Hartinger, Nancy Garden, Francesca Lia Block)--they are writing books in which the sexual orientation of the characters is the issue. I am more than happy to let them do it, and for me to go on telling my own stories.

Lark and Rosethorn's sexual orientation wasn't a vital part of their part of the Circle books, which was managing four very powerful, very damaged, very intelligent pre-pubescents. By Circle Opens we only see them separately. In CIRCLE REFORGED we don't see them at all. I had to cut Thom and Roger because LIONESS RAMPANT was only 200 pages long, which meant I had to cut wads and wads of material and use only the main plot: Alanna undergoes trials and comes home to build a stronger realm. I didn't make a big thing about Lalasa and Tianne because in FIRST TEST and PAGE I was still being held to 200 pages a book, and the only person's story I had room for was Kel's. And Kel, though she shelters Lalasa, helps her, protects her, and gives her a start, deals more in the lives of her male friends than that of her maid. She's with the guys 16 hours a day, Lalasa 8. And servants didn't confide in their masters easily in that world.

Sorry about the long post, but this series of objections really cut me to the quick. I cannot possible address all of the Big Issues in my books; I'm resigned to that, and just as determined to address the issues that are important to me (female empowerment in the face of the odds, shaping your own life). If you think I step wrongly here, I beg you, start writing. That's how I dealt with the powerless women and girls in the fiction of my teenaged years. If I am stereotypical, correct it in your own work.

Tammy

“No person is your friend who demands your silence.”
Alice Walker

Tammy, we think you're brilliant! We do!

I know I'm not the only one on here that really likes the way you have dealt with these issues, by not making them 'Issues' in the books themselves.

I never felt that any of these characters were stereotypes, and was surprised to read other people saying so. But meaning is created as much by the reader as the writer, and I think you are doomed to have some people interpret the characters in those ways, just as some people continue to be very judgemental about Alanna's 'promiscuity' (hah!)

Of course, when I first started reading Tammy's books, there was no internet for people to voice those opinions on, and so authors got to live in blissful ignorance. I hope she's not getting nostalgic.
Of course, there were no gay/lesbian characters in children's books, either.

I sometimes wonder if people appreciate those two things - Tammy does no have to write about these things, and neither does she have to tell us about them on Sheroes. Bear in mind that if we had not heard about Daja's storyline so far in advance we would not be able to criticise it, before we've even read the book...

Just my thoughts.

Kathryn.

"Age and treachery!"

*points up* What Kinky said. I don't think it's very fun for Tammy to come on Sheroes and find we're all critizising her ideas before we've even read the book.

Just Finished: The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins
Currently Reading: Catching Fire by Suzanne Collins

Novel Count for 2010: 4

Edited to revise "Criticism is fine if it's positive":

Criticism is fine if it's constructive, not a simple ranking-out. I don't expect everyone to love and believe in each word I put on paper. I just felt I was being judged for the way I didn't make something obvious or the way I may do something stereotypical. I do come from a generation that didn't address alternate sexuality in books, and I do understand why people need to find it there. And a little goes a long way with people--someone I met had realized I was cool with gay-ness from that one brief exchange between Kel and Neil, and was delighted by it.

Also, realize it has to stop somewhere, or an author gets too weighed down with baggage to tell a decent story. I've been told I disregard the rights of the hearing impaired by planning books that will be published first as audio books; that by not saying someone is white when I describe everyone else's skin color, I am sending the message that white skin is the most important, default setting; that I wrote in a biased manner about Islamic hospitality (I got an apology later on that one); that Daine should be a vegetarian because that would be better than being a carnivore, something that sent Daine into giggles. And then there are the regular points of contention: violence, sex, virginity, and STDs. If I included each and every one of these points, I'd be a writer everyone would despise.

Edited to add: I don't think membership in this boards means you have to adore everything I do and that you can't be critical. All I ask is that you're fair when you're critical, not just of my writing, but of other writers. The only fair way to be critical of a piece is to comment about what it is, not what you think it should be or what you would write or what you wanted to read. This is a common problem that all writers encounter from the moment they start letting other people read their work. New writers don't always realize they're getting comments back that really have nothing to do with what they actually did. As we keep writing and start to get published, most of us learn to recognize the problem, but it would be nice if people would simply read and comment on what's actually on the page. A reviewer who decides I should have written according to her/his agenda stands a good chance of steering readers away who might actually like what I have to say.

Tammy

“No person is your friend who demands your silence.”
Alice Walker

I feel the need to criticize the content of fiction as well as its style, both because it helfs me refine my own taste (in my own writing as well as the writing of others) and because I've gotten used to the idea of debating content. Ordinarily, I would not have brought it up here at all, but I was curious to see who shared my opinion, who disputed it, and why. Because I most often critique peers, discussion of plot and characterization is inseperable from discussion of style.

As a further note, I happen to know the Deaf girl (who's name is Cami) fairly well, and she wasn't really criticising. She was naturally unhappy that she would need to wait for her books, and was just venting. It's much the same as me venting about waiting for paperbacks because of my $89 a month salary. Just a small clarification.

Response appreciated.

>Response appreciated.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say, except this: you say you feel the need to criticize the content of fiction, fine. That's what you should be criticizing. The problem is, you haven't read the book, but you're complaining about my choices out of context.

When I see a comment put out there, I can't know it's "just venting" when no one says that it is until much later, if at all. Since I have very little time to spend here, I seldom get to see the small clarifications. Instead I get to carry the criticism around with me as a person's deeply held critical opinion.

Edited for typo.

Tammy

“No person is your friend who demands your silence.”
Alice Walker

"Criticism is fine if it's positive."

Um, do you mean 'constructive'?

"I do come from a generation that didn't address alternate sexuality in books, and I do understand why people need to find it there. And a little goes a long way with people--someone I met had realized I was cool with gay-ness from that one brief exchange between Kel and Neil, and was delighted by it."

Yep that's me. I gasped out loud when I read that bit. That's why I find it so very strange when people complain - but then I grew up on The Famous Five and Roald Dahl, where nothing of the kind would even be mentioned.

"The only fair way to be critical of a piece is to comment about what it is, not what you think it should be or what you would write or what you wanted to read."

( I've read academic literary criticism that failed to follow this very simple rule. I mean, written by top literary critics, people who actually do it for a living! It's so incredibly annoying. What's worse is when these people have gained editorial control, and actually changed the text - did you know there's a version of King Lear where Cordelia and Edgar get married, and everyone lives Happily Ever After? Shakespeare never wrote it that way!)

I admire your attitude, and your patience. If it was me reading these things about books that have not even been published yet, I would be immensely annoyed, and probably either stop giving out spoilers or stop reading people's responses to them.

Nothing wrong with discussing how a writer deals with something in a book, but you do need to have read the book first! (For all the lazy English Lit. students out there - no watching the movie doesn't count, because they always change the crucial bit and you look a right idiot when you bring it up in class - trust me).

Kinky.

"Age and treachery!"

>"Criticism is fine if it's positive."
>
>Um, do you mean 'constructive'?

I think, in this case, "positive" means that it deals with what is *in* the text, and not with what isn't. In that sense, it's positive criticism to say that you believe that Tammy handled Alanna's romantic relationships badly, that you doesn't find them compelling or convincing and you feel it might have been done better. It would be negative criticism to complain that you feel that Alanna should have had a romantic relationship with a girl, because you get annoyed that all the so-called unconventional girls wind up being straight.

Make sense?

>( I've read academic literary criticism that failed to follow this
>very simple rule. I mean, written by top literary critics, people
>who actually do it for a living! It's so incredibly annoying. What's
>worse is when these people have gained editorial control, and
>actually changed the text - did you know there's a version of King
>Lear where Cordelia and Edgar get married, and everyone lives
>Happily Ever After? Shakespeare never wrote it that way!)

Be fair - that version of Lear is not the creation of literary critics, it was the work of dramatists who felt the play was too depressing and needed sprucing up or no one would come see it. I could look it all up for you, but that would involve picking up a play which I am trying very hard to unmemorize. While I think the version in question is depolorable and artificial, I agree that the original is too depressing. It's just that in my favored changes, Cordelia tells Lear off in I.i, and she and Kent pack it up for Germany and live happily ever after. The plot edits look positively artistic next to the hack jobs made of that play on film.

Not that that has anything to do with the issue at hand.

>Be fair - that version of Lear is not the creation of literary
>critics, it was the work of dramatists who felt the play was too
>depressing and needed sprucing up or no one would come see it. I
>could look it all up for you, but that would involve picking up a
>play which I am trying very hard to unmemorize. While I think the
>version in question is depolorable and artificial, I agree that the
>original is too depressing. It's just that in my favored changes,
>Cordelia tells Lear off in I.i, and she and Kent pack it up for
>Germany and live happily ever after. The plot edits look positively
>artistic next to the hack jobs made of that play on film.
>
>Not that that has anything to do with the issue at hand.


Oh? I thought it was Garrick, the great actor/director and dramatic critic, who came up with that version. It was the more popular version with audiences. I could be wrong though, it's been three years since I studied it. And, well, it is a tragedy, it's meant to be depressing - which is the point in hand. Appreciating and discussing the merits of something as it is intended to be, rather than complaining that you wanted it to be something else.

Also, it did occur to me that in a way it was an early form of fanfiction - really not that different from people who want Alanna/Jon or Kel/Dom together, and so write about it.

Kathryn.

"Age and treachery!"

>Oh? I thought it was Garrick, the great actor/director and dramatic
>critic, who came up with that version. It was the more popular
>version with audiences.

I looked it up. It wasn't Garrick (although I don't swear Garrick wasn't involved). It was Nahum Tate, and the edited version first appeard in 1681 (Garrick was born in 1717). For years (possibly centuries), Tate was the only version performed. Garrick was many things, but not a critic in the scholarly sense.

Tate's version was popular with audiences - it was written to address the needs and desires of his audience, which had been through some rough political times and wanted love rewarded and monarchy restored.

>Also, it did occur to me that in a way it was an early form of
>fanfiction - really not that different from people who want
>Alanna/Jon or Kel/Dom together, and so write about it.

Very true.

It's like the movie people changing book endings because it's too depressing--for example, "The Little Shop of Horrors" ending. I mean, I wanted it to end happily, too, but it seemed wrong to mess with the way the original ended. The same with the classic movie "Picnic," which completely rewrote the ending of the William Inge stage play.

Tammy

“No person is your friend who demands your silence.”
Alice Walker

>
>I looked it up. It wasn't Garrick (although I don't swear Garrick
>wasn't involved). It was Nahum Tate, and the edited version first
>appeard in 1681 (Garrick was born in 1717). For years (possibly
>centuries), Tate was the only version performed. Garrick was many
>things, but not a critic in the scholarly sense.
>
>Tate's version was popular with audiences - it was written to
>address the needs and desires of his audience, which had been
>through some rough political times and wanted love rewarded and
>monarchy restored.
>


Fair enough. Like I said, it was three years ago that I studied the subject, and we didn't study the history of their performance but the texts as literature in the context of their times. That's why changes annoy me - Lear is a reflection of its own time.

The Bowdlerized versions are probably worse - like the Sherlock Holmes example they were 'children's versions' that cut out all the bad language, violence and sex.

Which doesn't leave a lot, when you come to think about it.

Anyway, now that I have gone completely off-topic, can I say how nice it is to have an actual discussion about these things? Too often debates on sensitive topics like these lead to little more than insults being thrown around.

Kathryn.

"Age and treachery!"

>Fair enough. Like I said, it was three years ago that I studied the
>subject, and we didn't study the history of their performance but
>the texts as literature in the context of their times. That's why
>changes annoy me - Lear is a reflection of its own time.

I spent six months up to my neck in King Lear. I hate the play with a fiery passion. So Tate is just fine by me, despite it's manifold flaws, although in principal, I agree with you on the wrongness of mucking with the original text.

>The Bowdlerized versions are probably worse - like the Sherlock
>Holmes example they were 'children's versions' that cut out all the
>bad language, violence and sex.
>
>Which doesn't leave a lot, when you come to think about it.

You should see the Victorian version of Romeo and Juliet. It's a very short play, and in the middle of it, this Mercutio guy you've never seen before gives a speech about Queen Mab and is subsequently never heard from again.

>Anyway, now that I have gone completely off-topic, can I say how
>nice it is to have an actual discussion about these things? Too
>often debates on sensitive topics like these lead to little more
>than insults being thrown around.

I like 'em too.

When I said cricism, I meant negatively. I guess that didn't come across - positive criticism is fine, but I've been getting a negative sense from all this, which I suppose is what Tammy's trying to underline.

Just Finished: The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins
Currently Reading: Catching Fire by Suzanne Collins

Novel Count for 2010: 4

Edited to fix underlining problem

>>Criticism is fine if it's positive."
>Um, do you mean 'constructive'?
Er, oops. Will fix/

>Yep that's me. I gasped out loud when I read that bit. That's why I find it so very strange when people complain - but then I grew up on The Famous Five and Roald Dahl, where nothing of the kind would even be mentioned.<
I think the first book I ever read on the subject was an adult one.

>>"The only fair way to be critical of a piece is to comment about what it is, not what you think it should be or what you would write or what you wanted to read."
>( I've read academic literary criticism that failed to follow this very simple rule. I mean, written by top literary critics, people who actually do it for a living!<
I have, too. And I've heard it from other writers, whom you'd think would know better. I guess I'm talking about the ideal, but there are a number of responsible people who do adhere to it, which makes the ones who don't irritate all the more.

> It's so incredibly annoying.<
Oh, yes!

>did you know there's a version of King Lear where Cordelia and Edgar get married, and everyone lives Happily Ever After? Shakespeare never wrote it that way!) <
There's also a "child's version" of the Sherlock Holmes stories with his drug use edited out.

>I admire your attitude, and your patience. If it was me reading these things about books that have not even been published yet, I would be immensely annoyed, and probably either stop giving out spoilers or stop reading people's responses to them.<
Actually, for the most part I have stopped giving out spoilers, but I thought this one would make people happy, not angry. And I don't read people's discussions anywhere but Sheroes. Tim actually ordered me to stop reading the customer reviews on Amazon. (I let him live.)(I also stopped reading the reviews because all that crying and screaming was not good for me.)

On Sheroes, I figure I owe it to people to respond to serious issues, so they actually get the writer's viewpoint instead of voicing their opinions in a vaccum. I think it's important for readers to know writers are human beings. Apparently all too human, in this case, because this has made me rather upset and cranky.

>Nothing wrong with discussing how a writer deals with something in a book, but you do need to have read the book first!<
I think so. I made Tim stop talking about Harry Potter until he'd read at least one of the books. And I impose the same rules on myself. I don't read it; I don't talk about it. It's too easy to slip into the "all is trash/violent/sexist/racist/puerile." My mother once got in my English teacher's face for assigning Ray Bradbury's FAHRENHEIT 451 (Mum called sf "that junk"). Miss Kepicks asked if she'd read it, and when my mother said no, Miss Kepicks told her to read it and report on it the next week. My mother, to her credit, did read it, and that was the end of the "that junk" talk about sf for a long time, and ever afterward I thought Miss Kepicks was a god because she reined my mother up short.

People ought to be able to voice opinions here without worrying about whether they hurt my feelings, but it would have been nice if they, and those people outside Sheroes who have begun to e-mail me with their own objections, had actually read the book.

Tammy

“No person is your friend who demands your silence.”
Alice Walker

Hold your figures there--Lalasa was raped by her brother? I must have been mind wiped or something, I don't remember that part. I think I knew she was a lesbian, but I guess I forgot that! I didn't actually know or suspect that Lalasa was a lesbian until Tammy said.

Pol, the Duchess of Erat

He dissed Pride & Prejudice so I had to throw a beer on him.

O HAY GUYZ, IT'S MAH LJ: http://maddy4.livejournal.com/

Yep.

She tells Kel that a man who was more important to her parents then she was hurt her.

I'm pretty sure its in Frist Test, but it might be in Page or even Squire.

I can't remember exactly.

Later Days.
D.J.

| Dyslexic | LJ | Resident Jock |

  

Page. Lalasa doesn't become Kel's maid until the first day of the second year of page training. That'd be Page.

  

*shudders* That is so horribly wrong. What sicko rapes his sister?

Actually, there's probably a lot of people like that...but it's still so wrong.

Just Finished: The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins
Currently Reading: Catching Fire by Suzanne Collins

Novel Count for 2010: 4

Incest happens.

It's wrong and the person who does it usually has BIG time problems and issues.

We don't call people with mental illnesses "sickos" even if what they did was disgusting and wrong.

Later Days.
D.J.

| Dyslexic | LJ | Resident Jock |

  

I wasn't implying that people with mental illnesses are sickos. I suppose it did come across like that. I meant to say it in a different way, but now I can't really explain it. But I'm not implying that mental illnesses make people sickos.

Just Finished: The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins
Currently Reading: Catching Fire by Suzanne Collins

Novel Count for 2010: 4

*shrug*

I'm sure you didn't.

But that's how it came across.

Later Days.
D.J.

| Dyslexic | LJ | Resident Jock |

  

1) I think it's absolutely fine and completely fits each character that it's assigned to.

2) Hm. I don't know. I'm not very good at reading people. I think it would be interesting, however, if someone in Tortall/another country in the Tortallverse who was in a position of power was portrayed as being homosexual. Maybe I've been exposed to too much Jim McGreevey discussion, but it could help that world's attitude towards homosexuals if a noble was one.

Roger, I think, should have flaunted his gayness more while he was alive

3) No. I think Tammy's handling it very well at the moment. Subtextual references are fine. I don't want it to become the point of the plot. I fully wouldn't mind if a character was portrayed as gay just on the offhand, like "Oh, here's So-and-So, he has a man in his bed instead of a woman" and nothing on the subject non-plot-related after that. But knowing that the Tortall world at least is based off of medieval England, that's just not possible, as close minds were rampant back then and Tammy would probably have to make some sort of discussion about it.

4) Ah, fanfiction. ALL fandoms, even the lesser-known ones, have people who get completely carried away with the notions of homosexual characters. It's when the pairings are totally senseless that it bothers me.

Dude. Roger and George never slept together. And no, if I insult your story, I'm not homophobic. MOVE ON.

*sulks* Sheroes ate my post. Bad Sheroes.

1) I'm fine with it either way. It suits those characters, it's part of their personality, and it makes the story seem even more realistic.

2) I haven't really thought about that.

3) Well, there's intolerance of alternative sexuality in the Tammyverse, but then, there's intolerance of it in RL too. It's just the way people are; it's bad, but it's life.

4) I don't generally read fanfiction, so I have no opinion.

Just Finished: The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins
Currently Reading: Catching Fire by Suzanne Collins

Novel Count for 2010: 4

Don't forget polyamoury as an "alternative sexuality". (I don't really like the term it implies that only heterosexual monogaus(sp?) people are normal.)

I was very happy to find out that Rosetorn and Lark do not have closed relationship. (Rosie's been know to have flings with Crane.) I'm happy that someone in a book is poly. While I understand Tammy doesn't want to discuse sexuality, I wish non-standard sexualities where writen about as if they where normal more often.

I have an auditory processing disorder; please forgive minor spelling errors.

1. I'm delighted to see homosexual and bisexual characters in both universes. I can recall the first time I read "Page" and discovered the Yamani views, and I reveled in the not-yet-confirmed relationship between Lalasa and Tian. It was never a question for me as a reader. As for Emelan, there is nothing more beautiful than the moment Lark and Rosie are reunited in "Briar's Book"--yet, at the same time, I take incredibly great pleasure in the polyamoury of that situation. Rosie/Crane is just as touching, and so fullfilling in a different way. It absolutely delights me to see an author so casually address something that is slowly becoming a "norm".

2. I've always been a proponent of Raoul of Goldenlake having an "alternate" lifestyle regarding sexuality, whether he be bisexual or polyamourous. And in that context, I should probably note that I would've liked to have Gary in the same, er, boat. ^_~

There are plenty of other characters that I would like to see living a more open lifestyle--the most prominent in my mind being Keladry. She has a lot to give, and I think it would be fun to explore in canon or in fanfiction, and it wouldn't be completely character-defying, since she is so caring of so many people.

3. I can't say I'm *bothered* by the treatment of homosexuality as of yet--but then, I still have to read "Circle Reforged"! I'm wary of stereotypes, but it's next to impossible to NOT have them, since there are so many things that fall into the "stereotypically gay" category. I'm wary about Daja's coming out, since I'd figured her to be the one drawn MOST to the opposite sex (finding UST in "Cold Fire", whether it was intended or not). I was also uncomfortable with the juxtaposition of Lalasa's sexuality and abuse, being a victim of abuse myself--many people have assumed that I'm afraid of men and therefore attracted to women. The two are entirely different things, and it is a little troublesome to me to see such a stereotype being furthered, even if entirely unintentional. Overall, my favorite portrayal of "alternate lifestyles" would be within Emelan's Living Circle, which is why I'm looking forward to seeing how Daja's story unfolds. I won't deny my trepidation, but I won't make up my mind just yet, either.

4. Fanfiction is a strange approach to looking at characters' sexual potential. So many great stories come out of speculation regarding "unconventional pairings"--whether homo-, hetero-, or bisexual. Ultimately, so long as there's a point of characterization to be made, I take delight in "slash" and non-conventional romantic stories, and I enjoy writing them. George/Jon *can* explore the inner workings of two monarchs (and as Jon says: Kings and princes should be friends!). On the other hand, Alanna/Wyldon, though it would NEVER come close to happening in canon, is also an exercise in how much two attitudes can bend in order to reach a common goal. I'm more of an "anything goes!" person regarding fanfiction, and would certainly never tell someone they were wrong for exploring something I didn't exactly see while reading the texts.

3) For some reason, I found it really jarring when it was first mentioned in Protector of the Small (at least, that's where I noticed it... maybe I'm just naive... it's definitely a possibility). It just seemed so out of place. I mean, while these books aren't 'frivolous', they're not about Issues (and I think you know what I mean by Issues-with-a-capital-I), and writing about an Issue in a non-Issue book just didn't seem to fit in with the rest of the book.

Did that make an ounce of sense?

And that has nothing to do with my opinion on sexuality in general. That's just my opinion as a writer. And it wasn't that bad.

I hope nothing like that was already mentioned. I didn't read the rest of the thread because I'm only halfway through Circle of Magic and it was being Spoiled ^_^

I can see that, IF a big deal was made. But Tammy didn't write it as an "Issue." It's not an issue to not be heterosexual. It's a part of everday life, and these are everyday books.

I was a lonely teenage broncin' buck
with a pink carnation and a pickup truck

Oh, that's true, it was just a remark in passing (that I've read, anyway), but it was just a sort of 'what?' moment. For me ^_^

>1) What do you think about the characters that have been confirmed
>as gay or bi, in Emelan and Tortall?

What's the big deal? Sexual orientation shouldn't matter unless you're dating the person.


>3) Does the Tammyverse treatment of alternative sexuality bother
>you, and if so, on what level? EDIT: By Tammyverse treatment,
>I mean how Tammy treats the issue in her writing, not how the
>characters treat each other.

I don't see a problem at all. I'd personally like to see polyamorous relationships in the mix as well, but this might not be possible in the world, and I understand that.


>4) What do you think about the way fanfiction adresses alternative
>sexuality in the Tammyverse?

I don't read fanfic.

~*~*~*~AK~*~*~*~

  

Would you call Lark/Rosethorn/Crane polyamorous? I don't know much about polyamory, but Rosie and Crane have relations when they're working and Lark doesn't mind, and Rosie's with her at the same time.

Bless, Rhoz

I'm a member of the revolution; I don't hate my body!
FEMINIST
Resident Sheroes Porn Fairy

I can think of one really good reason for me to steer clear of outright polyamory: too many plot lines! I'm breaking out in a rash already! (TRICKSTER'S QUEEN ruined my tolerance for complex plot lines in my own books.)

And yes, confirm it here, Lalasa and Tiane are a couple. They're always together after a certain point, and Tiane comes completely unglued when Lalasa vanishes. She's also waiting there for Lalasa when she and Kel come down.

Lalasa doesn't throw herself into Tiane's arms because she dislikes and mistrusts men. She likes and trusts softness, slowness, sweet voices, curves, and gentleness. She would never be attracted to Kel, because Kel is muscular, hard-bodied, and crisp. She adores Kel--she gives Kel credit for rescuing her life and giving her a fresh start--but she has never felt sexual about Kel and never would.

Tammy

“No person is your friend who demands your silence.”
Alice Walker

Oh yes on that too many plotlines thing.

I went to a polyamory panel at an SF con last year that consisted of 200 people discussing their scheduling problems. This is occasionally mildly entertaining in real life, but it doesn't make for enjoyable fiction.

I've taken my sweet time thinking about this one.

And here's what I've come up with.

I love how Tammy deals with sexuality in her books.

The reason?

It's NOT a big deal.

And that's how it should be. It should never, ever be a big deal.

Its like women taking control of their sexuality.

In our society this usually results in labels like "slut" or "whore" and that shouldn't happen.

Just like the labels "####" and "homo" or whatever shouldn't be used.

In Tammy's worlds, these things AREN'T an issue.

And if you ask me, that's how it should be in ours.

Later Days.
D.J.

| Dyslexic | LJ | Resident Jock |

  

Thank you D.J. for posting my exact thoughts on the matter.

You're welcome.

Later Days.
D.J.

| Dyslexic | LJ | Resident Jock |

  

I like the way Tammy has handled alternative sexuality so far, treating it as a non-issue, though I am happy to see that it will be moer openly stated. I trust Tammy to treat Daja's sexuality in the same "it's perfectly normal" type way.
I had really hoped Sandry would be the circle kid who ended up being gay, but that's probably because I most identify with.
As far as fanfic, I rarely read it, but I also enjoy a good slash fic. They're fun even if they aren't always realistic.

Right, then. Open foot, insert mouth.

I was promised an apocalypse, dammit. What am I supposed to do with all these tubs of margarine and confetti and kazoos?

It was better when I didn't know. Like they say ignorance is bliss.
-Kel
"Save a horse, ride a cowboy." -"Big and Rich"m

It really makes me uncomfortable the way it talked about Kel taking a stand thing...and all that about "making love"...it just made me really sick in the PotS series...I'm still reading Lady Knight, just because I want her to find Brayce, but after that, I don't think I'll reread these. As for the Lalasa/Tian, hello! It is okay to have good girl friends and not be gay! I'm sorry, I am really against homosexuality, but NOT against the actual people! I wish Tammy wouldn't put vulgar stuff in her books.

Cleon, get a life

No offense to you, but I don't think you should call homosexuality vulgar. There are homosexual people on this board. It's fine if you're against it, but please don't use such strong words. Also, I'm a little confused about what you mean when you said that you were uncomfortable with Kel taking a stand. I know sometimes that can mean sex, but I'm positive she never actually had sex throughout the whole series - she and Cleon just thought about it. I think when it means she took a stand, she was standing up for her beliefs, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Just Finished: The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins
Currently Reading: Catching Fire by Suzanne Collins

Novel Count for 2010: 4

There was a heterosexual character in PotS who kidnapped, beat, and raped women he was supposed to be learning to protect. So it strikes me as pretty weird that what strikes you as vulgar in the PotS series are the loving, caring and friendly relationships.

And it is considerate to be careful how you talk about gay people on this board. Some of those people are quite probably your friends, even if you don't know that about them yet.

I'm glad that you make the distinction between not likeing homosexuality and not likeing the people themselves. That's the thing that realy gets me when people say that they are agains homosexuality. And I think it is reasonable that Tammy puts homosexuality in her books, and it is, as others have said, treated as non-issue. It would be a rather incomplete world if everyone was always heterosexual as people in our world aren't all heterosexual either.

1) We have homosexual people on the boards and this post could be extremely offensive to any of them.

2) Kel never actually HAD sex. I see nothing vulgar about that. Sex isn't vulgar its a natural act between two people, and it doesn't have to involve anything more then lust.

She and Cleon never did get "carried" away.

And if you think that way about Kel and her decisions I can only imagine what you must think of Alanna, who slept with Jon, George and Liam before she finally married George, or Diane who slept with Numair for years before having a child and THEN marrying him.

3) Sex isn't vulgar.

Later Days.
D.J.

Edited to add:

This post deals very well with the issue of sex in Tammy's books.

http://www.sheroescentral.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=6&topic_id=9585&mesg_id=&page=&mode=full

| Dyslexic | LJ | Resident Jock |