How to use this Page

Bravo, Lucy. Well said. The problem arises of how we incorporate 'gay' characters into our books. If we put them in then we may be accused of 'tokenism' especially if there is no gay theme to the story. I considered including a 'gay' theme to a recent story but backed off because 1. I hadn't personal experience and 2.I was afraid i would get it wrong and be accused of box ticking.
In the end I think these barriers will be broken by gay writers.

I have a cousin who is "married" (in a legal civil partnership) with his same-sex partner. I also happen to like his partner very much. We actually discussed this issue and his view was, "I would not want to read about it. I can see some people might. It might even help some people but I just don't think people should make an issue of sexual orientation."
I found that interesting.

It's not tokenism to have gay characters with no major gay theme - it's reflecting life as it is. Children's books should reflect our divere world, not create a false all-white, all- straight, all-Christian version. Being gay is not an issue, it's a fact of life.

That is very interesting, Cat. But in this case, an issue has been made of it by exercising a sort of censorship on those writers including it at all--and more have come out and said it happened to them too. As Ann says above, 'tokenism' is not a road any of us should be going down--I agree with that. But I do not agree that writing about gay teens should only be left to gay writers, which is why I made the point about all of us writers at times writing about things of which we have no empirical experience. Writing a gay character in a story because you think you *should* is very different from wanting to do so (because that's how the character has come to you) and feeling you somehow can't because of the fear that you will never sell the book for the sole reason that that character is included. And Keren is quite right--gayness is a fact of teen life (as I said in the piece). Why shouldn't we reflect that?

Totally with you, Lucy - and Keren states the case, I think, very clearly.
susanpricesblog.blogspot.com

Not just teen life - when my kids were at primary school we had gay neighbours, they had friends with gay parents, we went every year to the gay pride parade. I see no reason at all why that shouldn't be reflected in books for younger children.

Oddly, one of the most 'macho' books out there features a gay character - the Cherub books by Robery Muchamore. I wish my 12-year-old would come across more LGBT characters in fiction. Something has to counter balance the horrible homophobia in schools. My son knows that if I ever heard him using 'gay' pejoratively, he'd be roasted on a spit and is respectful generally, but he tells me it is rife. It really saddens me, especially when you hear the appalling statistics on gay teenagers and suicide...

That's a very good point too, Keren, and there's a link here to a list of books which have already been written for younger readers. Not massive, considering the amount that is published every year....
http://www.windowsill.net/gaybooks.html

Caroline - if your son likes fantasy fiction, you might do worse than have a look at Sarah Rees Brennan's Demon series. Maybe a bit old for him now, but one of the characters is gay, and, I think, very well written. In fact, he's one of the people I like best in the books. I am ashamed to say I haven't read the Cherub books--macho not being my read of choice. But I'll have a look now. Thanks for alerting me.

I was just passing on what he told me.
My personal view? I think (part of) the answer has to be that it needs to be handled like other "issues" - race, religion, disability, violence, abuse, war etc. It has to be sensitively and sensibly handled. It has to be part of the story. It has to be there for a reason. It cannot be there just because someone says,"oh I had better put an "X" type character in the book". If you choose to make it the main theme then there has to be a good reason for that and it has to be more than the sole issue. If you choose to make one the minor characters one with an "issue" then there has to be a reason for that too. Does that make sense?

Well said, Lucy.

Novels explore what it means to be human - and that includes sexuality. And yes, - surely we should be over this by now?

With the caveat that the agents concerned deny strongly that they ever demanded the 'straightening' of a gay character - and that I have an uneasy feeling the writers jumped on an issue and used it for publicity - I agree wholeheartedly, Lucy.

We'll have got there when the fact of a character's gayness is of as little import as their gender or height. One of my characters has told me he's gay - no names no pack drill - but it wasn't a conscious decision by me. He just *is*, and I didn't know it till he woke up next to a bloke. (As he said to me, rolling his eyes, 'You are *so* unobservant'.) But I don't want him to be defined by his sexual orientation. He's many, many things besides gay.

I find it depressing that there were still complaints about gay sex scenes in the latest Torchwood. 'I don't care if John Barrowman's gay, but why does he have to shove it down our throats all the time?' (ahem) summed up the ones I read in 'viewer comment' sections. No complaints about graphic straight sex, obviously. *headdesk*

You're always going to offend someone's sensibilities (which doesn't mean you shouldn't), but I'm waiting for the day there are shrieks of 'Disgusting!' without mention of the sexual orientation of the 'disgustingness' ;-)

This isn't a YA issue, as far as I can see. We need board books and early readers and tween novels which include gay parents/friends/neighbours if we want to reflect social change. Not books about being gay, because that makes it an issue, but books in which characters being gay isn't a big issue at all. So that gay people and their family and friends don't feel, as black children once did, there's nobody in this book like me.

Cat, that makes absolute sense -and yes, it *does* have to be handled like those other 'issues' you mention, which are part and parcel of the human condition.

Jo, thank you.

Gillian - that caveat was why I put in the link--so that people could see both sides of the story and all the debate around it for themselves without my taking up too much space here! That being said, enough authors have come out and said publicly that this kind of 'censorship by default' has been part of their own experience, that I personally believe there is a problem--which, of course, no one in the industry will admit to overtly. There are, of course, a number of books with gay protagonists which *have* been published--and I celebrate that fact. Your point that ' We'll have got there when the fact of a character's gayness is of as little import as their gender or height' is exactly my own feeling--I just wish we were there now. As for your character (hmmn, wonder who it could be!!) - that's how it should happen. Writing is such a strange process, and very often we *do* find out things about our characters in the process of travelling with them over the course of one book (or many). I know I do - it happened to me just recently, and I had a moment of revelation about one of my main characters which made me (literally) rock back in my chair.

Jen-- you're right, it isn't. But I wrote this piece because of the current gay YA debate, and so focused on that here.

Oh yes, Lucy, I'd guessed that was covered in the link you posted - sorry! - i just wanted to flag it. But yes - the notion that you could somehow be untrue to a character in that way is just gobsmacking. And I agree with you completely that gay characters should not be left to gay writers. That's ghettoising. Is there something other-than-human about a gay character (or a black one, or a short one) that means other humans should delicately avoid writing about them? No, no, a thousand times no. *wild rhetorical flourish*

I like where you're coming from with that wild rhetorical flourish, Gillian!

I really found this, and all the comments, very interesting.

I completely agree that while someone's sexual orientation should in some respects be as irrelevant as their height or colour or shoe size (and in that respect Keren & jenalexander were spot on about making sure it is approached across the board), in others it is the responsibility of specifically YA authors to "handle" it properly. I say this because (IMHO!) sex is an emotional and often confusing subject in which teens can be both particularly vulnerable and yet more reluctant than any other time of life to discuss with others. So good literature for this age group that show sexual feelings & experiences as normal whether they are gay, straight, experimenting, awkward & fumbling is really important to help teens feel more comfortable about themselves. And absolutely, Gillian - a big NO to ghettoising, good point.
Er, I've rambled on a bit there, hope it's ok! Just my tuppence'orth...

I'm so glad you brought this up here, Lucy - and thanks so much for the link to cleolinda's post, which is admirably comprehensive. I'm going to add to the flood of words, though, by posting an edited version of something I posted elsewhere on this issue.

First of all, though, to take up Gillian's caveat. Cards on table: I’ve known Sherwood for quite a while, and the suggestion that she would use an agent "as a springboard ... to gain attention" for her work (as the Swivet piece accuses her of doing) is about as plausible as President Obama making his next State of the Union speech dressed as Darth Vader. Rachel Manija Brown I don’t know except by reputation, but I’m told much the same of her by those who do and whose judgement I trust.

That doesn’t get us far, of course – and no doubt there are people who will vouch for the agent’s good character as well. For those with no knowledge of any of the parties, this is a case of one stranger’s word against another’s. So I’ll park the personality debate there, and attempt to do what Sherwood and Rachel have done throughout by keeping to the issue and not the individuals.

What struck me most about the reaction to the controversy was the alacrity with which some greeted the agent’s version of what happened as definitive, rather than simply as another account to be considered alongside the authors’. Cleolinda quotes Scott Westerfeld's tweet, which sums it up well: "’I feel foolish for getting only one side of the story. But I'll make up for it by uncritically accepting the other side!’ -the Internets."

Why did that happen? Not because the agent is known to be truthful and honest whereas the authors are known to be untrustworthy. Nor because the agent had no motive to lie whereas the authors did. Neither of these is the case. Why, then? Is it simply inherently unlikely that an agent would ask for a gay character to be made straight? But witness the Jessica Verday case from less than six months ago (http://jessicaverday.blogspot.com/2011/03/being-gay-is-okay.html), to say nothing of the other authors who’ve since come forward reporting similar experiences to those of Sherwood and Rachel. (tbc)

This kind of denial is not uncommon when people find themselves acting as agents of oppression. They know what homophobes and censors look like, with their pointy beards and horns, and that’s certainly not them! They know they’re nice people, and that they have gay/black/trans/disabled friends, so obviously anyone who accuses them of acting badly must be deluded or a liar, right? The responsibility for what they have actually done is passed up the line, to the market, or the tastes of the reading public (“Poor benighted souls – of course, we’re much more enlightened personally, but what can you do?”). And if anyone calls them on it – even, as in this case, without naming names – well, you’ve seen the storm that follows. And these nice people have friends who are also nice people and would never associate with anyone who wasn’t a nice person – and so this reassuring version of events is eagerly accepted, as has happened widely in this case.

It’s very hard not to be complicit with censorship. That applies not only to agents and publishers, but to everyone involved in the system in which censorship is embedded, not excluding educators and certainly not excluding writers themselves, who are also well aware what “sales indicate” when
creating their characters and plots. It’s easy to blame the system – in this case, the market – and forget that the system is made up of individual people and their decisions. That uncomfortable fact becomes visible only when someone decides to take a stand and point it out.

Such people are never popular.

[Sorry to piggyback on your post like that, Lucy - but this is one I feel strongly about!]

Some light on this was shed when a friend pointed me to this discussion of the issue by another agent (http://www.dystel.com/2011/09/de-gaying-ya/). This agent (himself gay, as he points out) concludes his discussion thus:

Publishing has to be one of the least homophobic businesses around. The percentage of gay agents, editors, and other publishing professionals is much, much higher than the population in general (no matter which statistic you’re looking at), and people are fairly liberal. I can almost guarantee that there’s no one censoring gay content.

A few lines earlier, however, he states:

[W]e also have to be honest about the realities of the marketplace. There are fewer gay readers than straight readers. “Gay books,” on average, sell less than “straight books.” Readers *seem* to be more interested in reading about straight people–at least that’s what sales indicate. So publishers
thinking about what to publish have to take this into consideration. Despite appearances to the contrary, publishing is a business, and sales matter.

I quote this agent because what he's saying has been pretty much the party line from the agent/publisher side of this debate, and I find it telling. What interests me is the way in which these two statements illustrate a kind of double-think. No one is censoring gay content, but publishers have to “take into consideration” that “gay books” don’t sell as well when they choose what to publish. In other words, I’m not censoring you – it’s the market that’s censoring you, and I am but the market’s helpless cat’s paw.

And this “taking into consideration” – what does it look like in practice? What real decisions and actions are represented by that phrase? I can think of a few ways it might happen, but they all boil down to variations on these two themes: a) you decide that that you will pass on a book that you would otherwise have taken, because the protagonist is gay and “’gay books’, on average, sell less well than ‘straight books’”; or b) you advise the author to make the character straight – not because you’re homophobic, mind (you might even be gay yourself!) but simply as a marketing decision, because “sales indicate” that readers “are more interested in reading about straight people”, and “publishing is a business, and sales matter”.

In other words, what this agent states that agents and publishers are obliged to do, is exactly what Sherwood and Rachel say happened to them – yet it’s also what the same agent claims a few lines later never happens!

How can he have missed such an obvious contradiction?

Admirable and detailed comment Catherine, and there's little you say that I disagree with (am typing now in a rush in a car - not driving!) - but I must point out that I was not getting involved in personalities. I was referring to two sides of a debate in which I am not taking one person 's side over another. And be assured it is an issue I too feel extremely strongly about.

Point taken, Gillian!

I'm going to speak up for the 'minor character who just happens to be gay'...or indeed disabled, black, whatever. If we make a big 'issue' out of these aspects of characterisation and say we cannot have a gay character without a thorough 'handling' of their sexuality, we project a world in which everyone is straight. This is not tokenism. It is actually not hard to imagine these characters. We imagine ourselves into the heads of people different from us all the time, why should we have to be gay to write gay characters? Are we saying that gay writers can't write straight characters? Surely not.
The question here is really about commercial factors creating censorship - including self censorship. Anyone suffered from it? Anyone censoring themselves?

Keren, the problem here is that if you have a minor character who is gay and their 'gayness' is not pertinent to the plot or theme, in other words they are just there, someone's friend or a relation, how do you let the reader know that they are gay. In the first instance of course, you introduce them as a character in the normal way, someone talks about them, through dialogue whatever and that is where you can describe their sexuality. So I didn't know your friend, John, was gay? Oh really? He's been with his partner for months, I thought you knew.... And so on. What do you do the next time John comes into scene??? In other words how do you maintain his 'gayness' through the novel if it's not relevant to the plot/themes. Then he is just another character?

Catherine - Wow! You are in no way 'piggybacking', but adding immeasurable value and insight to this debate. Thank you so very much, and I, personally, agree with all you say here. It's a mini blog in itself, and I'm grateful to you for spending so much time writing it.

Keren - I said much the same thing in my first comment here, I think, and you're right about overt 'handling'. But as writers of YA I do think we have to self-censor in certain areas (ie in a younger YA novel, it would be inappropriate to have full-on sex described in detail between characters, of whichever gender). Or take swearing. I get quite cross when I have to think, forinstance, about that, when I know perfectly well that very young kids are effing and blinding all over the place. However, I am prepared to find ways round that. The gay in YA 'issue' is something entirely separate, and, as I said (and Gillian too), I would not self-censor if a character presented him or herself to me as gay. I would treat their sexuality as part of them, not as something separate, and portray them as themselves, however that happens to be. What Catherine says about commercial factors is really the heart of this matter. But if we bow to this argument and self censor purely because of that, we will never have a situation which reflects teenage life as it really is.

Fantastic debate! I've had to skim-read, and may well have missed something, but a couple of thoughts from me:

Firstly, Cat, I have to respectfully disagree when you say 'I think (part of) the answer has to be that it needs to be handled like other "issues"'.

Being gay may raise issues, but it shouldn't be an issue in and of itself - neither should race, or gender. No-one says "You shouldn't include a female character unless there's a specific reason for her to be female". Same goes for black, Asian, gay, or Irish characters.

Anne, I think my answer to your question "if you have a minor character who is gay and their 'gayness' is not pertinent to the plot... how do you let the reader know that they are gay?" would be: you let the reader know they are gay at the point at which it does become relevant. Perhaps you suddenly need to introduce their partner, or someone fancies them and has to be let down, or some other point arrives at which it makes sense to release that information. If it doesn't become relevant, you don't mention it.

I suppose you might end up writing ten books with gay characters before you end up with one whose sexuality is explicit, but so what? I like the idea that the sexuality of probably the most famous gay character in children's fiction was never mentioned in the novels, presumably because there was never a need for it to be mentioned. But he's still gay.

Yes, what John says. Mention if it's relevant. Or make it apparent. You don't have to labour it, or mention it every time. I have quite a few characters who you only know are black because of a passing comment - it's never otherwise mentioned. Just enough to show that the world of your book is diverse.

Excellent post, Lucy. All I can say is that the first of my books to make any kind of impact, THE SHELL HOUSE, had gay characters in both the present-day story and the First World war sections, and it never met with any kind of reluctance from agent, publisher or anyone else. In fact it was welcomed. But it was banned in Florida.

Fantastic piece, Lucy...as I said in my YesGayYA piece, LGBT people are all around us, it is important this is reflected in the YA world too. When I was a confused 14 year old, I would have loved to have seen something of myself in the books I was reading.

What John and Keren said, exactly. If one of my characters was 5 foot 11 I wouldn't feel the need to mention it unless he needed to get something off a high shelf. There should be no more need to belabour a character's sexuality any more than there should be a need to avoid it. That's in an ideal world, of course, but I like to write as if we're already there.

Thank you, James. Everyone should read your piece too - at Tall Tales and Short Stories. http://talltalesandshortstories.blogspot.com/2011/09/diversity-matters-were-here-were-queer.html

Very late to this debate - due to being away camping with no internet signal! There's so much I'd like to say, so forgive me if this is a bit of a ramble!

Lucy - hurrah and big hugs to you for writing this piece. These things need saying, and need shouting, and contrary to what has been said in some of the comments, they probably need saying MORE by the writers who aren't gay than by the ones who are - as they are not putting themselves on the (scary) line quite so much in doing so.

Whilst it would be lovely to think that being gay is not an issue and shouldn't be treated as though it is, the fact is that sadly in this day and age, it still IS an issue. So yes, I agree, lots of incidental characters of all sorts of minorities should most certainly be there in our books if it feels appropriate to us as the writers to put them there. But I think we DO still need the books that actually deal with the subjects of coming out and being gay in a full and honest way, where young people who are questioning their sexuality might not just find characters who happen to be gay in a book, but might actually see someone's whole journey and identity being dealt with in a way that could give them some insight, direction and hope about their own life.

I have a book sitting in a drawer (it's sat there for ten years now) about a teenager's emerging sexuality. In theory, my publisher, my agent and I would all love to see this book published. In practice, none of us has figured out exactly the right way and the right time to do this yet. I hope that we will do one day. It feels like a very tricky decision to make though, for all sorts of reasons - both commercial and personal.

Keren - self censorship? Oh, yes! It's not just our agents who worry about our commercial success and our reputations. When we, the writers, feel we have a lot to lose, and don't feel ready to put ourselves out there on that front line (and the decision to do so has to come from each individual writer - no one else) I think that's probably the aspect of this whole thing that makes me more aware than ever of how far there still is to go.

Just a very brief thought but this issue is much bigger than gay vs straight and right vs wrong or oppressed vs the oppressor. There is often a fine line between writing in acceptance of social change and writing as an agent of social change. Children are susceptible to influence and so many parents see ya writing that exists ad an agent of social change to be little more than propaganda, in this case propaganda to push what is for a majority of people an alternative lifestyle. Right or wrong. If we look at at examples of children's lit that was exclusively propaganda like what came out of Nazi Germany or soviet Russia we see how seductive literature, especially for children can be. With this in mind I believe authors need to keep in mind not only how the meat of their book will be taken but also the intent be it intentional or unintentional. What I find troubling is how quickly and easily a lot of people seem so eager to paint others as bigoted or hateful or oppressive because a parent may not accept the gay lifestyle or gay life. The truth is much more nuanced and deserves to be treated with more respect than simply discounting a good and loving parent as being a bigot because they do not accept or understand a life that is different than than their own and often at odds with very deeply held social and religious beliefs. What this does is demonize them, lump them in with very bad people like slave owners, kkk, fascists, etc. No one who is so demonized will wish to come to terms with the people doing the demonizig. That goes both ways too. But more important it creates a closed dialog that suggests there is no room for growth and coming to an understanding but only the sad choice of accept or be written off.

Candlewycke, I don't see anyone here demonizing anyone else - unless perhaps in your own linking of literature that portrays gay teenagers with Nazi and Soviet progaganda, which doesn't sit well in a post presented as a call for nuance. Can you cite some examples of this demonization?

Glad to see this being discussed here, Lucy!

I could ramble all day on this subject - and did, on my own blog. But I just wanted to throw one extra point into the pot, for the self-censorers feeling anxious about writing a gay character without stereotyping, or 'doing it wrong': being a gay writer myself doesn't mean I'll always 'get it right'. It doesn't give me some magical insight into every possible LGBTQ experience. The only reason we place pressure on LGBTQ characters to be perfectly representative is because there aren't enough of them. That sounds like a pretty solid reason to write more, not fewer.

Catherine, with all due respect you should pay closer attention what I actually wrote and if you needed clarification you should have asked. I never suggested that gay was in any way similar to Nazis or soviet Russia. I was speaking specifically to writing for propaganda be it political, like a recent book written by political conservatives or an earlier book written about Barack Obama with illustrations depicting him surrounded by a messianic halo. Both of these were clearly propaganda and had no place among children’s books.
As for demonizing people. And please correct me if I am wrong but you said “when people find themselves acting as agents of oppression” and then “They know what homophobes and censors look like, with their pointy beards and horns, and that’s certainly not them!” The words you chose to use suggest that people who do not accept or endorse the gay lifestyle are oppressors; homophobes or worse and publishers justify their actions because they have gay friends, as if suggesting they use them only as tokens to hide their own homophobic tendencies. The selection of words is somewhat telling? What this tells people as I see it is that the publishers live in denial because they know what real homophobes are? The issue is far more nuanced than this. People who do not endorse a lifestyle are not automatically homophobes or oppressors. For example, someone who actively works to thwart a black community is racist, but a person who had a bad experience living in a black neighborhood and subsequently do not wish to live next door to a black family is simply a reaction to a real world event. The opposite is also true, a black family not wanting to live in a white neighborhood because they would feel different is bigoted but a black family not wanting the same thing because of some past harassment is again a reaction to real world events. You could change the word black to gay or female or muslim and the same would be true. What I am talking about is how this issue has fallen around simple right and wrong on both sides and the other side whichever that is must by default be wrong and by being wrong are the oppressors, homophobes and worse. If you were take that argument to someone who was against homosexuality do you believe an honest and open dialogue would ever come about? Or conversely what if someone was straight entered into a dialogue by asserting that homosexuals were pointy bearded and horned demons? The two sides would simply entrench into their convictions.

As for demonizing people. And please correct me if I am wrong but you said “when people find themselves acting as agents of oppression” and then “They know what homophobes and censors look like, with their pointy beards and horns, and that’s certainly not them!” The words you chose to use suggest that people who do not accept or endorse the gay lifestyle are oppressors; homophobes or worse and publishers justify their actions because they have gay friends, as if suggesting they use them only as tokens to hide their own homophobic tendencies. The selection of words is somewhat telling? What this tells people as I see it is that the publishers live in denial because they know what real homophobes are? The issue is far more nuanced than this. People who do not endorse a lifestyle are not automatically homophobes or oppressors. For example, someone who actively works to thwart a black community is racist, but a person who had a bad experience living in a black neighborhood and subsequently do not wish to live next door to a black family is simply a reaction to a real world event. The opposite is also true, a black family not wanting to live in a white neighborhood because they would feel different is bigoted but a black family not wanting the same thing because of some past harassment is again a reaction to real world events. You could change the word black to gay or female or muslim and the same would be true. What I am talking about is how this issue has fallen around simple right and wrong on both sides and the other side whichever that is must by default be wrong and by being wrong are the oppressors, homophobes and worse. If you were take that argument to someone who was against homosexuality do you believe an honest and open dialogue would ever come about? Or conversely what if someone was straight entered into a dialogue by asserting that homosexuals were pointy bearded and horned demons? The two sides would simply entrench into their convictions.
Now in regards to authors there is a line and that line is arguably hazy. But someone suggested that there should be board books depicting gay characters. I just don’t agree. At the age board books are targeted social issues in any form don’t need to be addressed. A character can simply exist without any further definition. Burt and Ernie don’t have to be defined as gay characters and children don’t really care either way. But by specifying gender, sex or religion at such an early age the result is not a greater awareness of diversity. Children are already refreshingly accepting of diversity. What it does is begin that process of dividing things in relation to how far opposed they are from what the reader is. For a child reading board books sexuality in any form should not be present. You should not depict a girls private parts or a boys private parts in a manner that draws attention to them, you should not depict one religion as good and another as bad, you should not depict one race being subservient to another and you should not depict sexuality and there is no way that I know of to depict a gay character in away that a child would understand without using sexuality because without sexuality a gay character is really no different from any other character. By saying that Harry has two fathers you say as much as Harry fathers were Gay but without all the parts that create social issues that are too complex for children to understand.
As to books for young adults, this is where self-censorship should come into play. And self-censorship is not a bad thing. An author should consider who really is the target audience, what age, etc. And here is where the line gets haziest. Young Adult really doesn’t mean anything other than an arbitrary assignment by publishers. Most people who read Harry Potter are adults, and very few children actually read Alice in Wonderland (the book, not the Disney adaptation). I am not in any way speaking out against a lifestyle or in favor of one. I am speaking to pre-conceived notions.

Wow. No offence, but if someone can read this blog, and all the comments, and then compare people who are attempting to put a tiny bit of representation of gay people into YA books with Nazi propaganda, we've got even further to go than I thought!

Anne Cassidy made an interesting point. I remember reading that some gay organizations I honestly dont recall which or where was angry because J.K. Rowling made Dumbledor gay but not gay enough. he argument went something along the lines of she should have made him really, actively gay. This is certainly a minority opinion even among a minority group but it goes to show you cant please everyone.

Liz Kessler, clearly you are either not reading what I say or you have some bias. So to be clear this is what I said - "If we look at examples of children's lit that was exclusively propaganda like what came out of Nazi Germany or soviet Russia we see how seductive literature, especially for children can be. "

Note the inclusion of the word "Exclusively" This is to separate works that are exclusively propaganda (ie; Nazi literature, from works than that can be used for propaganda). Now to make sure I am not further misunderstood or slandered the definition of Propaganda is "a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause" any literature that exists to influence a child into supporting or condemning gays is by definition propaganda. Note again that I am saying supporting or condemning!!!

In other words I never said what you now accuse me of saying. I never made the comparison you say I made and frankly it is nonsense. As far as needing further to go you are right. We need to go beyond people making ill informed accusations based on their pre-conceived notions rather than what is actually being said. The only way to do this is to get off our high horses and look at other people’s opinions.

Here is a fact, Homophobia does exist. But not everyone who doesn’t accept homosexuality is a homophobe, any more than people who don’t support Christianity are anti-Christian, or those who do not support high school football are anti-athletic. We are talking about what is proper for children and at what age. Everyone would agree that erotic stories do not belong in works for children but why? After all some people argue that sexuality is just a part of life and children should be introduced to it? What it boils down to is this. Who has the right to teach your children, or your neighbors children what is right and wrong? And for that matter who has the right to decide what aspects of society your children will be introduced to and when? As I said the line is often hazy but until we are all willing to look openly and honestly at opposing views then nothing will ever change.

I'm late to this discussion, but great post, Lucy. I am straight but, as Lucy says, we are writers, and we often write about people different from ourselves. When my YA/adult crossover book 'Charity's Child' came out three years ago, I got a bit of protest from gay readers who thought I should not be writing about them. But I'm pleased to say this wasn't the general reaction, which was favourable.

I'm encouraged now about the publication of the e-version of 'Charity's Child', which is due out soon. It's about the impact of a gay relationship in a strict religious community - and all that follows.

Candlewycke, I'm happy to accept that you don't think books that feature gay people are the equivalent of Nazism: I do think however that it was an unfortunate choice of example to demonstrate what propaganda is.

I'm not going to address all your points here, as I suspect we wouldn't get very far - we disagree on too much. Your repeated references to the "gay lifestyle" suggest strongly to me - but correct me if I'm wrong - that you believe being gay to be a choice, and an immoral one, rather than just one part of the natural spectrum of humanity, as I believe. To take that on here would be to go too far off-topic.

But yes, I do think that people who are complicit in censorship of books featuring gay people are acting in an oppressive way. I don't demonize them, however: on the contrary, the point I was making (as the extract you quoted makes clear) is that they are not in general demonic at all, but ordinary people taking the path of least resistance, and understandably reluctant to acknowledge the extent to which that path is oppressive - a reluctance that shows itself in the kind of self-contradiction I highlighted. Perhaps some editors and agents are indeed actively and consciously homophobic, but it was not about them that I was writing.

Also:

someone who actively works to thwart a black community is racist, but a person who had a bad experience living in a black neighborhood and subsequently do not wish to live next door to a black family is simply a reaction to a real world event.

Yes - a racist reaction.

Liz--thank you so much for your additions to this debate--and one day I would very much like to read that book from your bottom drawer. I hope that you'll find a way for that to happen.

candlewyke - You have much to say, and others have commented on that, so I will let them speak for me. One thing I cannot let pass is this, although it is not directly concerned with this debate: You say: "For example, someone who actively works to thwart a black community is racist,but a person who had a bad experience living in a black neighborhood and subsequently do not wish to live next door to a black family is simply a reaction to a real world event. The opposite is also true, a black family not wanting to live in a white neighborhood because they would feel different is bigoted but a black family not wanting the same thing because of some past harassment is again a reaction to real world events" Honestly? All neighbours in all neighbourhoods, however labelled, are made up of a mixture of all sorts of people. In one place I lived next door to a musician who played loud music at odd and unsocial hours. It doesn't mean I would never live next door to a musician again! I just had a bad experience with that particular one. I therefore find your example quite extraordinary--you clearly don't live in the same sort of real world that I do. But then, as you say, you can't please everyone!

Catherine - Thank you for at last taking a moment to clarify and have an open conversation. I really do take offence when I am accused in any way of being a bigot. I tried to implicit when I said propoganda that is explicite in its purpose, which is what Nazi propogand was as being diffrent from literature that can be used as such either by deliberate design or innocent intention.

“Your repeated references to the "gay lifestyle" suggest strongly to me - but correct me if I'm wrong - that you believe being gay to be a choice, and an immoral one, rather than just one part of the natural spectrum of humanity, as I believe.”

This is very important as it goes to the heart of this whole debate. Those who are gay are abnormal in this sense (and please let me make this clear that abnormal is not automatically a bad thing) because as evolved beings we exist to procreate. A being that evolves in a manner that makes it impossible to procreate is by definition abnormal. Having said that freckles are also by definition an abnormality, as is having bow-legs, being a highly talented artist (a trait that cant be biologically passed on). Being a great musical composer, Having Tourettes syndrome (which I have had since I was a child and that therefore makes me by definition somewhat abnormal so I do speak with a certain amount of knowledge on what it means to be different, After all when I was a child both gay kids and straight kids had no trouble making fun of my ticks and verbal utterances, they each could be just as ruthless to those who were different. I was born with it and it is part of my very existence but the fact remains it is abnormal. Now if something is abnormal can it be cured or does it need to be cured? Not always. Some abnormalities make us stronger and better, some just exist as part of who we are. Having said that I believe that homosexuality is both a born trait and a choice. I say it is a choice because you can either act on it or choose not to act on it, just as someone with artistic talent you can choose to paint or not to paint and waste his or her talent. This is the same as being heterosexual. It is both a born trait and a choice to engage in sexuality with someone of the opposite sex. Neither bad nor good in and of itself. I use the word abnormal knowing full well that it will offend many people but it is I believe an appropriate word when we can enter into a real dialogue without bringing bias into it.

But of course here is the difficult part. Many people believe that an abnormality is also evil. They find confirmation in the bible, the Quran and many other holy books but of course in most cases this confirmation is largely based on societal interpretation just as during Americas Civil War each side confirmed that God was on their side with the same bible. As a social issue we must deal with things much larger than just right or wrong. Unfortunately we are a gray world. People want to bring their own bias into arguments as if their bias were fact. This is why you see bookshelves filled with conflicting biographies about this or that person. Having said all this when dealing with the influence on children I think that less influence is always the best way to go. And I should specify that most of what I am talking about is directed against the argument that social issues exist in books for the very young. And while this topic is about YA writing we should be mindful that young adults are also still very often children.

“Yes - a racist reaction.”

I disagree. The first is a racist reaction because it is against someone because of his or her race. The second example I used was not against someone because of his or her race but because past experience of actual events that just happen to be regarding one race but that could have been anything else. A woman who is abused or raped might never trust a man again but that doesn’t mean she is gender biased against men. This is the nuance I was talking about.

Lucy -

--you clearly don't live in the same sort of real world that I do.

Honestly this is part of the problem I have been addressing. SO let me give you the rest of that example. This stemmed from a conversation I had with my neighbor, a wonderfully nice person with a great wife and two great children. One of whim baby-sits my own son from time to time. This person lived in a "black" neighborhood for many years while he put himself through college. While he was living there with his then oldest daughter and wife his house was broken into twice, and his daughter never felt safe. Now there were other races living there too, white and Hispanic but it was predominately a black neighborhood. The person who is now my neighbor just happens to black as well and by his own words he will never again live in a neighborhood that is predominately black. We talked about this and he went on to clarify that any place where one group rules the roost is a bad place to live. In the case of his personal experience that roost was ruled by low income black families. Why is his opinion not racist? Because the race f the people in question was irrelevant. He doesn’t not want to live around fellow black people. He wants not to live around people who let bad behavior define their community. White or black makes no difference.

"all neighborhoods, however labeled, are made up of a mixture of all sorts of people."

This is not always true... There are black neighborhoods, White neighborhoods, Hispanic neighborhoods, In Atlanta where I live there is a very large community comprised of almost exclusively gays. And another that is almost totally Korean. Some of these communities are wonderful places, some of them are places no sane person would ever want to go, most are just communities like any other. But in the real world, the world you suggest is not where I live or that is different from the one you live in is filled with people who are either pushed to live with their own kind or who choose to live with their own kind for hundreds of reasons ranging from comfortable familiarity to hostile bigotry.

What you said is worth thinking about though. Is it fair for you or for anyone to suggest that a person who doesn’t share the same view lives in a different world? Or a world that is less real than the world you live in? That creates the same divisions that I would assume you are against.

Candlewycke, I feel for you. Growing up with Tourette's must have been awful for you, and I can hardly even imagine the kind of bullying you must have received. I have a friend with Tourette's and I know how difficult his life is. Just going round a supermarket with him gave me an insight into how difficult his life was, in areas that most of us take for granted. The stares and looks and comments that he got during a simple half hour of getting his weekly supplies made me want to jump up and shout at everyone to leave him alone get on with what they were doing.

But I would never think of him as abnormal. Different from the majority, maybe, but that doesn't make him, or gay people, or black people etc etc abnormal. It might mean that they are outside of someone's experience - but to use labels like 'abnormal', or to use extreme examples (such as bringing Nazi literature or the KKK into the discussion, for example) can feel quite inflammatory and can quite easily cause offence.

I don't actually believe you are deliberately trying to cause offence - but I think that some of your wording and some of the examples you've chosen to use are so emotive and extreme that perhaps they are easily taken the wrong way.

I'd like to think that at the heart of it, we all want the same thing: a world where people can get along with each other regardless of colour, sexuality, gender, disability, illness etc. and basically all get to enjoy our lives in peace. In my view, if writers can in any way either help to bring this world about or reflect the world around them in a way that at least makes people think about these issues, then we are using the privilege of our status as writers wisely.

Best wishes
Liz

Lucy - I chose my words very carefully. If they offend then so be it. When you say "Different from the majority" It really is the same thing. I believe your choice of words simply sneaks around the reality that people deal with. When a child is different for any reason they feel abnormal. By telling them they are not abnormal just different from everyone else, or different from what people define as normal it says the same thing. The word Abnormal means many things, all of them indicating something that strays from a normal baseline. That can mean something that is bad but it can extraordinary. We tell children to celebrate their differences only to try and diminish anything that makes us different. So when say abnormal I do so with absolute sincerity of someone who by virtue of a hiccup of or design or accident or blessing of his birth is himself abnormal. I use the word just as at one time carnival Freaks, the pinheads, the giants, the dwarfs, the disfigured called themselves Freaks with great pride. By taking control of the word you own the word.

Why did I use an extreme example? Because when people start to hide behind polite explanations, or when people are so afraid of causing offence that they would try to say things in the least hurtful way possible then what is extreme almost always becomes what is normal to a given society.

“if writers can in any way either help to bring this world about or reflect the world around them in a way that at least makes people think about these issues, then we are using the privilege of our status as writers wisely.”

This is once again why I used an extreme example… What of the writer who wrote a children’s book telling people all about the bad Jews? That writer was only bringing to lite the issues, he was only trying doing his duty and making people think about things? He was using his privilege as a writer to benefit his society. The end result was a society that ran amuck across Europe! I am certainly not suggesting that this is fault of all authors but anytime anyone takes up the mantle of social arbiter then they need to realize the full extent of what they are doing. An author has no better voice than a theologian, teacher, politician or parent as to what society is all about but they do have a greater responsibility because words are one of the few things that can actually transform a person and words once written down no longer belong to the one who wrote them, neither does the intent.

Candlewyke - thank you for clarifying that, and for sharing your own story. The thing is, when things are talked about in terms of black and white, it is hard not to raise the spectre of racism.

When I say 'all sorts of people', let me in turn clarify. I really should have said, 'all sorts of human beings, with all the subtly nuanced differences that implies'.

As for your comment about the fairness (or otherwise) of my saying that we live in different real worlds, well, we are definitely living in different places (literally, since I am in the UK and you in the US), and very surely we are coming at things from different perspectives too, born out of our own particular life experiences. and views That is wonderful, and something to celebrate, surely? The fact that all of us here are even having this conversation about gay YA literature (or mostly about that!), so far apart, is wonderful. A lively argument need not create divisions--and I have no wish to do so.

Candlewycke - we are clearly never going to agree. My mistake in trying.

I can only console myself with the fact that your comments - numerous, lengthy, repetitive and offensive as they are - are only the comments from one person amongst 40 or so others. And I shall hope that this reflects the balance of opinion in society too.

Over and out.
Liz

Thank you, Liz--your comments are much appreciated.

On a more general note, I do think that this last part of the debate has now gone slightly off topic, and it serves no useful purpose to carry it on. I would therefore ask respectfully that we now close this particular thread. If anyone else would like to comment on the post itself, and about the gay YA debate in particular, please feel free to do so.

Liz. I have to say your last comments say more about your bias than mine. People with bias are the one who seek to end conversations or find strength in numbers. Frankly you have gone to some lengths to paint me as something I clearly am not. My comments are numerous because there has been a give and take by people who are apparently more interested in learning about other people than you. Or did you fail to notice that my posts have been in reply to people discussing this topic? If you find what I have to say offensive then so be it. The problem is that you are getting awfully close to suggesting that I am offensive. especially the part about hoping I am in the minority. So what part of me deserves to be in the minority? The part with Tourettes, the part that is open and honest the part that passes equal condemnation on bad behavior or the part that thinks writers who claim social responsiblity should act responsible?

Candlewyke - as I said, I think this thread has gone off topic, and you are now getting quite personal, which is unhelpful, however strongly you feel. I would be grateful if you would respect my previous request, and close out this particular thread now. I think it has gone as far as is useful. Thank you for your input, which I am sure people will be interested to read.

Errr... I hesitate to add anything here, because despite all evidence to the contrary I hate getting involved in controversy (true, honestly. It's a compulsion,that's all).

My every instinct and inclination lies with the majority of these comments. HOWEVER I think Candlewycke has been misrepresented. Forgive me a swift read, but I didn't understand him (?) to be comparing the presentation of homosexual relationships in books with Nazi propaganda. I understood him to mean that the definition of propaganda varies according to the outlook of the viewer/reader.

I suspect I have radically different views from Candlewycke - but I don't actually KNOW, because I can't pin them down. I suspect Candelwycke of deliberate vagueness - forgive me if I'm wrong! - but i don't think it's fair to accuse him (?) of a comparison he doesn't make. I may not agree with the point he's making, but I don't think it's the one he's been accused of. Sorry if that doesn't make sense but it's late, I've had a glass of wine, and I'm a sensitive wee thing (kof) who has also been accused of things I don't actually think.

I hope this does not count as reopening THAT thread - if so, Lucy, I apologise!

@Liz Kessler:

"Whilst it would be lovely to think that being gay is not an issue and shouldn't be treated as though it is, the fact is that sadly in this day and age, it still IS an issue."

Liz, I don't think I'm disagreeing at all with the heart of what you say, but I would like to challenge you on how you're saying it.

I think the last part of the sentence I've quoted would be better expressed as, "sadly in this day and age, it still IS treated as an issue."

There are a lot of issues around sexuality, both for the individual and for our wider society. I'd say, for instance, that our culture has a huge problem with how it sometimes depicts heterosexual sexuality, and the expectations that it can impose on young heteros. But that doesn't mean that being straight is in itself an issue. It simply means that there are issues attached to being straight.

If we from there go on to say that on the other hand being gay is in itself an issue - rather than that it raises different (and sometimes deeper, sometimes darker, and sometimes more difficult) issues - well, that feels to me a little like victim-blaming.

I know that's absolutely not your intent - and I feel awkward challenging you on this at all - but I do think that if we're going to say that being gay is an issue, then we have to say that being black is an issue, and perhaps that being a girl is an issue, and before we know it we've defined being white, middle- or upper-class, and male, as normal and everything else as "an issue".

In a way, I feel this discussion is not a million miles away from something I blogged about back in August. I feel that it was important that we had books about The Troubles, and books featuring Northern Irish kids that didn't mention The Troubles at all. In the same way, I think we need books that explore the issues around being gay, and books which, in their normalisation of gay characters, show that gay people are more than just a collection of issues.

And in the same way, we need books that explore some of the issues around being straight, and some books in which the straightness of the main character is hardly relevant.

Am I rambling? Sorry. I'll stop now.

Gillian - Dress it up however you like, but I find this sentence extremely offensive as part of a debate about depicting gay characters in YA lit...

"If we look at at examples of children's lit that was exclusively propaganda like what came out of Nazi Germany or soviet Russia we see how seductive literature, especially for children can be. With this in mind I believe authors need to keep in mind not only how the meat of their book will be taken but also the intent be it intentional or unintentional"

I have not been 'blaming' anyone for anything. In fact, I have gone out of my way to try to be amenable and find common ground. In response, I feel I am getting some very personal remarks and am absolutely horrified that this is happening on this blog - and am not sure if there are any guidelines which are being broken here.

John - we may be talking about semantics here. I'm not sure what you mean by victim blaming but if you think I'm saying gay people make it an issue, that couldn't be further from the truth. I'm saying that in all sorts of ways, being gay today is still something that is not accepted and is not seen as 'OK' and is used an excuse for bullying, hatred, discrimination and worse - and for gay people, that IS an issue.

And now it is most definitely over and out from me.
Liz

It is Such a gross display of bias that you would select a portion of what I wrote. You clearly have some problem with me but I'm sorry I refuse respect your wishes and keep my opinions to myself while you continue to smear me with unfunded accusations. I stand by what I said. It can be seductive and writing can be turned to propaganda quit easily and often without the authors deliberate intention. If you want this topic dropped then I would suggest you cease talking about it and cease with your accusations. That is personal and is really too close to censorship.

Hi, Liz

I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. I'm not saying gay people make it an issue; I'm saying precisely the opposite.

Yes, being gay is still something that is not accepted, not seen as okay, and all you say. And THAT is the issue, not the sexuality itself.

Bullying is an issue, because bullying is not okay. Hatred is an issue, because hatred is not okay. Discrimination is an issue, because discrimination is not okay.

Being gay is not an issue, because being gay is okay.

If being gay is seen as an issue, that's because some people are intolerant. And that intolerance is the real issue.

As to 'victim-blaming' - I'm thinking of, for instance, when a woman gets sexually harrassed, and people say, "Well, she shouldn't wear those clothes", or when a child is bullied and people say, "He should stand up for himself better".

The clothes aren't the issue; the harrassment is.

The assertiveness isn't the issue; the bullying is.

And sexuality isn't the issue; the discrimination is.

While I do understand your point, I worry that if we say the issue is being gay, rather than the discrimination gay people face, we run the risk of appearing to collude with the opinion that says that being gay is somehow wrong.

I hope that makes more sense!

OK, that says it all - I attempt to take an objective view, not of the issues addressed on this blog but of the comments thereunder - and am accused of 'dressing it up'.

All views, regardless of yours, deserve a hearing WITHOUT MISREPRESENTATION. (Excuse my capitals. There's no facility for italics.) That means ALL.

You can't argue with silence.

Let's bring it close to home. A fundamentalist religious fanatic (Christian, Muslim, I don't give a toss) writes a book that presents a favourable view of dictatorial theocratic government. Do I like it? No. Do I think it should never have been published? No. Because if was forbidden, whether by state diktat or *by conventional disapprobation*, it would make it far less likely that my book about the appalling consequences of fundamentalist dictatorship (yes, I wrote one, and yes, it's been banned by Catholic schools) would ever get a chance at publication/dissemination.

Do I think homosexuality should be shown as perfectly normal in children's books? Whoa, yes. If I didn't, I would pulp my latest manuscript.

Do I think someone has the right to argue against it without the invocation of come distant cousin of Godwin's Law? OH YES.

And Lucy: forgive me again. But this is IMPORTANT.

Editorial committee member's hat on now.

I'm a little disturbed to see the appearance of personal attacks in the comments on this very important topic.

Please keep debate civil and on topic.

Any poster posting personal attacks on another risks having the offending posts removed, and even - at the discretion of the editorial committee - having the right to comment blocked.

Also, please note that it is inconsistent to claim both the right to offend and the right not to be offended.

John - You raise some interesting points. But I would disagree with a couple of areas. First of all anything is an issue when there is sufficient opposition to it. In the case of homosexuality in literature for young adults the issue is really not about right or wrong but about how we come to terms with areas of society that we might find different, inappropriate or even wrong. It isnt enough to say that a minority is right or good. The majority must see that it is right or good and not be forced to simply accept. In other words there has to be an organic change in society as opposed to forced or coerced one.

The second point is this. You said “The clothes aren't the issue; the harassment is.” This is true to a point but like so many other things we need to look at the whole picture. For example, increasingly little girls are dressing in ways that are highly sexualized, extremely short shorts in public that say things like hot stuff across the bottom. This denigrates the girl and reduces their ability to become fully realized, strong women while at the same time makes other people look at them less like little girls and more like objects to be looked at. It may be wrong that is the way the world works. Carry that over into adulthood and a woman who dresses in a manner that is seductive is on one level partly responsible when someone in effect takes the bait. I would put it like this. No is always no, should always be no and should be understood to mean no But a lot of the word no might be conveyed as maybe and there is part of the problem. The same goes for bullying. A child should not have to be assertive to avoid being bullied but being assertive is one of the best ways to not be bullied. Standing up for ones self is a virtue that everyone should be taught to embrace. Schools fail not in allowing bullying take place but in the concept of 0 tolerance that makes the person standing up to a bully guilty of the same offence as the bully.

And lastly “And sexuality isn't the issue; the discrimination is.” You are partly right. What people who tend towards anti-gay attitudes have problems with is what they perceive as an attack on long held, traditional family values. The values that may have been oppressive but that were also liberating, the same values that drove many people away from the church also once brought people together around the family dinner table. Discrimination only exists when something is seen to be worth making a distinction. And that is what discrimination is, making a distinction between you and me, us and them or this and that. The party that is discriminated against can never force discrimination to go away without creating greater divisions. This is what I meant by organic change

When it comes to books for children and young adults I think subjects that are also issues should not be ignored but all parties should treat them very carefully and not in a way that delivers a moral absolute.

Please place on record that I'm disturbed by the editorial comment above, if only because the personal attacks commenced some tens of posts ago without editorial comment.

I should nevertheless like to second wholeheartedly the final sentence.

(The final sentence of John's comment, NOT Candlewycke's.)

I am very distressed indeed that this has turned so personal. My original intention in writing this post was to open up a reasoned and intelligent debate on what I considered to be an important subject. ABBA has never been about personal attacks, and I hope this will never happen again here. Maybe I should have stepped in sooner to try and calm things down. If so, I am very sorry that I didn't. Posting something potentially controversial is a risky thing to to--but I am still proud to have written this post.

John in regards to your editorial note. I know how difficult being a moderator can be. Having said that I do not tolerate accusations the sort of which have been leveled against me. The only way to deal with them is by taking the issue directly the person making the accusations and in this case that means making things somewhat personal. On this forum I have been told in effect to keep my opinions to myself, that I belong in a minority because I am apparently too offensive for polite company. Hang That!!! I will happily give this blog a personal flag so that I wont waste time in a discussion where I will be met with such hostility. Odd that I have to take this action on a topic that was about censorship. But some people are so biased that they cant accept a differing viewpoint without going to great lengths to demonize other people. And the one person who has the courage to step up and questions that perhaps I was mischaracterized was in term brushed off with supreme arrogance. In a nutshell I believe in the adage that you know a person by the company they keep and I will not be part of any association along side Liz Kessler. Not because of her race or religion or sexual orientation but because rather than engage in discussion she attacks and demonizes and then has the audacity to suggest that other people not continue with the discussion. I could let it drop at this topic but I get the feeling that she is the sort of person who would respond to anything I said in the same manner because she has decided she does not like me. I am sorry if the majority views on this blog do not reflect this but there are simply too many blogs on the Internet to bother with this sort of petty annoyance.

Count one for censorship.

I have no idea how I have suddenly become on the receiving end of this outrageous bullying, and am absolutely horrified that it has happened. In case anyone comes to this discussion late and has no idea what I'm talking about, that's because I've removed all my earlier posts as I no longer want to have anything to do with this discussion as it has now reached the gutter and I'm not planning on joining it there!
Liz

Comments on this post are now closed.

Don't feed the trolls.

This thread has been closed for comments as it got rather too heated.

With sincere apologies to those who left more measured comments between Lucy's request for the thread to end and this notice, all intervening comments have been deleted. We have learned from this experience to give a clear warning when comments go too far and to close comments promptly should that warning not have the desired effect.