It's not pedophilia. As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia is prepubescent, the cut-off age is 13, but is normally 11 or younger. Hebephilia is a sexual attraction to 11 to 14-years-old. It's certainly an issue to people who would find issue with it. It's no an issue to people who would not find issue with it. Yes, there are alternatives that might allow people to pass a better judgement of the situation, but should difficulty, or even a certain group's response to an issue, really stop a writer from wanting to tell a story?
Yes, not necessarily, but it's a consideration. If you want to be challenging, of course do so, but do it aware that it will be a part of what your story means to people. I like being challenging myself but I know there is a limit. Maybe the author should do it, but only if it feels right to the story and not an elephant in the room. This is a law/morality kind of challenging applied directly through the protagonist. It' strong and it's not really something people believe in as a cause, underage/young adult relationships.
I do maintain—from personal experience—that you can be any age when you meet 'the one.' I know of couples who met each other in grade school and high school, who are still together more than 50 years on from that. (One of these couples who met in grade school is gay, by the way. Just got married last year, when it finally became legal where they live.) Real love (as opposed to sexual attraction) is something that can strike anybody at any time. However, because sex is such a strong urge and young people can be exploited for it, there are laws against sexual activity at too young an age. Two people who are truly in love with each other but straddle the age of consent need to be aware of it. They can either follow their urges and break the law or they can wait. They risk all sorts of consequences either way, but love is always risky. And always worth a story?
In Europe, countries with the age of consent set at 16 include Cyprus, Finland, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland. So, how unusual 15 is is going to depend on where you live even in Europe.
The trap of being controversial for the sake of being controversial is one which many artists fall into. It is easy to deceive one's self into thinking that the story must be told because it is controversial (personally, I suspect this is the trap Nabokov fell into). On the other hand, one shouldn't shy away from being controversial if the themes are important. And, one more perspective is whether the author's "controversy" is promoting stereotypes. The author has a social responsibility (which is why Chinese aliens in Star Wars and ghetto Transformers were justifiably criticized).
Wahey! I did not read many of the other posts, but here is my opinion on it. I would not mind if Tony was gay, but I would mind if it was expressed like: "Tony is gay." Just for the sake of it. If in the story, Tony's preferences actually do matter then it's a fine add. (do the readers already know he has a boyfriend? Or is their relationship still pre-development? I would assume the latter since you are asking the question.) But it seriously has to be well written, in the sense that the readers can't be feeling that you chose that sexual preference for the sake of choosing it. They have to feel that it makes sense, that it adds to the character, and of course at the end of it his boyfriend will be playing a part in the whole feeling. The same reason why every single character has to be meaningful, his boyfriend can't just be male for the sake of it (and no character can also just be the opposite gender for relationship purposes). But if you can make it all neat, then I think it's good! Peace!
Why wouldn't, if a character is gay, people say the word? Especially is someone if finding out about the relationship, they're going to ask if your gay or bi. I know that everyone at my school knows and uses that word, not just in Year 12, but the Year 7s and everything as well. What wrong with calling it as it is when it's not a judgemental word? What happened to gay pride? I actually not only use but like the word. It sounds nice. I mean, I'm not really offended by fag, it's just a word, but it doesn't sound nice, does it? Especially since it also means a bundle of sticks or a cigarette. I prefer an association with happiness. On the subject of it appearing at all, author made it clear it was the image she had. The only reason to change is from something outside her design. If she wants the character to be gay, he should be. Even it's kind of token, as long as the characters good, who cares? Diversity is cool and also more importantly real. You can't straight-wash an entire cast just because the gay characters felt like they could easily be straight. If it starts all straight, of course that's fine, but if a character is gay, there's no reason to change unless you're doing something weird. And I mean bad weird, not just unusual weird.
I think you make a good point, but I've never liked the label "gay." Media took that whole thing and stuck a bunch of other characteristics to it. It seems like I can't go very long before I have to educate someone that gay does not mean effeminate. Being gay is part of who I am. It isn't even the majority of who I am. I don't know how to plan a wedding or what color chartreuse is (without looking it up). When people you care about don't see you, they see a stereotype, then you will care about anything that promotes that stereotype.
I think you misunderstood my message. I was not saying that I did not like the word "gay". I was stating that if the only purpose of Tony being gay is, well, being gay, then it's not really going to add anything to the character and will just feel forced. My whole post was reinforcing the point that if a character wants to choose a trait, then there has to be a reason for it. That being hair length, weaponry, sexual preferences, etc.
But you could say the same thing about a character being, say, a given height. But a person has to have a height. A person has to have a sexual orientation. Now, maybe neither one will become important to the plot, but the author has likely decided about them anyway.
I find the sudden revelation of such things to be difficult. I tend to drop hints and clues, general feelings about such things so that the reader establishes the idea that the character is gay, but also is there for the ride along the way. That way they empathise with the character and understand their perspective throughout, even like them. The point is, if you've established the character in first person, I am led to believe that you've already dropped these hints and clues, their feelings and opinions, so it should come as no surprise to the reader that this character is gay. That doesn't mean it won't come as a surprise to the other characters though, so I would develop their reactions based on how much experience they've had with this character of yours, whether they know or understand the same about them, their empathies, their prejudices, etc. Essentially it would be a shift in story dynamic, as if before it wasn't a focal point, after the revelation it would (at least for a short time) become the focal point of the story.
I by no means am trying to disencourage Tony being gay and having a boyfriend. What I'm talking about is how the TC reveals it to the audience, which as always, depending on how something is written, can make or break. Sexual preferences in the current society remains a sensible subject for some reason, so if "Tony is gay" is written like that, exactly like that, clear and dry, then it's going to make reader wonder "So what? How does that affect the character Tony in any way?" So unless TC makes it important that he is indeed gay, and his boyfriend who as I said, plays a large role in the story besides being "why he's gay", then it's great and it will add depth to the character. It's the same reason why I wouldn't say that my character Arthur has a cowlick going left without a good idea behind it.
I suspect that you meant "sensitive" here? Because American society, at least, isn't the least bit sensible about this subject. Which is, IMO, a good reason for not shying away from the fact that a character is gay. Would that cowlick have to play a "large role"? Would you avoid mentioning it unless it played a large role? Or if your character's high school girlfriend loved that cowlick, would you mention it casually, without wondering, "Should I really open up the whole 'cowlick' can of worms here, and possibly offend some of my readers?" I'd guess that you'd mention that the character's high school girlfriend loved that cowlick, casually, if it added color to the story, whether it was terribly important or not. And on that same principle, I think that mentioning that Tony's high school boyfriend loved his cowlick is also just dandy, whether it's terribly important or not.
If someone's describing a room, and they say that on the wall there are a bunch of mounted animal heads, some paintings of hunting scenes and an old rifle, that's not a "Chekhov's Gun" situation, it's just a description of reality. I think the "Chekhov's Gun" thing refers more to describing something unusual or drawing undue attention to it. Mentioning a male character's boyfriend doesn't fall under that understanding of Chekhov's Gun. It's more like the paintings/animal heads/gun type of gun - one characteristic that adds depth to a character (or wall).
A gun is...a gun. It's a big deal. Sure, the plot should make some use of the gun, if a special point is made of said gun. Does it also have to make use of the fact that the gun is in a room, that the room has a floor and a ceiling and maybe even chairs, that the room is in a house versus an apartment? Does it have to make use of the fact that the characters are wearing shoes? That they have hair?
I think the room can have walls without the walls being mentioned. Not being mentioned doesn't mean that the room lacks walls. It just means that those walls aren't meaningful to the story. Not mentioning the characters' shoes or hair doesn't mean they are barefoot and bald. It just means that their hair and footwear aren't meaningful to the story.
What if a male character has a wife? Does that fact need to have strong significance to the story, and otherwise it should be left out? If it's convenient for the plot for the character to note that he needs to call his wife, thus getting him out of the room, is that OK? Or is it not OK because the wife is not a significant driver of the story? If you're arguing absolute minimalism--no wife unless the wife drives the story, no taking off wet shoes unless the shoes drive the story--that's consistent. But in some posters in this thread I'm getting the vibe that the fact that the character is gay is something that should be avoided unless there's a good excuse for it. In other words, if you would equally disapprove of a male character mentioning a wife, and a male character mentioning a husband, then that's consistent, though it seems like a distinctly colorless story. If it's fine to mention the wife, but the husband shouldn't be mentioned unless the character's orientation is a strong plot driver, that's where I think there's an issue.
If the fact that he has a wife isn't meaningful to the story, then it should be left out, in my opinion. I believe throwing in a token minority just to be a token is bad.
I agree with the notion that his sexuality is less controversial than the age-gap between the characters. I'd totally let my impressionable kid read a story about someone who is 15 and gay, no question. But someone who is 15 and in a relationship with a 20 year old? That'd give me major pause.
You're assuming it'd literally be presented as "Tony is gay", which would be just as boring writing as "Tony has brown hair" or "Arthur has a cowlick". Surely you can give other writers a little more credit to present descriptive things in more natural, interesting ways Plenty of things go into a narrative that don't add 'depth' to a character. It doesn't matter to who she is that one of my mcs has blue hair; she just likes blue, and having a favorite color is just about the most basic character trait there is. But because I like descriptions, I say she has blue hair. Maybe I bring it to the reader's attention to comment on her slightly unkempt appearance by pointing out that it's faded silvery-blond and her black roots are growing out. Or maybe I just have her new friend who has pink hair grin and say "I dig the blue". Maybe I bring the fact that she's bi to the reader's attention by having her grumble to her friend about how her parents kept telling her she'd pick a side eventually to allude to her family not being that supportive. Or maybe I just have her flirt with her pink-haired friend and then later comment on a boy she finds attractive too. Every tiny aspect of a narrative doesn't have to be there because it's essential. It can just be there because you wanted to make the narrative more interesting or fun or engaging. You can just say "Tony's boyfriend ..." to share a humorous anecdote about the zany shit Tony's boyfriend gets up to without it needing to be an issue.
I'm pretty sure the boyfriend will be important to the story. Why wouldn't he be? If your in a serious relationship with someone wouldn't they be important to your life? Unless the boyfriend is just a sex thing, which by the way would make it more pedoey.
Stories aren't meant to be like real life, but still, in most people's lives, being gay isn't the most important thing. Yet, it's still a part of their lives. I have red hair. Is there a reason why? Is it important? No, but it would be weird if everyone danced around the subject.
Why not? Everything happens there. To be fair, real life elements creep into every story I've ever read. Relationships, are one example of many. Also, I like red hair, but I can't see a reason why it couldn't be a plot point. And it could have a reason for being red, and it could also be important. Fiction is only limited by our ability to imagine, but that imagination stems from somewhere.
