Proposed Alternative Methods of Revealing a Character's Sexuality

This was originally a reply to a thread on Wakachan, but I decided it was getting too long and too soapbox-ey so I've opted to publish it here instead, and may submit a very trimmed-down version there. I'm also not done yet, but it's frickin' huge and I wanted to get it published today, so you'll have to settle for a rough draft, once again. My apologies.

---

In response to the following news story:
"Spider-Man creator Stan Lee is preparing to unveil the world's first gay superhero in an hour-long TV drama being filmed in the U.S.

The 86-year-old former Marvel Comics boss and creator of the Hulk and the X-Men is said to be working on a project about high school basketball star Thom Creed, who hides his developing superpowers along with his sexuality."

I wrote the following reply:
Because they couldn't reveal it the same way that they revealed that every other superhero was straight or bi. They had to sensationalize it and make a big deal out of it. "I'm the GAY superhero!" Reminds me of the "token black guy" in every modern franchise, a character whose creation writers have not been able to escape since the 1970s.

"Look at me! I'm Lando! I'm also *black!*" Billy Dee represented in Star Wars, but good god is it painful to look back on his role in Episode V, to notice how he's the only black guy in a galaxy of white humans and crazy-looking aliens. What saves the Lando character from the usual "token black guy" deathtrap is that his character is interesting and attractive regardless of his race. And if the writing is good for Stan Lee's newest comic, then the same will hopefully hold true for the yaoi basketball star.

---

Some proposed alternative methods for revealing a character's sexuality:

1. small clues in the background of a few cels, delivered across the real-world span of 2 to 5 years before the fandom can definitively say, "Yes, we have good reason to believe that Scott is gay." For example, our main character Scott could be chatting to a friend on the computer in one chapter and in only two cels in the entire comic fans might notice that the artists drew in a copy of Brokeback Mountain amongst other DVDs in Scott's film collection. By no means a clincher, by no means! But! It establishes suspicion; it provides fuel for a budding hypothesis. Then 5 months later, fans might open up the latest issue and a few of the more keen-eyed ones might notice the second clue, a book laying down on the hero's desk. It is not by itself: there are also other books, school books, homework papers, decorations for the desk, tools, etc. But this one book is there all the same, its cover is facing upwards, and if the astute reader pays close attention, he sees the barely-legible title -- "MOON RIVER." It means nothing to most people, but these few observers have struck gold, or so they begin to think, for Moon River is a famous GLBT romance novel penned by Art Schilling in 2005. No new hints for several issues, and then 4 months later, the newest issue comes out and reveals a third clue, adding to the stockpile of evidence that our hero might be gay: he writes a message to one of his friends on AIM and in the course of the conversation uses the emoticon "K)". To most people it's just a K with a parenthesis, but people who go to a GLBT social networking site recognize it as a site-specific emoticon! In this manner, the author can subtly establish the character's sexuality. Eventually even the most clueless readers will pick up when, in Issue #034, Scott decides to ask out blackcherryz_23 from the chat room and -- lo and behold -- blackcherryz_23 is a young man named Mark and captain of the rival high school's men's basketball team!
   
2. This brings me to the second appropriate way of establish a character's sexuality: simply throw the audience into the pool and let them learn to swim. What do I mean by this? Some examples:
   a) maybe Scott goes on the aforementioned blind date and its with another man. And Scott doesn't freak out that it's a date with a guy. Sure, he freaks out that he's from the rival school. The captain of the basketball team. Et cetera, et cetera. But he doesn't freak out that he's a dude. This in and of itself tells readers gay and straight alike that Scott is homosexual or bisexual.
   b) maybe Scott goes to a bar -- NOT identified as a gay bar -- and the reader is left to notice, "Hey, the author's done nothing but describe men in this bar! I haven't seen a single woman yet! What's going on?"
   c) I consider this sort of perilously close to spelling it out, but if the writer absolutely insists, there's always the option of having Scott turn down a nice, attractive girl who musters the courage to ask him out (since he obviously wasn't "picking up on her hints", or so she thought!). But I really think it's going down the slippery slope if the girl demands an explanation and Scott says he's gay (see #1 below); or if he offers no explanation but the author foolishly does for the audience by providing them with a follow-up scene in which Scott sees Roy Brady getting on the school bus and his best friend asks Scott why he's blushing, etc. It should suffice that Scott turns down a cute, nice girl and offers no explanation. Not as proof, but once again (see #1 above) as a seed. If Scott were to turn down five million girls, that'd be sort of dumb, too. What ought to happen (at most) is that he turns down 3 girls by which time the author really would need to ramp it up a little bit by having Scott ask out or be asked out by a guy, or some other more clear-but-natural circumstance in which a 3rd party spying on Scott would conclude that he's gay.
   
3. (not yet finished)

Some proposed DON'Ts for revealing a character's sexuality:

1. "I'm gay." This one tops my list as my all-time pet peeve. Nobody comes out and says "I'm straight." And few people need come out and say "I'm gay." By the time a real-world person speaks those two words, all but the most socially-inept individuals (*raises hand*) ought to have realized by now that so-and-so is in fact possibly, if not very probably, homosexual. Having a character say "I'm gay" is as much a writing copout as it would be to have him say "I'm Catholic" or "I'm racist." In good writing, people are smart enough to figure out from the author's clues that a character is Catholic. "Oh, you mean to tell me George went to a Catholic church in Chapter 3? And in Chapter 4, he's playing with his rosary beads? In Chapter 7, he goes back to the Catholic church to confess some sins? And in the second to last chapter, he prays to 'Maria'? Hmm, I think he might be Catholic!" (DUH! *pulls out hair in frustration*) And for the racist, similarly, you need only identify his confederate flag bumper sticker, his shaved head, his frequent use of racial slurs, etc. to reveal to the readers that he might be racist. :p So, too, is it with the gay guy! "The gay guy" should never ever BE "the gay guy." He should simply "the guy, the star of our story" who also happens to be gay. Even if the homosexuality plays a key role in the plot, still, he need not ever have to spell out to another character (and thus the readers) "I am gay."
   
2. Never create a character who is sexually neutral up until the very final book of your anthology. If a character's sexuality matters to the story, it should show, even if only subtly, in previous installments. Also, it damages your credibility as a well-meaning writer and lumps you in with the other sensationalist writers if you come out of left field with one of your character and have him reveal, "HEY! LOOK AT ME! I'M GAY!" Vide J.K. Rowling's treatment of Albus Dumbledore. I have zero complaint that he is ultimately gay. Zero. I have a weighty complaint that he was revealed to be gay (a) heavy-handedly (such that even a semi-retarded 10-year-old would be forced to ask his mummy and daddy why Albus said and did such things) and (b) only in the seventh of seven lengthy novels. I felt it cheapened Albus as a character and lowered Rowling's qualifications as a skilled writer (if only ever-so-slightly; the woman is clearly supremely talented!).
   My point is, nobody likes a character to reveal his sexuality out of left field and in the closing minutes of the game. People demand gradual, solid, realistic character development from good writers. Even for a man who closely guarded his private life from Harry and Severus as Albus Dumbledore did, there still ought to have been some clues in previous volumes. And of course there are none: because Rowling never intended Albus to be gay until long after she'd created him. I would guess she didn't even consider it until after penning Book 4, despite her claims to the contrary.
   
3. This is another version of #1, but I almost forgot to mention: the author should never spell it out to the audience, either. We established that Scott should never say in his dialogue "I'm gay," but neither should the author establish in her opening chapter with Scott, "Scott was a 14-year old gay Jew living in downtown New York." You wouldn't write, "Bernie was a 13-year old black boy." You would establish only those things which can't be established otherwise and which require immediate clarification (e.g. that Bernie lives in a city called New York, as there are many metropolitan areas). Issue of gender should be resolved almost immediately through passive actions, i.e. characters ought to address him as "Boi!" or "Mrs. Robertson's son" or "he" and the reader concludes, "Oh, he's a guy!" Similarly, the author ought to mention something like "the burlap sack was the same color as Bernie's arm" or "Bernie's sister Lanita used to help him braid his cornrows as a kid; but now that Lanita was at college ...", or some such. Readers will figure it out. Same thing for sexuality. A poor author says "Scott is a gay kid." A talented author finds natural circumstances through which to both develop Scott's character in asexual ways as well as to establish his homosexuality.
   
4. (not yet finished)