Well, I’ve always been sick of gratuitous gaity. So are my (few) gay friends. I don’t have any flamboyant friends and we don’t want any… I have to admit, I’m also sick of /gratuitous/ sexuality in general, and always have been. Specifically in Dr Who. Dr who? He was famously described as “two hearts and no dick”, and that’s the way I liked it.
Regarding Miss Marple, I’m starting to suspect that the producers have just decided that 15% of the characters are going to be lesbian. Is that a representative number? I know that some of the books were written with lesbian characters, but I’m not sure that they /all/ were.
I kind of see the point. Some shows with Gay characters do it well. The character is established early as gay and everything follows along naturally.
Then you have the “wait, what?!” situation where a previously non-coupled character suddenly has a same sex partner and it kind of feels like someone said “ok, we have a Lesbian and some Hetros and we better make one of the guys Gay”. It’s jarring and doesn’t feel comfortable because there was no lead up or progression. It’s just ticking off a box.
Our local (Vancouver) ads are really pushing the United Nations thing too. It’s to the point where there are very few couples portrayed who aren’t mixed. Sure, I know a lot of mixed couples but for the most part people still hook up with folks who share common culture. It’s jarring because it feels forced and doesn’t reflect the majority of the people I see daily. Keep in mind, I live in an area where there are a lot of recent immigrants and they still marry within their culture because that’s what their families expect. I don’t care either way. I have a daughter-in-law with some Chinese heritage and my other son was in a relationship with a girl from South America. Fine by me. Heck, my ex always claimed to be partly Native. It’s just that it seems the couples that look like each other are becoming, well, unfashinable would have to be the term. It’s the company putting on the ad saying “look at us! We’re PC! We’re modern! We’re trying really, realy hard!” As I said, it just feels forced.
I guess it comes down to smoothness. It’s all about whether you find yourself being taken out of the story or away from the product being sold by the characters orientation or looks. Ideally, there should be no real bump, no bang over the head. The story should just flow.
Please note I specifically used “gayity” to separate the two terms. English has been built of neologIsms.
you are truly missing out. The flamers are the most fun! I can talk about showtunes and all. OTOH, I’ve found lesbians pleasant, but boring. If I want to talk about the Cubs, which I don’t, I’d talk with my straight and closeted co-workers.
Precisely my complaint about tokenism.
You are wrong. I thought I made it clear that I couldn’t care less about any character’s lovelife, UNLESS IT ADVANCES THE PLOT. I may have been a godawful English major, but I learned a thing or two.
So do you want it established early, or come as a surprise later on? You just said “This” to a statement that is opposite what you wrote in the OP. The new Doctor Who companion Bill was established as a lesbian in the first episode (by simply catching the eye of another woman. They don’t kiss, I forget if they even touched at all. Maybe they danced together. I guess that’s “gratuitous” for some people.)
Did you also have a problem with Rose throwing her gratuitous heterosexuality in your face by having a boyfriend in the very first episode of the series? And Martha? And Donna? And Amy & Rory? Pretty much every single companion the show has had since 2005?
Apparently gratuitous gayity=a gay person existing.
Rose and Mickey were connected as a couple almost immediately. It established their place in the story. Same with Amy and Rory. And Odysseus and Penelope. And Inara and her councilwoman date. Worst case: In Gotham, Barbara and some woman hooked up early. No explanation. No foreshadowing. Just two horny, naked women, and cut for a commercial. Totally gratuitous.
You didn’t make that clear, by virtue of not titling the thread, “Is it okay to be sick of gratuitous lovelives?” You specified in the OP title, and in the OP itself, that what prompted your complaints isn’t love lives in general, but gay characters’ love lives in particular.
So far of the three episodes, its beginning to look like a train wreck after Clara, and its annoying cause it feels like they are wasting Capaldi in his final season. New Chick, seems to be the Anti-Clara in almost all respects, which is tragic, as she seems to be meh, but capable.
If anything it was a lot more annoying on Torchwood, so much that you had to fastforward the scenes between Jack and whomever.
You’re describing Gotham when I am talking about the example you gave of something “gratuitous,” Doctor Who. Tell us how Bill being a lesbian in Doctor Who is “gratuitous.” I just rewatched her scenes in the first episode. She flirts with a girl by giving her extra fries, and then catches the eye of another girl at a bar. That’s it!!
That’s literally all the gratuitous gayity that was shown! And the girl at the bar becomes the “monster of the week” directly because of Bill’s being into her! The whole conflict of the episode wouldn’t have happened had she not met her at the bar and the resolution wouldn’t have had any emotional strength at all had they not previously established that the characters had feelings for one another.
How does that not establish the story and Bill as a character? I guarantee that had the girl at the bar been a boy instead, there is zero chance you would call the episode an example of gratuitous heterosity.
Wow. Thanks. I was picturing the poster as maybe the least efficient mailroom employee any action-figure manufacturer ever had.
The trouble is that the standard for “gratuitous, flamboyant” sexuality seems to be much different for gay characters, and not in a way that demonstrates acceptance. This is distinct from the previous trouble, which was that gay characters were written as ostentatiously offensive stereotypes, either comic or dangerous, which was different from the previous trouble, which was that gay characters didn’t exist. In a way, I suppose this mirrors the progress of a lot of minorities’ portrayal in pop culture: invisible, then despised and the butt of crude jokes, then aesthetically criticized because their other-ness detracted from the work in question.
Authors get to decide this stuff about their characters. It is no more or less essential for a character on a TV show to be gay than for a real person to be gay. And we always know more about the personal lives of fictional characters than we do about all but a very few real people. Sex is more interesting than lunch, so there are more characters we know are straight or gay or other than those we know are vegetarian or lactose intolerant.
