quote:

Originally posted by leatheryjowls:
So.. I don't think the ifrit was gay. I'm going by memory, but he did mention to Salim (who goddammit is obviously gay, but I'll get to that later) anyway he did mention to Salim that he would do anything to change the situation he was in. I'm not sure why sex with ifrits makes you change places with them (seems like a heterosexual relationship with one would get confusing real fast) but it did the trick.

Having sex with the Ifrit wasn't what 'made' them change places. The Ifrit gave Salim something that he badly, badly wanted, and in return took something that he needed - Salim's identity and his ticket outta there. When Salim realises what has happened he simply sees it as, maybe not so much an opportunity, but at the very least a release from his old life.

As for the objections about Islam being homophobic, well, Jinns and Ifrits date from well before the birth of Mohammed, and homosexuality has a long history in Arabic and Persian culture. Pillars of Wisdom by T.E. Lawrence gives an insight into that.

Salim was obviously gay, not sure how anyone can think otherwise, unless they're just homophobic and are afraid they might actually like a book with a gay character, god forbid.

The ifrit is a spiritual entity, hard to say what its sexual orientation is or could be. Most likely though, like most gods, he has infinite facets to his being.

The sexual encounter was brief, but it was very passionate (they each came what, three, four times? Geez), and very respectful. No they didn't get married or anything, but there was an obvious and very deep connection between the two.

As for them "switching places", I don't think that's what happened. The ifrit insisted he did not grant wishes. And here's Salim, who utterly hates his life. So the ifrit, not able to magically whisk Salim off to frickin' wonderland for a happy ending with him, did the next best thing: left him his ID so Salim could use it to have a new life.

So ironically, although the ifrit had no actual power to grant wishes, he was able to grant Salim his wish. Sure, the ifrit's life wasn't much better than Salim's, he was stuck driving a stinky ass cab, but it was still a change, a really kind gesture on the part of the ifrit.

And yeah, as for a homosexual Muslim, HELLO! Of course there are gay Muslims, and gay Christians, and (gasp) gay Republicans.

Just because some religious text from hundreds or thousands of years ago says something bad about gays, and just because a lot of morons still believe that crap, doesn't mean nature stopped making gay people. Homosexuality occurs in all cultures, and has throughout human history. It doesn't matter what religion you grow up with, though obviously gays born into certain religions have harder lives than others. A gay in Canada can get married, a gay conservative Christian in America has less rights and can expect to suffer a lot of pain and guilt (and then maybe move to Canada), and a gay living in the Middle East right now can expect to have their fucking head chopped off. How they get treated by their cultures doesn't change the number of gay people born.

Which is largely the point of this novel: to show the diversity of cultures, namely all the ones that exist in America.

Lastly whoever said Gaiman portrays sex as destructive in this novel is way, way off. This encounter with the ifrit was romantic as hell. Also Shadow gets it on with Bast, who is absolutely amazing in bed, and the sex gives him the first peace of mind he's had in at least three years. Even the guy who gets sucked into the vag early on went willingly, it's not like it had teeth and tore him to shreds, it's like she absorbed him and he was lost in the ecstasy (like a drop of water falling into the ocean = nirvana).

The story of Salim and the jinn made my heart ache, I only know one other writer who writes such shatteringly beautiful love stories and I wish there were more.
And this is a love story more than a sex story - the story about Bilquis eating (is 'devouring' a better word?) a man is a sex story, it goes into far more physical detail. We know exactly what Bilquis looks like, but not what Salim or the jinn look like, other than their country of origin, the jinn's eyes and, possibly, the fact that Salim has put on weight lately. We don't get to know that the jinn is beautiful to the world, only that he is beautiful *to Salim*.

And regarding the poster who said that they die together - I suppose it's possible that the passenger in the cab could have been the jinn. It would have been... romantic, I guess. I personally think that Encounters With Spirits tend to happen only once.
Also that the jinn would have gone home the first chance he got.

quote:

Originally posted by leatheryjowls:And if I may get a bit explicit, it says that Salim came twice and the ifrit only did after an hour of oral sex. Not the reaction of an ifrit enjoying himself much. I think that sentence there clearly shows that the ifrit wasn't gay, and Salim was.
-jowls

seriously, as christopherwalken says, not every guy comes in seven minutes. that's the stereotype, of course, but it's not a hard and fast rule.

anyway, there's a clip on the audio links page (I think it's the new york city book reading) of Gaiman reading this vignette, which is, I think, an excellent way to gauge the emotional content of the story. and he read it very sweetly and very sadly.

the only real significance I'd put on the story, though, is to expose just how far these gods have fallen, just like all the other vignettes. Bilquis is reduced to bribing policemen and working as a prostitute--and not all of her clients are worthy of her. the djinn drives a taxi on five hours of sleep, has to clean shit out of his back seat, and gets stiffed often as not. his (brief) relationship with Salim is a special story among the vignettes as it highlights his personal loneliness as a forgotten deity. he has no friends, no confidants, no lovers. no one even knows his name.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: McApathy,

funny but a part of me feels like this part was entirely another book. when i read that part, i wasn't surprised at all. my friend just came back from an arab country - she told me she was the only woman out in the evening. gets you wondering what arab men do all night, each other maybe...(j/k). i've heard some "myths" or "rumors" that the culture turns its head to man-boy love organizations/occurrences, and that its not uncommon for 2 men to "hook up" because they are curious, confused and just simply pretty damn horny. my point: i guess what i want to say is sadly, i wasn't surprised; and i did view the scenes as a VHI tabloid-like blurb on "where are the gods now..."

quote:

Originally posted by Frodo:
I think that the inclusion of that relationship is esential to in some ways make the gods more "human".
The one things that I don´t know if it was necessary, was that of including too many details of the sexual encounter.
Why do you think Neil did it??

Why do you think there were too many details? It was a gorgeous scene and one doesn't have to be a gay man to feel that way about it. Would you have felt that way or said that if the same scene were between heterosexual folks? Why wouldn't he do it? It makes enormous sense that, like anyone else, Gods and other characters would be Queer.

It's mentioned here and there that Djinn's will "lead humans astray" and are at times associated with succubi. I guess that might be another shade of it.

I personally did enjoy that little sidestory immensely, even if the ending made me kind of go "Hey, what the- Get back here you!"
On one hand it's a beautiful scene, on the other hand it's, like Shaggy673 said, dark and distorted.

Just my two newbie-cents.

a sexual god? sure
a homosexual-god? not so much

along with the bit about getting a blowjob this is strategic writing to lure the reader into a mood of everyday life i think.
or rather my opinion.

i wouldn't look to much into this other than what it is, the kansas city shuffle, a distraction from the story.

in NO WAY AM I DENOUCING HOMOSEXUALS.
at least that was not my intentions.
nothing wrong with being gay ,it's just not for me!
once again it's a kansas city shuffle

quote:

Originally posted by luckyfurtrapper:
a sexual god? sure
a homosexual-god? not so much

oh. really. read this, please. just one rather well-known example. think of it as an early Christmas present.

and I think that perhaps part of Gaiman's point was to illustrate the distance between what is publically condemned and privately conducted.

hold the phone doctor, this character was bulit around zeus as was most of all greek gods.zeus liked to have sex with humans and the stories of this go on and on.but you can not, sir, say zeus was homosexual, bi- sure but homosexual not so much.
once again sex with men in ancient greek times was almost a status quoe.
you would be far from the truth to say greek gods were homosexual. rather, they went down on whomever they chose.
and once again well after the frame work of greek gods were established here comes this sheepherder.

Why on earth does pinning people down with a particular sexual orientation matter? This is just literary criticism for curtain twitchers. Human sexuality is a diverse thing, and we're going the wrong way about recognising it, especially in literature.

I'm not a sir.

and you really should update your rather rigid understanding of sexuality. you reject the idea that the djinn was gay based on your opinion that gods are not homosexual; however, most gods, especially those in a pantheon of gods, are remarkably human. they have interpersonal relationships like humans do; they have strengths and weaknesses like humans do. it is ridiculous to assert that a mythological god could not be homosexual as a rule—more importantly (as the ridiculousness of your proposition is just my opinion), you have no scholarly evidence to back up your claim.

I assume you're referring to Ganymede as the sheepherder (which, by the way, would make him a shepherd). why does it matter when that story originated? it's still a well-established myth in the Greek pantheon. and it's not the only example; it's just the best-known example. you need to do a little research; ten minutes on wikipedia will tell you that there's more out there.

so. let's narrow our focus, shall we? djinn predate Islam and had been part of middle eastern folklore. djinn can be male or female, and they can even procreate. obviously, they are sexual, and they also have free will. since Islam condemns homosexuality (but it's widely rumored that men seek other men for recreation and women for procreation), it wouldn't be very surprising that ifrits would also be condemned for such a thing—and what a coincidence! ifrits in particular are viewed as evil spirits. so making the ifrit homosexual doesn't violate any of the existing lore surrounding djinn.

besides which, this is Neil Gaiman's universe. he creates the verisimilitude. if he wants to have gods with specific sexual orientations, that's his business. he doesn't have to stick to original myth if the internal logic of his story holds. and it does hold; in my opinion, he gets bonus points because he did it without ruining the original understanding of djinn. he's not required to stick to the original myth religiously.

now. my further question to you is this: why would Gaiman want to pull a Kansas City Shuffle? what does that achieve? I don't think it's so much a distraction from the central story as it is an aside. it helps you understand the world in which the story is taking place.

you're hitting a bit closer to the mark, imo, when you say that the story is meant to lure the reader into a mood of everyday life. yes. this is who the ifrit is. he is gay, he is lonely, and he is desperate. many of the gods are lonely and desperate. the fact that he's gay is only incidental, just as Bilquis' heterosexuality is incidental. some of the gods are homosexual, just as some people are homosexual.

that's not really the point. the point is the loneliness, the desperation, and the relief of finding a little solace while Ragnarok looms ever closer. so he's gay. so what? why can't he be?

i'll just agree with syme with the the idea of 'why does he have to be gay ,what does it matter anyway ?'
i don't enter this with a shut down attitude as per say an 'open-minded'.
I come in peace and in a mood to discuss views, now i know i lack sandwhich compliments, but dweller has the decency to entertain this views and thoughts with a true understanding and diplomatic stance rather than someone who just win-pedia(whatever) everything as this is the fact of all knowing knowledge.

I don't reference Wikipedia because it's generally not worth the time and effort and, well, if someone's too lazy to research what I say and find it to be true or develop a good argument against it, then there's not much point in talking. I always went to debate prepared to back up my statements with sources, but no open discourse should come with a bibliography.

And, quite frankly, I can't see what your beef is here. Can divine creatures be gay? Yes, they can. If you'd read much mythology, you'd know that there are gods, goddesses and spiritual creatures whose doors only swing one way, and it's the direction away from the norm, and that a lot of these critters come from Eastern traditions.

And, yes, Zeus wasn't gay but homosexuality is a spectrum - the djinn committed a homosexual act, Zeus committed homosexual acts. They're on the same spectrum, whether you want them to be there or not.

And did you mean "compliment sandwich?" Really, don't take this the wrong way, but is English your first language? Your written syntax and grammar are consistent, they just aren't consistent with the expected patterns of an English speaker.

I mentioned Wikipedia once. Just once. By way of saying that it's absurdly easy to find out about homosexuality in religion and mythology. Kinda like saying, "Hell, even wikipedia knows about this!" Obviously, Wikipedia isn't all-knowing. Wikipedia is limited by its nature. But it's a place to get started, as the articles often have links to outside sources. As we all know, the beauty of a book that turns out to be useless is its bibliography, and the same is true for Wikipedia. It's a good place to find out where you should go for good resources.

And attacking my sources is cheap when you didn't have any to begin with. It's also cheap when you use that as an excuse to ignore everything I said—especially since Syme and I pretty much said the same thing in different ways. If you don't comprehend or agree with what I'm getting at, just say so. It's much more honorable than making an unrelated attack.

ETA: Also, I'm not sue why you think I don't have a "true understanding" or "diplomatic stance." I'm just here to discuss views, like you. You think that, because I try to use what measly reference materials I have at my disposal, I'm somehow not exchanging ideas with you? That's...not academically sound. I have opinions, and I use what reference materials I have to illustrate, verify, or bolster that opinion. And, if you really want me to just throw references at you, I'll take this off-line and head to the library.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: McApathy,

In conclusion, they're all a bunch of poufs! /thread