quote:

Originally posted by mestarrant:
Chimeer, well maybe that's one of the flaws of male writers.. the inability to describe other males the same way they describe females. Maybe this just makes female writers better.

I really don't remember/haven't finished American Gods, so I can't respond to any of the things mentioned with that book..

Okay, I linked the lack of descriptions of males as homophobic because I figure no man wants to be caught writing something physically flattering about another man, not even if it might be beneficial to the book he is planning on selling to a wide range of people. I am NOT saying that Neil Gaiman is a homophobe. I know everyone here is a huge (and perhaps sensitive) fan of this guy, and I'm not here to say negative things about him. I don't know him. Who know's if he's a homophobe or not. But it just seems to me that way. Sometimes. Through his works.

And I can honestly say I'm not looking for any of these flaws. It's just that I'm more sensitive to them as they come along. It's like.. the more shots of Vodka you drink, the harder it is to get the next one down. Haha I couldn't think of another analogy. I wonder what this says about ME.

Okay and Door WAS supposed to be beautiful. That's what I got from the book, anyway. So she was a big younger and very dirty.. so what?

I don't find the women any better necessarily. I'm reading a Bujold right now and while the main woman is very clearly described and is totally beautiful, I haven't the foggiest notion what the guy looks like. And I'm on page 119. And JRR Tolkien described everyone, including the guys, very very clearly (and many of them were stunningly lovely -- Aragorn, Faramir, Eomer, Legolas . . . ). So I don't think the description thing can be borne out other than anecdotaly. (Dweller, I can't spell. I'm sorry. I could type this all in Word and spell check, but I suck and am too lazy. To you, personally, I apologize.)

I still don't agree with Door being beautiful. She's quirky looking and attractive. Not beautiufl. And Richard is described as being very attractive, at least to my mind's eye. And for the sake of clarity, are we equating physical attractiveness/beauty with sexual attractiveness? For example, Hunter is described as being rather severely lovely, but I don't get a feeling of her being attractive because she's so aloof and intimidating.

Actually, one can know if Mr. Gaiman is a homophobe or not. He's not. I can state it without any reservation or hesitation, and as someone who has read a truck load of his works and his interviews. He's not. Now, like Chimeer wrote about, possibly he doesn't either see what makes men look good or perhaps he doesn't care. But I'm not sure I agree because I think he has lots of description about men and some of it quite, shall we say, fetching.

And while I might be a sensitive fan, I'm not that huge. I'm only 5'7".

quote:

Originally posted by mestarrant:
Yeah there are female characters who use their looks to manipulate others.. but there aren't any male ones who do that.

Interesting discussion, but I have to quibble with you here. Spider (from Anansi Boys) is definitely attractive and charming and uses both his good lucks and stunning personality to manipulate others. I suppose Anansi Sr. himself probably falls into this category, too, since he had a way with women (though I don't remember exactly how he was described).

My point being that there *are* male characters who use their good looks and charm to manipulate (though they may not be described quite as clearly as their female counterparts).

If you're worried about Neil being a homophobe, you should definitely give American Gods another go, try his short story Murder Mysteries, and pick up some Sandman, specifically a Game of You (although there's lots of others).

And btw: welcome to the board!

Maeve, it's quite simple. A homophobic writer: someone who refuses to write descriptively about male characters and who compensates by writing about billions of females in an over-the-top kind of way so no one would ever have the chance to suspect he has gay tendencies. Neil Gaiman probably isn't like this. But it's what I think, sometimes, when I get bored with all the lovely ladies.

I haven't read Anansi Boys either, although even by the back cover of that book I can sense that it probably doesn't contain this little 'flaw' that is bothering me. I'll give it a read sometime in the future! It's just that I found so much of this THING in both Stardust and Neverwhere, and I happened to read one right after the other. And Good Omens right after that, though I'm not finished with it.

Mongrr, yeah I too have come across many authors of both sexes who write equally about everyone, so I'm definitely not saying that men suck at writing. I said something similar though in my previous post. Sorry, I was just frustrated.

see, i always felt that neil only described people (at all, really) if it was significant to the plot. like Lamia is beautiful, because that is how she draws Richard to her. and the Witch in Stardust is beautiful because she made herself that way. if it's not important to the plot, he leaves it up to you. (and Neverwhere and Stardust are the most descriptive of people anyway)

quote:

Originally posted by mestarrant:
Maeve, it's quite simple. A homophobic writer: someone who refuses to write descriptively about male characters and who compensates by writing about billions of females in an over-the-top kind of way so no one would ever have the chance to suspect he has gay tendencies. Neil Gaiman probably isn't like this. But it's what I think, sometimes, when I get bored with all the lovely ladies.

I haven't read Anansi Boys either, although even by the back cover of that book I can sense that it probably doesn't contain this little 'flaw' that is bothering me. I'll give it a read sometime in the future! It's just that I found so much of this THING in both Stardust and Neverwhere, and I happened to read one right after the other. And Good Omens right after that, though I'm not finished with it.

Mongrr, yeah I too have come across many authors of both sexes who write equally about everyone, so I'm definitely not saying that men suck at writing. I said something similar though in my previous post. Sorry, I was just frustrated.

Your crazy. I'm not homophobic and I rarely write stories with tons of men. Not because I dont want people to think I'm gay, but because I just prefer to have lots of women in my mind. I like the way they think, the way they act and the way they talk. Men are boring and simple most of the time.

I really doubt neil is in anyway homophobic, he has a very strong femanine side. I remember reading in the companion guide he - like myself though very not much like many men - found himself bored at a strip club. It was like "Wow, boobs. Cool. *checks watch* Okay I'm ready to go now.... wait, where here for how many hours?" heh.

He's always treated straight and homosexual charecters with tenderness and love. His male charecters are likeable people who are usually trying to make the best out of a world they dont understand and his evil charecters, men or women, are down right hateable when he wants them to be, regardless of their beauty or outward appearance.

That's a common mistake. The definition of homophobic is someone who is against homosexuals. Just because many homophobic writers don't like to have pretty male characters, it doesn't mean that anyone who doesn't gush over the good looks of his male characters is homophobic. You know, all birds can fly (not even true but let's say it is), but not everything that flies is a bird.

This is also a recent tendency to want to give writers in any medium recipes for their characters. You have to have one strong female, one sensitive male, one adorable goofy geek, one of each possible race, one good priest, one good Muslim, and so on. So then, where does the choice and the genius of the author kick in?

Personally I'd rather prefer that the author writes what he wants even if it's not politically correct and even if I don't like the result myself. It's called art - the expression of someone's vision and ideas.

quote:

Originally posted by jak in the box:
see, i always felt that neil only described people (at all, really) if it was significant to the plot. like Lamia is beautiful, because that is how she draws Richard to her. and the Witch in Stardust is beautiful because she made herself that way. if it's not important to the plot, he leaves it up to you. (and Neverwhere and Stardust are the most descriptive of people anyway)

Ooh, Jak, I like this. This makes sense.

quote:

Originally posted by jak in the box:
see, i always felt that neil only described people (at all, really) if it was significant to the plot. like Lamia is beautiful, because that is how she draws Richard to her. and the Witch in Stardust is beautiful because she made herself that way. if it's not important to the plot, he leaves it up to you. (and Neverwhere and Stardust are the most descriptive of people anyway)

Even though Amy is quoting this above me, it bears requoting. It's absolutely bang on.

quote:

A homophobic writer: someone who refuses to write descriptively about male characters and who compensates by writing about billions of females in an over-the-top kind of way so no one would ever have the chance to suspect he has gay tendencies

And that bears requoting because it's absolutely farcical.

Okay everybody is getting unnecessarily angry with phrases like "you're crazy" and so forth.

I don't know how many times I need to restate that I'm not here to say Neil is a homophobe. This is what happens on a person's fan page.. people just refuse to be objective. They just feel like they need to defend their hero. Believe me, I've done this before with actors or something, so I know how this is.

Chimeer, I'm not here to give him instructions, either.

Okay this needs another restatement for the Gaiman fanclub: I am NOT attacking this author!! All I am doing is trying to discuss a pattern that I have been noticing. No harm meant to ANYONE. I wrote up a definition of "homophobe" because someone wasn't clear on the connection I was making. I didn't write it up as a way to label this author.

Eldi, your first paragraph describes the way an author who has no variety writes. And who would want to read those books? As for your third paragraph, I completely agree. He really makes me hate some characters and like others (on purpose of course). But okay, are we then seeing a pattern that says all beautiful women are evil? Well no we're not, because there are plenty of good beautiful women as well. But hey hey.. women women everywhere! Where are the men?

As for the quote that has been requoted twice.. I agree, that is a very good point. In fact it's right on. But there is that pattern again.. the females are always the ones whose beauty is important to the story.

quote:

I don't know how many times I need to restate that I'm not here to say Neil is a homophobe. This is what happens on a person's fan page.. people just refuse to be objective. They just feel like they need to defend their hero. Believe me, I've done this before with actors or something, so I know how this is.
...
Okay this needs another restatement for the Gaiman fanclub: I am NOT attacking this author!! All I am doing is trying to discuss a pattern that I have been noticing. No harm meant to ANYONE.

Um, mestarrant, I'm very new to these boards, but even so I feel reasonably confident in saying that there isn't a fangirl/fanboy general refusal to be objective operating here. Yes, we all like NG's work - else why choose this board? - but what I've really liked seeing here is an honest willingness to discuss things about the writing that doesn't appeal, as well as the things that do. (This is particularly relevant with a writer like NG, as some of us will have come via the comics, and some via the books, and so start off appreciating different types of thing.) So if someone is championing something about NG's writing, then I really don't think it is just uncritical acceptance. (For example - nobody has yet flamed me for saying that the central character in Neverwhere is a Mary-Sue!)

Anyway, onto the heart of the argument: I don't accept your central definition of homophobia, I'm afraid. In any case, one of the many things I've enjoyed about NG's stuff is that gay characters appear without their sexual orientation necessarily being the most interesting thing about them.

Have you thought of trying some of the stuff you haven't yet read? You might enjoy them, and it might help set your mind at rest.

hive....

And it's fine for you to discuss a pattern that you are noticing as long as you admit (which I think you have, if I remember correctly) that you haven't read all of his works. "American Gods," "Anansi Boys," and his Sandman series are where the boys are -- although I find your question "where are the men?" to be kind of interesting anyway, because the main characters in "Stardust" and "Neverwhere" are, uhm, men. If anything, Mr. Gaiman writes about more men than women.

What I took issue with was your earlier assertion that we can't really know whether or not he's a homophobe. By any definition, yours included, he's not. You've yet to conceed that point. So while you want us to be objective, I think we have the right to request the same from you. You seem no more objective than anyone else in this discussion.

Because you haven't read all his works, you can't make final judgments on his style. Or, if you insist on doing so, you will be told quite firmly that you don't know what you're talking about.

And you have broadened your definition of stunningly beautiful women if you insist on including Door. So it looks like you are the one guilty of bad faith in this argument.

quote:

Originally posted by mestarrant:
Okay everybody is getting unnecessarily angry with phrases like "you're crazy" and so forth.

I don't know how many times I need to restate that I'm not here to say Neil is a homophobe. This is what happens on a person's fan page.. people just refuse to be objective. They just feel like they need to defend their hero. Believe me, I've done this before with actors or something, so I know how this is.

Chimeer, I'm not here to give him instructions, either.

Okay this needs another restatement for the Gaiman fanclub: I am NOT attacking this author!! All I am doing is trying to discuss a pattern that I have been noticing. No harm meant to ANYONE. I wrote up a definition of "homophobe" because someone wasn't clear on the connection I was making. I didn't write it up as a way to label this author.

Eldi, your first paragraph describes the way an author who has no variety writes. And who would want to read those books? As for your third paragraph, I completely agree. He really makes me hate some characters and like others (on purpose of course). But okay, are we then seeing a pattern that says all beautiful women are evil? Well no we're not, because there are plenty of good beautiful women as well. But hey hey.. women women everywhere! Where are the men?

As for the quote that has been requoted twice.. I agree, that is a very good point. In fact it's right on. But there is that pattern again.. the females are always the ones whose beauty is important to the story.

quote:

Originally posted by mestarrant:
people just refuse to be objective. They just feel like they need to defend their hero. Believe me, I've done this before with actors or something, so I know how this is.

I'm not "defending a hero". I quite like how Mr Gaiman writes books, but he's not really a hero.

quote:

I wrote up a definition of "homophobe" because someone wasn't clear on the connection I was making.

Maybe because in my mind at least, you're not making a connection?


I have loaned out my copy of American Gods, but wasn't there a homosexual sex scene, um, with the cabbie?? Seemed a very believable sex scene to me.

and, well... these are stories. He's not writing non-fiction. He's also drawing on stories and mythologies from hundreds of years. Those stories were always told to fascinate people, generally peasants, whose life was dreary and dull, right? So it's always, she was so beautiful, he was brave and bold, the witch was beautiful, but totally evil, blah blah blah.

Perhaps you should read Terry Pratchett if you want more "believable" characters. Nanny Ogg certainly isn't anyone's idea of a "beautiful witch". Neither is Magrat, and she became a queen.

Maybe I don't understand your point because I rather like these stories. I like a suspense of belief. My life is dull and boring enough I don't need realism. I want to be merely entertained.

Mestarrant said:

quote:

As for the quote that has been requoted twice.. I agree, that is a very good point. In fact it's right on. But there is that pattern again.. the females are always the ones whose beauty is important to the story.

Again, I have to say this isn't an absolute. It happens with both of the sexes (glad to hear you'll be checking Anansi Boys out soon, btw). Yeah, it's going to go both ways, both women and men using their good looks to manipulate because that's how it is.

Here's a few more suggestions: It's hard to see Neil's descriptions in the Sandman comics (seeing as they are illustrated) but I there's several male characters in there who get what they want by their stunningly good looks (first and foremost would be Lucifer). The same can be said for even Victor Von Doom from Marvel 1602. I'd add John Constantine attempting to (and then getting bitch-slapped) in Books of Magic, but I don't know that that was totally necessary for the story, although it was totally hilarious. Sandman and Books of Magic might be very important for your interests, because those were what established Neil in the genre.

So I'd really recommend checking those out before you continue with the absolutes.

quote:

Originally posted by Eldi:
I remember reading in the companion guide he - like myself though very not much like many men - found himself bored at a strip club. It was like "Wow, boobs. Cool. *checks watch* Okay I'm ready to go now.... wait, where here for how many hours?" heh.

Haha! I totally remember that, too. And then he thought, Oh, God, I've died and gone to fucking hell. Then he got the great idea for Sandman, and went on a stripclub tour in Hawaii. Geez, that story alone was worth the price of the Sandman Companion.

I highlit your definition of a homophobe because it fails to define a homophobe. Not because I'm protecting a precious flower. To claim that not describing characters is indicative of any form of fear or hatred is asinine. To claim that every homophobe is secretly gay is terrible sweeping generalisation. It’s a definition pulled out of the air, and has the same substance.

There is very little fandom here. You'll find very little in the way of gushing worship. There’s bugger all fan art and not one poem to him. Some of the regular members don’t even like every word he’s written. You're not on the recieving end of fandoms irrational backlash. People are not refusing to be objective, but are in disagreement with your conclusions, your terms of reference and your methodology.

If you want to be objective, then provide some actual evidence. Provide the descriptions of every character in the books you read, as people may not have read the books in a long time. Though this is the authors message board, people don't spend their time obsessively reading and re-reading his works. If you look around you'll see that there isn't really a huge amount of discussion.

At the moment your observations of a pattern appear to be governed by your own prejudices, projections and a gut instinct. In short, it’s highly subjective.

quote:

I don't know how many times I need to restate that I'm not here to say Neil is a homophobe. This is what happens on a person's fan page.. people just refuse to be objective. They just feel like they need to defend their hero. Believe me, I've done this before with actors or something, so I know how this is.

True, you did not come out and say directly that you believe that Neil is a homophobe. But the pattern of your comments indicate that you suspect he might be:

quote:

I just keep thinking how painfully obvious it is that this author is a (straight) male.

quote:

Okay so this whole thing isn't a big deal or anything but aghh it's just a bit frustrating to me when I've seen it repeated so many times. I wonder if male authors are just too homophobic.

quote:

Okay, I linked the lack of descriptions of males as homophobic because I figure no man wants to be caught writing something physically flattering about another man, not even if it might be beneficial to the book he is planning on selling to a wide range of people. I am NOT saying that Neil Gaiman is a homophobe. I know everyone here is a huge (and perhaps sensitive) fan of this guy, and I'm not here to say negative things about him. I don't know him. Who know's if he's a homophobe or not. But it just seems to me that way. Sometimes. Through his works.

See the pattern?

quote:

I figure no man wants to be caught writing something physically flattering about another man

And that is utter bollocks. And it's frankly offensive to boot. But it is part of the habit you display of lumping all male authors in together. Which would mean that by your lights Oscar Wilde, Clive Barker and Quentin Crisp are all homophobes.

And I don’t for a second believe that you actually do that. I don’t think for a moment that you actually believe that all male authors are homophobic.

But once you’ve decided that such things exist in someone’s work, you’re going to see them. Tipper Gore made the same mistake:

quote:

I have taken the liberty of distributing to you material and lyrics pertaining to these accusations. There were three attacks in particular which I would like to address.

Accusation No. 1. This attack was contained in an article written by Tipper Gore, which was given the forum of a full page in my hometown newspaper on Long Island. In this article Ms. Gore claimed that one of my songs, "Under the Blade," had lyrics encouraging sadomasochism, bondage, and rape.

The lyrics she quoted have absolutely nothing to do with these topics. On the contrary, the words in question are about surgery and the fear that it instils in people. Furthermore, the reader of this article is led to believe that the three lines she quotes go together in the song when, as you can see, from reading the lyrics, the first two lines she cites are an edited phrase from the second verse and the third line is a misquote of a line from the chorus.

That the writer could misquote me is curious, since we make it a point to print all our lyrics on the inner sleeve of every album. As the creator of "Under the Blade," I can say categorically that the only sadomasochism, bondage, and rape in this song is in the mind of Ms. Gore.

(Taken from Dee Sniders statement before the Committee On Commerce, Science and Transportation, September 19, 1985 )

I dunno... if your last name can be pronounced 'gay man', you're going to have to build up some pretty strong "I'm not gay!" barriers

On the other hand, he's friends with the very gay Stephin Merrit, who is apparently a racist because he likes a song from a racist film (Zip-e-de-do-dah! from Song of the South) and didn't list any black artists in a list of 10 of his favorite songs.

Really. That logic is all over the music writer blog community thing.

So my point is that 'Gaiman' is a funny name and the Magentic Fields are cool

quote:

Originally posted by mestarrant:
Chimeer, well maybe that's one of the flaws of male writers.. the inability to describe other males the same way they describe females. Maybe this just makes female writers better.

I really don't remember/haven't finished American Gods, so I can't respond to any of the things mentioned with that book..

Okay, I linked the lack of descriptions of males as homophobic because I figure no man wants to be caught writing something physically flattering about another man, not even if it might be beneficial to the book he is planning on selling to a wide range of people. I am NOT saying that Neil Gaiman is a homophobe. I know everyone here is a huge (and perhaps sensitive) fan of this guy, and I'm not here to say negative things about him. I don't know him. Who know's if he's a homophobe or not. But it just seems to me that way. Sometimes. Through his works.

And I can honestly say I'm not looking for any of these flaws. It's just that I'm more sensitive to them as they come along. It's like.. the more shots of Vodka you drink, the harder it is to get the next one down. Haha I couldn't think of another analogy. I wonder what this says about ME.

Okay and Door WAS supposed to be beautiful. That's what I got from the book, anyway. So she was a big younger and very dirty.. so what?

Err... to state another obvious bit: a (straight ) guy is going to be able to describe female beauty better because he's more focused on it. I know what I think makes girls hot; I know what turns me on and what turns some other guys on and all that. I could focus deeply on a woman and write a description of why she's attractive and how she attracts people

If I had to do that with a guy I'd have to rely less on personal experiance and more on extremes (David Bowie, Brad Pitt) or what girls/gay guys have told me or whatnot because I lack the personal experiance of what exactly makes a guy HOT or cute or attractive

Re Neil as a homophobe:

Well, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) certainly doesn't think so:

"Though almost always featuring incidental representations of LGBT persons, Neil Gaiman's SANDMAN first introduces three major LGBT characters into the diverse cast of Neil Gaiman's SANDMAN in issue #32 (Vertigo/DC, November 1991). Appearing for the first time is transsexual WANDA MANN, and also lesbian couple HAZEL and FOXGLOVE, who are featured in the spin-off series DEATH: THE TIME OF YOUR LIFE (April-June 1996) which wins that comic the 1997 GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Comic Book."

- http://www.gayleague.com/gay/timeline/timeline4.php

- Cho

Ah, but those are LESBIANS. A guy wouldn't have as much trouble writing from their POV since, hey, girls are hot and shiny and stuff.

Especially Gaiman-fan lesbians who you'd love to date, but can't.

They've come up in my life more often then you might think