![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsI was re-reading Diane Wynne Jones The Tough Guide to Fantasyland shortly after reading a forgettable spy novel from the mid 1960's in which the villain was quite fey and enjoyed threatening the hero with sodomy before death and all that.
Jones asserts that many fantasy parties have a gay wizard (paging Lynn Flewelling!), who is always good for a casual footrub and sage advice.
It occurred to me that the whole "gay is villainous" thing swung so far over that the backlash ought to be done by now. All characters who interact with one another, at least romantically, must have a sexuality of some kind, so: when will it be okay to write gay villains again?
I suspect the answer is "never." Heterosexuality is assumed by default. Making a character gay is A Statement, regardless of who's making it, and not some by-the-by characteristic of the villain. You can play this for laughs or seriousness, but it's still tricky water to navigate (he said, mixing his metaphors the way one mixes crisco & j-lube).
Jones asserts that many fantasy parties have a gay wizard (paging Lynn Flewelling!), who is always good for a casual footrub and sage advice.
It occurred to me that the whole "gay is villainous" thing swung so far over that the backlash ought to be done by now. All characters who interact with one another, at least romantically, must have a sexuality of some kind, so: when will it be okay to write gay villains again?
I suspect the answer is "never." Heterosexuality is assumed by default. Making a character gay is A Statement, regardless of who's making it, and not some by-the-by characteristic of the villain. You can play this for laughs or seriousness, but it's still tricky water to navigate (he said, mixing his metaphors the way one mixes crisco & j-lube).
