Students are to post one response (min 350 words) to the readings linked below. Students are encouraged (but not required) to additionally respond to other student reactions.
A New Way for Gay Characters in YA by Jenn Doll: Scholastic Publisher and Editorial Director David Leviathan (the same Levithan behind Two Boys Kissing, Invisibility, and 2003's Boy Meets Boy)
told me that the environment for gay characters in Y.A. literature has
indeed changed remarkably in the past 10 years. "For so many years, so
many characters have been defined by their sexuality—they're 'gay'; we
don't have to give them any other characteristics," he says. "But gay
characters and gay kids have lots of other things going on. No one is
just this one thing." In these new books, being gay or bi or lesbian or
transgendered is wrapped up in conversations of identity that often
transcend sexuality, and ask what happens beyond acknowledgment, coming
out, and even generalized acceptance of one's choices."
A Graphic Guide to LGBTQ YA Literature (from coming out stories to sci-fi adventures). These
books aren’t necessarily right for every reader, and don’t constitute
the best, or the only, LGBTQIA+ fiction for young adults available. But
it is a good starting off point for those interested in exploring the
way these identities are portrayed in YA fiction. Click HERE to visit the page.
Malinda Lo is the author of the young adult novels Ash, Huntress, Adaptation, and Inheritance. Ash was
a finalist for the William C. Morris YA Debut Award, the Andre Norton
Award for YA Science Fiction and Fantasy, the Mythopoeic Fantasy Award,
and was a Kirkus Best Book for Children and Teens. She has been a
three-time finalist for the Lambda Literary Award. Malinda’s nonfiction
has been published by The New York Times Book Review, NPR, The Huffington Post, The Toast, The Horn Book,
and AfterEllen. Malinda is co-founder with Cindy Pon of Diversity in
YA, a project that celebrates diversity in young adult books. Over the
past several years she's written a lot about YA with lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender characters or issues. Click here for the index of her LGBT posts. Read two.
62 LGBTQ+ YA Books to Read All Year Long (Epic Reads). Click to review list.
"Read with Pride! 15 YA novels with LGBTQIA characters to check out" (Entertainment Weekly). Click to review list.
"100 Must-Read LGBTQIA YA Books" Click to review list.
Most Anticipated LGBTQ+ Young Adult Fiction 2024. Click to review list.
Pick
one author/book highlighted in any of the above posts/articles/etc. and
read an excerpt (excerpts can be had by Googling the book title and the
word "excerpt," or finding the book on Amazon and clicking "Look
Inside.")
10 comments:
With the rise of LGBTQ+ novels and characters, Scholastic Publisher and Editorial Director David Levithan’s assertion that “(f)or so many years, so many characters have been defined by their sexuality—they're 'gay'; we don't have to give them any other characteristics” stuck out to me. I think this relates to our discussions in class about staying away from generic character descriptions as well as clichés overall. I am also reminded about our discussed need to write characters with specificities and nuance in their lives and personalities (for instance, giving them a unique nickname or highlighting their flaws) in order to make them feel as much of a “real” person as possible to the reader. I would imagine that in the past, these characters who were only tied to their sexuality were difficult for readers to connect to or care about due to this. Moreover, the perpetuation of gay stereotypes likely alienated readers who were seeking a relatable character.
Levithan then discussed how society has progressed and how now, LGBTQ+ stories explore “conversations of identity that often transcend sexuality.” This concept of identity aligns with young adult novels’ focus on navigating the inner struggles and growth of an individual. But regarding this, it was also interesting how Book Riot article writer Casey Stepaniuk highlighted the need for the publishing industry to “prioritize queer and trans authors of color telling their own stories.” There is perhaps an argument to be made that the authenticity of the characters’ experiences as well as the voices of marginalized authors are potentially undermined through the proliferation and profiteering of stories about LGBTQ+ and people of color written by authors outside of these communities.
It was pretty cool having access to websites that organized LGBTQ+ YA books into such a diverse range of genres. There were many that I think I would enjoy reading. Of particular interest to me is The Fox Maidens by Robin Ha “a queer, feminist reimagining of the Fox Maiden legend from Korean mythology;” I am very familiar with the 16th-century time period and know of this mythical creature due to being Korean myself and having watched k-dramas involving it throughout my life. Another one is The Love Interest by Cale Dietrich, as it involves a love triangle between two spy guys vying for one girl while the guys fall in love with each other. I think just as the description states, the author flips gender stereotypes; as an avid enjoyer of love triangles where the community sometimes wishes for the two male leads to end up with each other instead of competing with one another, this feels like a refreshing take on the typical love triangle story.
^Gummi
I think it's interesting that even since 2013, LGTBQ+ literature has become a lot more common, particularly in YA stories. Leviathan said, "2013 represents another wave of change" (Doll). Characters who were gay stopped being defined at just that, and characters with these characteristics were expanded upon. Leviathan follows it up with, "No one is just this one thing" (Doll). It's interesting to have these characters apart of these communities without it being the whole point of the character. It's easy to find reductive characters written, particularly in YA, that reduces them to just one point. But having expansive characters are really important by building depth, and that depth should include parts of their identity. We talked about in class how to make realistic characters, and how give specifics from different aspects of life. LGBT literature while focused on the identity aspect can also play with how it intersects with other parts of identity, and having it build towards a character rather than just build a character.
I thought it was really interesting when Leviathan said, "There's still an imbalance in terms of diversity..but the majority of submissions we get are about middle-class white gay boys" (Doll). I find this is part of what turned me away from popular books and shows/movies like Love, Simon and Heartstopper. It seemed very centric on one type of person, while the other diverse cast played a supporting role. I think the intersectionality of LGBTQ and other identities is key when building complex characters. We have had many stories about these types of characters, and it'll be interesting to see the extension and the intersectionality of LGTB literature to other marginalized or otherwise less written about groups. Particularly within different cultures and how it's reacted to.
I liked the graphic guide to LGBT YA literature. I like how they got more genre specific as the list went down, and how it started from more general. Although, I think a one sentence blurb for each book would've also been helpful, but time consuming, so I understand just the groupings. The urban fantasy grouping interested me the most because I like the genre a lot, but feel it's underutilized, particularly with a more diverse cast. The Demon's Lexicon by Sarah Rees Brennan looked particularly interesting. I also liked how they put an extra banner for "POC characters."
Iman/Yzma^
In "A New Way for Gay Characters in Y.A.", Jen Doll considers a new way that LGBTQ+ characters are represented in young adult literature. In the article she reflects on how Y.A. books previously centered only on coming-out stories or the challenges of navigating character's sexual identity in a largely unaccepting world. These narratives frequently focused on themes of struggle and discrimination. They were essential to bring forth the real issues of LGBTQ+ people but often confined characters to their sexuality, as if it were the very defining attribute of their identity. There is a sense that these characters are only interesting for their sexuality. Even though sexuality is important for one's indentity, we are comprised of more than that.
On the other hand, Y.A. literature today is striving for an even more inclusive and multi-dimensional portrayal of LGBTQ+ characters. These characters have now appeared in a wide variety of roles and storylines, where their sexuality is part of their identity but not solely the defining drive of the story. All genres have evolved to tell new tales of today which highlight LGBTQ+ individuals as complex people, and allowing their narratives to tackle broader topics of triumph instead of the hardship often highlighted by previous stories before the modern day.
Doll emphasizes that this shift in storytelling is well earned and crucial for creating a more inclusive landscape which ultimately helps normalize the presence of LGBTQ+ people. For readers, seeing themselves in stories beyond struggle can be empowering, affirming their right to exist fully and authentically. For other readers, these books foster empathy and understanding for people they do not relate to by breaking down stereotypes and creating space for diverse experiences.
In embracing more holistic portrayals, the authors are expanding what's possible in fiction, making sure that readers of all backgrounds can find stories that resonate with them. This is a great thing for the artistic world and for the modern world.Doll ultimately argues that inclusive, diverse stories are vital to help build a world where LGBTQ+ individuals are fully seen, valued, and celebrated for all aspects of who they are.
I like the new direction that authors are taking when writing about those of different sexualities. There was a long period of time where I felt that there were gay or bi characters just because the author felt they needed to have someone different in their book not because they wanted to make and interesting and fleshed out character. Like the article said, they had gay characters just because they were gay, but they are much more than just their sexuality. I feel like having a LGBTQIA+ character in a text without giving them the space they deserve does more damage then not having them at all. When you have a gay character without anything interesting about them the author is essentially just saying that this person is not important enough for me to give time to. They feel like shoe in's that don't need to be in the story and that last you want people to think is that your more diverse characters should be cut from the text. I feel like you should treat these characters just like you would any other because that is why they are needed in the first place. These stories should be normalizing different people because all of us are different, thats what makes us human in the first place, we are not clones, we don't think the same and we don't act the same and that is how it should be. So when you have all of your non straight characters act as shoe in's you are not including them, you are othering them. You literally are taking one group and saying that because they are different from these characters so they are separate and this is one of the worst things you can do. Making these characters othered is just doubling down on the stigma associated with differing sexualities. We need more books that treat these people like, people, fully fleshed out characters, with qualities and faults that represent more than just the one characteristic many authors choose to prioritize. This new direction is a good start to unity but it is not the end.
Something I have to respect is the willingness to continue to learn after acceptance in the field. Specifically in regards to the Graphic Guide to LGBTQ YA literature, where the person who published it says they needed to update it I think as society values are changed to better understand people that applies to how we should go about writing since, we largely write with what we know. In general I just think not being open to correcting any misconception you have in that thinking is handicapping yourself as a person and a writer, since its basically denying the world around you. Plus for writers that do identify themselves as one of these groups they should be able to write from that identity, after all so many iconic works are born from writing within an identity the writers felt strongly tied to. Such as superheroes having their boom in comic books as multiple Jewish writers wrote their values and inspirations into them after the war.
I also think its just important as a reader too. Since I largely hadn't thought about representation for a long time until more recently, and even then it is something I'm less versed in since I couldn't name lgbtq protagonists or characters off the top of my head immediately in literature. But stuff like Malinda Lo's works and the A new Way for Gay characters in YA by John Doll writing, really stories with themes and aesthetics that I like starring characters of these identities more than exist, they are now heavily prevalent and I'd been missing out on a world of literature for me to read and be entertained by.
Out of the books on the must read I think I'd check out When the Moon was Ours, mainly just because I like magic in modern settings and the cover looked really pretty. It be the first thing I've read that stars a trans protagonist that isn't a comic book, and it's nice to also see racial representation be a more common thing, since I know there was a time where every fantasy protagonist was largely just a white guy.
doinkus
One of the topics that seemed to be constantly appearing in the readings is the idea of LGBTQ+ representation without the incessant need for that to be the main characteristic of the character. Let me explain what I mean. There are many pieces of media out there that have a variety of storylines for their main and side characters and at times even those in the background, and yet, when an LGBTQ+ character comes into the mix, that particular character is mainly utilized for covering topics pertaining to that community and that is it. There isn't much opportunity or depth given to these characters besides the fact that they might be gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual, asexual, etc. They're there as a checklist character, a character mainly used to say "Our book is very inclusive, see we have this character that is part of this community," and that is it. I would love to see a book in which we find the character is gay as nonchalantly as we'd find out a character is straight. For example, we see throughout the Harry Potter books, that Harry develops a crush on several girls, first Cho Chang, and then Ginny, but what if he were to have shown an interest in Ron or Draco, and if you want to get very technical, there was an allusion to Harry saying Cedric's name in his sleep, for which he is mocked for by his cousin Dudley, who calls him, his "boyfriend." I know that the Harry Potter books have been under a lot of scrutiny by the LGBTQ+ community due to JK Rowling's transphobic commentary/views, but I am just using this series as an example of how little we think of a character like Harry being straight, as to how much of a big deal it would be if Harry was gay or bisexual. Who knows, the books might be less popular, or more popular, who knows? But the main point I am trying to make is, that if you're going to make a character a part of the LGBTQ+ community, you do not need to make them the "token" gay character, please give them a storyline, a personality, and the ability to grow like any other character.
Based on Jenn Doll’s article, it seems as if literature around the time that this article was published in 2013 was most likely more ‘advanced’ in comparison to television and movies. TV shows and movies featured mainly straight relationships, and gay characters often served the role of the supporting character, rarely ever in the spotlight. Gay men, specifically, were, and can still be, disproportionately highlighted in LGBTQ+ media compared to lesbian, bisexual, and transgender characters. They are also often displayed as having more feminine personality features, which perpetuates stereotypes about gay men that do not reflect the diverse range of personalities that they have in real life. Similarly, the supporting role of these characters is often highlighted as the ‘gay best friend,’ which reinforces the harmful idea that their only defining characteristic is their sexuality. More TV shows now directly feature LGBTQ+ relationships such as Young Royals or Atypical, and movies like Everything, Everywhere, all at once. They are also slowly starting to move away from displaying these characters as having certain stereotypical characteristics such as overt femininity and masculinity that are often associated in society with being part of the LGBTQ+ community.
I read ‘Bisexuality in the Pretty Little Liars Novels’ by Rose Yndigoyen. The Pretty Little Liars novels were published first, and Emily Fields, one of the main characters, is depicted as bisexual. The author comments that her character is ‘equal’ to the other characters and that the other girls' complicated relationships and secrets are just as entertaining as hers. It’s great that she was portrayed as having the same level of depth that the other characters had, regardless of her sexuality. However, it was a little disappointing, but not surprising to realize that when the show came out, they decided to not make Emily bisexual. In ‘On Bisexual Characters and YA Literature,’ Miranda Lo notes that if TV show or movie creators do touch on bisexuality, they like to stick to the storyline where women in particular have physical relations with the same gender, but only have relationships with men, implying that they ‘pass’ as straight. This portrayal may be the safer choice for producers because unfortunately, bisexuality may be seen as confusing or potentially not as relatable for the straight audience, and potentially the LGBTQ+ community. Although the author did not mention this, I believe that this storyline pushes the stereotype that bisexual individuals only date the opposite gender and only have physical relations with the same gender. It highlights the stereotype that bisexuality is just temporary and purely experimentational. Although there are definitely bisexual people in real life who experience this, it may at times originate from the confusion and backlash that they have faced or feel like they will face as a bisexual person. However, it is great that younger readers are becoming more exposed to different kinds of relationships in novels. It may assist in a deeper understanding of the people that they are surrounded by, and could have the potential to reduce misconceptions about the LGBTQ+ community from a young age. It could also help young readers to identify with and explore their own sexuality.
In “A New Way for Gay Characters in Y.A.” Jen Doll mentions how David Levithan expresses literature has now been attempting to go beyond the characterization of LGBTQ+ characters as their sexuality and how there is an active attempt at humanizing these characters. The characters go beyond their sexual identity and are made to be “not just one thing”. I think that Levithan makes a great point in expressing how there is a need to stop putting characters in a box to one key identifying characteristic. I think that when this is done there becomes an isolation of the LGBTQ+ community as well as other minority communities, since their identities are made to be that which makes them seen as different in a heteronormative society and therefore separates them from the ways in which they are human. Doll mentions how the new books “transcend sexuality” and I find that distinction to be very important as to show the ways in which those a part of the LGBTQ+ community and even other minorities, navigate life within their acknowledgement and acceptance of what society has made a deviation from “normal”, is important in showing just how this definition of “normality” is flawed.
Looking at the Graphic Guide to LBGTQ YA literature, I find it very helpful and inclusive as it breaks down the different identifying genres, sexualities, and tropes, so it is easy for someone to find a book they may be interested in. The graphic highlights that although the LGBTQ+ community are a community and seen as one, there is a depth to what interest and an understanding that they go beyond their sexual identities.
In “Have your books been banned?” by Malinda Lo, she explores how book banning goes beyond the mainstream and denies books in certain spaces but can happen on more micro levels that are actually macro issues. She explores how censorship is a tool in keeping books away from audiences and stopping them from reaching the point of banning as they are not available to the audiences in which they are written towards, making book banning something that falls under the umbrella that is censorship. Lo mentions how teachers omit her books from their classroom libraries out of fear of what may happen to their jobs as parents may not agree with the LGBTQ+ content. This level of “self-censorship” is what happens widely and is often overlooked as it is not as highlighted as book bans. I think Lo’s outlook on book bans and open expression of how it is not as simple as denying a book outright but privately as well, is important as many people will say that the diminishing of book bans shows an improvement in the acceptance of minority and LGBTQ+ communities and stories, when although this may be the case at first glance, there is still ideological beliefs that stop these published stories from reaching audiences. The fear of non-hetero stories can be seen in Lo’s mention that her story Ash , which was more well known, was being challenged at a library to be put in the adult section because of “sexual content” when there was only kissing in the YA book. This goes to show that although the story was accepted within the library it was trying to be kept from younger audiences and the categorization of kissing as adult, shows how LGBTQ+ stories are over sexualized and often not seen in the same lens as hetero stories.
Post a Comment