Thursday in our Advanced Novel Workshop we reviewed 15 pages of a manuscript which had a sex-crazed, gay character manipulating straight men into unwitting seduction. (This manuscript confirmed The big Straight Guy Fear: we’re after them.) I waited to see if someone else would comment, but nobody did, so finally I spoke about this one-dimensional character.

That unleashed a flood of uh…energy.

“It’s totally realistic,” snapped the Young Portland Guy (YPG). “It’s not one-dimensional at all. I know gay guys like that. I saw this in San Francisco all the time.”

Someone pointed out that we didn’t see much of this character, and that perhaps he becomes more fully rounded later. True, I admitted. But we see three main characters in their own ‘complete’ section, and while the other two straight characters presented were not saints, they each had redeeming qualities. They weren’t stereotypes.

While trying to articulate this, I was cut off no less than FOUR times by YPG and the Dallas Doctor (DD). Their vehemence and energy was surprising. They would not let me speak.

The instructor said nothing.

No one else in the class chimed in.

The gay character in what we reviewed is a punch line - making him a real person would probably make the scene less hilarious.

Still, it’s surprising.

But maybe not.

Besides my characters, the only other gay character even *mentioned* this week was by DD who has the traditional Depressed Gay who can’t stand himself, his secret queer life, and commits suicide.

Novels are not obligated to include a homo.

However, when you DO include a queer…would it be possible to make him A) not sexually evil, B) not suicidal over being gay, or C) not snapping his fingers while putting on his drag makeup and singing along to the Evita soundtrack? Still, perhaps it’s progress that nobody included the Effeminate Best Friend who says to his plucky gal pal, “You go, girl!”

If the author wants to create a one-dimensional character in his work, that’s his business. As a manuscript reviewer, it’s my obligation to point it out so his choice is conscious. I did the same for one-dimensional straight characters earlier in the week. This didn’t have to be a ‘gay thing.’ It was a ‘one-dimensional character’ thing.

I have a few friends who see prejudice everywhere and I am the one who rolls my eyes. “You’re overreacting.” I tell them. “Seeing haters where there is nothing but smoke.”

All last evening and into the night hours (early enough to hear birds begin their morning songs) I have been questioning whether I have been inventing phantoms. Am I? Maybe. But then I keep reviewing the whole week.

I commented on an ethnic slur in a Monday manuscript and the author explained, “Yeah, but it’s true. People really think that way about the Irish.” After class, another woman from class sidled up to me and said, “It is true, you know. The Irish really do have bad blood. It’s okay; they accept that about themselves. It’s why they have so much fun and drink so much - because they accept it.”

She felt it perfectly acceptable to say this since she is married to someone of Irish descent.

Also on Monday, DD and I got into it a bit during a manuscript review when I commented that a female character seemed exceptionally rude to her one-dimensional boyfriend: a muscley, masonry worker. DD said to our class, “Yeah, but some men you just have to talk to that way.”

“So he *deserves* it?” I asked. “Because he’s blue collar…”

That remark didn’t go over well. After Monday’s class, DD huffily explained that she is a DOCTOR and sees a LOT of people, so when she makes that remark she KNOWS what she’s talking about.’ She stormed away when she was done lecturing me.

I guess I expected something different from a group of writers.

“This gay guy,” argued YPG when cutting me off Thursday, “is the snake in the Garden of Eden. He’s totally evil. He’s perfect just like that.”

I grew quiet after that comment because, well, it seemed pointless. YPG and DD refused me the respect of even listening to my perspective. The facilitator just watched. Nobody else commented.

A few minutes later, I think YPG realized he had been a little extra vehement. He returned to the topic again after the rest of the class had moved on, to justify what he said: “I think I went after Edmond because this happened to me once. I knew a gay guy who was just like this character so it really rang true for me.”

Yeah, that’s pretty much how prejudice works, bud: you have a bad experience with ONE person and then decide that this person represents everyone in that subgroup. But even if you had a bad experience with TWELVE people in the group you’re condemning, it’s still a stereotype. Twelve bad eggs still don’t equal a fair representation.

(I typed YPG and DD’s exact phrasing on my laptop during the class while it was fresh. It was all I could think to do while my brain was reeling, trying to process their sharp scolding of my observation.)

And hey, it’s not just the straight people in the room.

The author who wrote the one-dimensional gay character is himself gay. He told me so Wednesday night after the Open Mike event. He never volunteered this in class. He’s in a relationship and lives openly in San Francisco, so this isn’t some closet case. Never openly supported any aspect of my gay-themed manuscript during the verbal feedback. (Given this climate, can I blame him for keeping his mouth shut?) He’s welcome to hate the manuscript I wrote; there’s no automatic solidarity expected. Yet his gushy written comments didn’t match his verbal silence.

After his Thursday feedback session, he eagerly admitted that he wants a best seller, so I give him credit for knowing his audience: they rabidly defended his gay character. So yeah, pandering works. But it makes me sad that the only other gay man in the class deliberately kept an invisible profile and is apparently willing to portray us as ‘the serpent’ if it will help sell his book.

Maybe the character he is creating eventually has more depth. Could be. We only read 15 pages. Even so, given the energetic conversation around this character, his lack of comment on this character during the post-mortem was noticeable.

It’s really discouraging.

One of the multicultural workshops I attended pointed out that folks in ‘the majority’ just don’t often get what it’s like to be a minority so they can’t see the unfriendly environment surrounding them. “You’re overreacting,” they’d most likely be inclined to say to whomever broaches the topic. Therefore, facilitators of people in charge won’t act on what they can’t see. And of course, no facilitator can control what people say.

Yet without any multicultural sensitivity, I still think our instructor could have noticed the verbal badgering and said something like, “You’re not letting Edmond make his point.” Or perhaps reminded YPG and DD to keep their energy directed at the writing. Or that nobody’s opinion is wrong - it’s an opinion - so there’s no sense in berating someone.

Nada.

It hurts my heart.

This experience on Thursday made me think of comments I heard Wednesday about my gay-themed manuscript. I really did hear wonderful insights and feedback; that was useful. And as I reread my misgivings pre-critique, I shuddered and think to myself, ‘Dumb Ass…you had already seen the contour of the room and ignored it.’

During my manuscript critique, I received verbal feedback from two straight men stating, ‘I COULDN’T GET INTO THIS. THIS WASN’T WRITTEN FOR ME.’ One guy gave me pointers on how to make it more accessible for him.

I seriously doubt that if I had presented a children’s manuscript for review, my colleagues would have said, “Well, this didn’t seem like it was for ME. I couldn’t get into it.” They would have said, “Of course it’s not written for me, but let’s see what I think of the writing anyway.”

And no, neither of these men was the Canadian judge who yesterday repeatedly informed me the closest he came to gay-themed-anything was the child pornography case he adjudicated. (Also Wednesday’s blog post.) The judge did try to give me tips on how the police can track information on your computer, I guess in case I felt like downloading kiddie porn.

You know how the gays love kiddie porn.

I came to this Iowa Summer Writing Festival believing that writers - WRITERS - would know how to step into worlds different from their own, see a different point of view. To recognize that black people might see the world different from white people. That the poor might not have such a great time as the rich. (And hell, the rich might not be having such a great time either.) Even my dividing the world into black and white people is ridiculously overly-generalized.

I need to look at my own projections about writers: their supposed openness, my assumption of their willingness to be curious, my thinking that as a group, writers will set aside personal judgments in service to critiquing a story. That’s a stereotype too, one that clearly I must own. And I have to remember the folks I encountered this week don’t represent a majority; they themselves are just a couple of eggs.

Last night I talked with two friends I trust to be rigorous with me and invited them to help me see what parts of this are mine to own. What did I contribute to this? What is my own work here? Go back to class? Bow out? I know several I could have called who would have most assuredly told me what exactly what the bruised part of me wanted to hear. But I didn’t want that; I wanted perspective. Honesty.

I’m not going back today for the final class.

I will review the final manuscripts for my two remaining colleagues and leave them on their desks an hour before class begins; I will keep the commitment I made to give my best feedback.

But I can’t sit in that room again.

In the end, it’s not about the words. (Which is pretty ironic for a crowd that loves words.) This isn’t some political correctness test. Honestly? I don’t think the misguided Canadian judge *intended* harm with his words despite their impact. Even DD seemed surprised that a person might take offense to the phrase ‘You just have to talk to some men that way.’ They don’t get it.

There’s a guideline in New Warriors to recognize that actions and words have both intended and unintended consequences. So, while there may not have been intent to do harm by anyone in the room, I do think the environment became more and more unwelcoming with each passing day. The Irish bashing was easy enough to just confront and then let it roll off, but every frickin’ day there was something new. And calling a creepy, one-dimensional sexual predator a representative of gay men and NOBODY in the room flinches or says, ‘that’s messed up…’ well, I recognize when it’s time to leave.

Sometimes, being a warrior means challenging those prejudices. I did that. And sometimes it means removing yourself from an environment that does not feel safe.

And now I’m doing that.

This entry was posted on Friday, July 18th, 2008 at 1:13 am and is filed under Warrior. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.