The Lesbian Cliche FAQ

urnofosiris · **Posted:** Sat Nov 16, 2002 4:03 pm

Quote:

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that "no lesbians must die or be evil" rule. Yeah, it is a cliche generally--and a vicious one at that--at the same time the idea of one sweeping generality taking on the moral force of a commandment really bothers me.

Perhaps you can quote the posts where it is stated that no lesbian must die or be evil as a rule. I have not seen anything like that. I find this statement -especially the second sentence- rather hurtful. What I've read so far is that people here want equal and fair representation for L(GBT) characters. Let's just assume that 10% of a general population is L,G,B or T. It would only be fair to have 10% of characters on a TV show belong to that group, provided that they get represented fairly. So some will be evil or die, but many more will be alive and good. Until that is actually the case every LGBT character that is evil, dying, dead or miserable belongs to the cliche. That cliche will only cease to be once representation of LGBT characters becomes equal and fair. If that day will ever come I doubt anyone here will complain.

Quote:

On the one hand, its a good sign that being gay is no longer code for "this character is bad, don't care." Yet on the other, if lesbians primarily remain as titilation value, then there's clearly a long way to go (even if the journey is well and truly begun).

To me the code so far seems to be "this character is unhappy about being gay, this character is happy about being gay but will die anyway, this character is evil, this character is a victim, this lesbian character is happy and in love, but you better get the BBC or watch a Dutch soap, otherwise you will never see her".

I don't understand the remark about titilation value in this context, but I have to disagree that the journey (I assume you mean toward fair and equal representation) has well and truly begun. I thought it was the case with WT, but they went right back to the beginning and blew up the road while they were at it.

Edited by: DrG at: 11/16/02 2:30:52 pm

sam7777 · **Posted:** Sat Nov 16, 2002 7:52 pm

Quote:
I have to disagree that the journey (I assume you mean toward fair and equal representation) has well and truly begun. I thought it was the case with WT, but they went right back to the beginning and blew up the road while they were at it.

DrG you are so right. I'm so tired of hearing people scream artistic freedom. Are they trying to say that there are simply no good stories to tell where LBGT people have happy endings? There are no good stories to tell where they are just normal people living normal lives and not evil or dead? I notice that there were a lot more gay portrayals when they could show them dying of AIDs. Is this the only way people are comfortable seeing LBGT characters? How about some portrayals where they go through some bad times but things turn out well. Look at Buffy's gay characters:

Dead: Tara, Larry

Evil, crazy and/or murderer: Willow, Andrew

Loser: Scott Hope

Gawd if you go by Buffy, you'd think all LBGT people are dead, murderers, crazy, loser and/or just plain evil. This is simply not an accurate portrayal of any group. It's not only innaccurate it is also insulting. Considering that Buffy is one of the few shows on network TV that has gay characters, is this how we want to see them portrayed? Not me and I'm quite willing to keep bring the show to task for it.

I see dead lesbian cliches
Edited by: sam7777 at: 11/16/02 5:58:10 pm

Zahir al Daoud · **Posted:** Sun Nov 17, 2002 1:22 am

Not for the first time, I find my words being twisted. This has happened so many times I'm tempted to demand an apology--but I've never noticed the ones doing the twisting ever apologize for anything or admit they've ever been wrong about anything. So what's the point?

For the record--and because my words (as per usual) were taken out of context--I was referring to the general implications in previous posts such as:

...as long as 99% of the stories being told somehow end up with dead, dying, miserable or evil lesbians it is a cliche to me, even on a show that deals with dead, dying, miserable and evil people...

What other implication can one draw from this save that lesbians must not be portrayed as dead, dying, miserable or evil? And note I did not claim anyone was calling for censorship, but rather for a judgement made on moral authority alone.

My genuine view--which was ignored--was that showing a variety of gays in a variety of roles is best, both negative and positive. Frankly, a form of "affirmative action" IMO is called for in this, because gays and lesbians have been getting the short end of the stick for so long. But I generally don't like sweeping formulaic rules, which must by their very nature discourage the very questioning that leads to improvements like (for example) gay rights.

As to whether we've come any way toward acceptance of gay rights--I can easily remember a time when there were ZERO portrayals of gays and lesbians in popular media. Today that is simply not the case, nor are all portrayals negative. In the 1960s for example, motion pictures such as Bound or Desert Hearts or Night is Falling (I think that's the title) would have been unthinkable. And despite the honest rage of most Kittens, there are clearly positive examples of lesbians in popular media today. Not many, I grant you. In fact, far too few. But that is most definitely progress--even though I explicitly wrote much more needs to be done. Insisting that ...

I have to disagree that the journey (I assume you mean toward fair and equal representation) has well and truly begun. I thought it was the case with WT, but they went right back to the beginning and blew up the road while they were at it.

...comes across to me as just the reverse of foolish arguments heard over the last several months that "there is no lesbian cliche and no prejudice to take account of" (to paraphrase one poster elsewhere). Neither is true. And W/T, while milestones, were hardly the only positive portrayal of lesbians in the last decade--nor do I think they'll be the only ones in the decade coming up.

Finally, surely it is no surprise to anyone that there is a titillation faction in portraying lesbianism. Xita, for one, has mentioned it many times on this very board. Noting that such elements are sometimes used on t.v. shows for exactly this seems fairly obvious--and why anyone has a problem with noting such remains a complete mystery to yours truly. Well, not complete--some folks do seem to enjoy finding reasons to criticize and judge.

Can you tell I feel bitter and tired?

"GOD created Man in his own image. Man, being a gentleman, returned the courtesy." -Voltaire

urnofosiris · **Posted:** Sun Nov 17, 2002 5:16 am

Quote:
Not for the first time, I find my words being twisted. This has happened so many times I'm tempted to demand an apology--but I've never noticed the ones doing the twisting ever apologize for anything or admit they've ever been wrong about anything. So what's the point?

It is ironic that whenever someone disagrees with you it are your words that are being twisted and when you disagree with other people you are not twisting their words. Should there ever be a case where you'd attack or offend a fellow poster and be called on it you would undoubtedly set the proper example and apologize right? In this case I fail to see why anyone should apologize to you, unless disagreeing with you in itself is grounds for an apology. If you will this is yet another example of me twisting your words. I realize what I am saying now is confrontational, but no more so than the way in which you have chosen to express yourself.

Quote:
For the record--and because my words (as per usual) were taken out of context--I was referring to the general implications in previous posts such as:

...as long as 99% of the stories being told somehow end up with dead, dying, miserable or evil lesbians it is a cliche to me, even on a show that deals with dead, dying, miserable and evil people...

What other implication can one draw from this save that lesbians must not be portrayed as dead, dying, miserable or evil? And note I did not claim anyone was calling for censorship, but rather for a judgement made on moral authority alone.

Talk about twisting words. Note that I did not say that lesbians must not be portrayed as dead, dying, miserable or evil, nor did I state it should be a rule like you stated in your previous post, the words of which I apparently twisted by questioning them.

Quote:
I'm uncomfortable with the idea that "no lesbians must die or be evil" rule. Yeah, it is a cliche generally--and a vicious one at that--at the same time the idea of one sweeping generality taking on the moral force of a commandment really bothers me.

There was no implication in my words. I state what I mean which is that until that cliche ceases to be any evil and dying lesbian is a part it for me. I am not writing any angry letters to whatever (crime) show which happens to show an evil or dead lesbian, nor am I publishing any articles about it, I probably should though as just posting my feelings here won't do anything to change things. I expressed a personal opinion in answer to a question posted earlier by Epicurus. How this translates to a moral commandment of 'thou shalt never portray an evil or dying lesbian' eludes me.

Quote:

My genuine view--which was ignored--was that showing a variety of gays in a variety of roles is best, both negative and positive. Frankly, a form of "affirmative action" IMO is called for in this, because gays and lesbians have been getting the short end of the stick for so long. But I generally don't like sweeping formulaic rules, which must by their very nature discourage the very questioning that leads to improvements like (for example) gay rights.

What you are ignoring is what I and others have already stated before you posted, for example:

Quote:
quoting myself because I like to hear myself talk

Of course I would rather see LGBT characters represented as they are in real life. That would mean seeing the occasional dead, dying, evil or miserable character, but we would see many more alive, living, good and happy LGBT characters.

So again no rule that says no portraying LGBT characters in a negative way or only in a positive way.

Quote:

...comes across to me as just the reverse of foolish arguments heard over the last several months that "there is no lesbian cliche and no prejudice to take account of" (to paraphrase one poster elsewhere). Neither is true. And W/T, while milestones, were hardly the only positive portrayal of lesbians in the last decade--nor do I think they'll be the only ones in the decade coming up.

You are calling my statement foolish and you compare it to very offensive (past) statements. What would your response be if someone did that about something you said? Judging from your previous reaction caused by just disagreeing with you I imagine it would not be pretty.

I will untwist my words for you

I have to disagree that the journey (I assume you mean toward fair and equal representation) has well and truly begun. I thought it was the case with WT, but they went right back to the beginning and blew up the road while they were at it

I did not say WT were the only positive portrayal out there in the last decade, nor did I say they would be the last. I do not know what the future will hold. To say they were hardly the only positive portrayal of lesbians in the last decade implies that there were a good deal more. How many though when talking about the time span of a decade? WT were the first and so far only long term loving happy lesbian relationship of major and visible characters shown on TV. They were certainly the first I ever saw, even here in the Netherlands where gays have equal rights and being gay isn't such a 'big deal' (not entirely true btw, it is still safest to be straight). On TV, until recently they have been underrepresented as well. WT were the first visible lesbians on TV I saw. Any other past lesbian portrayals on TV or in movies I know of now I learned about on this board. They have been few and far between and one would have to know where to look for them and I don't believe the general public makes a point of looking for positive lesbian portrayals. If they see them it will be by chance and the odds are far greater of them watching a negative portrayal. So I still believe the journey toward fair and equal representation has yet to well and truly begin. Maybe it has begun a long time ago, but it is moving so slowly and it took such a big step back with what happened to WT that I feel -whether I be a fool or not- that they have only just begun.

Quote:

Finally, surely it is no surprise to anyone that there is a titillation faction in portraying lesbianism. Xita, for one, has mentioned it many times on this very board. Noting that such elements are sometimes used on TV shows for exactly this seems fairly obvious--and why anyone has a problem with noting such remains a complete mystery to yours truly. Well, not complete--some folks do seem to enjoy finding reasons to criticize and judge.

I didn't understand what you were trying to say and why you were saying it here and now, but thank you for solving the mystery in such a friendly manner. This strengthens my belief that the road has only just begun. I agree about some folks finding reason to criticize and judge, it can be annoying at times.

Quote:
Can you tell I feel bitter and tired?

Barely.

Edited by: DrG at: 11/17/02 4:06:48 am

kyraroc · **Posted:** Sun Nov 17, 2002 12:38 pm

Zahir - it doesn't look to me like your words were twisted. It looks more like there was some misinterpretation about what each side meant to say, and both sides have been clarifying their thoughts.

To me, the ". . . as long as 99% etc. . . ." part of the quote really does not imply that no lesbian should ever die, kill, go mad, or what have you on screen, but that the percentage should be something less than 99%. Dr.G's latest post basically states that yes, that was what was meant and you both actually agree on this point. No twisting there - clarification.

As to the titillation discussion, Dr.G just aked you to explain what you meant. You did. And again, it looks like the point is agreed upon. Again, nothing seems to have been twisted, and I don't think you were attacked for bringing it up.

The only real point of disagreement seems to be over whether the journey towards equality of portrayal of lesbian characters has "well and truly begun" or not. But that's largely a matter of opinion and personal interpretation of media, so that's no surprise. And again, I don't think anyone was trying to make you out as having said something you didn't. Personally, I agree with you on this point - I think we've both come a long way and have a long way yet to go. I do actually consider W/T to have been a step forward, in spite of everything. But then, I consider "The Children's Hour" to have been a step forward for its time, so I wouldn't be surprised if I were pretty firmly in the minority here on those points. And I don't think that those who disagree are necessarily wrong. Or that they're twisting your point.

--- KR

Lost in Ecstacy

Sister Bertrille · **Posted:** Sun Nov 17, 2002 1:24 pm

Since pretty much the only TV (no cable for me, thanks, I’m a bit of a Luddite [read: cheapskate] when it comes to the small screen), I can stomach right now are PBS, the Law & Orders, 60 Minutes, and ER, I thought I’d chip in. Besides, it seems like good diplomatic practice for what promises to be a typically disastrous Thanksgiving and holiday season with the folks! January 2, you can’t come soon enough!

I heard the promo for Crossing Jordan today and almost drowned in the oil dripping from my TV when the announcer intoned the word “lesbian.” Titillation, indeed…

Kyraroc, I want to thank you for your comments. It has become harder and harder for me to watch the Law & Orders (especially SVU), but I was unable to articulate why, exactly. The shows are very even-handed, maybe even slightly pro-gay, when depicting hate crimes. But I think that you hit the nail right on the head when you said:

Quote:
Even on a show where most people show up to kill or be killed, if lesbians only *ever* show up to kill or be killed, there is almost certainly something disproportionate going on.

We do see innocent, upstanding gay witnesses and victims on the Law & Orders, but where are the gay cops, ADAs, psychologists? With the possible exception of Huang (we don’t really know much about him one way or the other, but then again, if anyone has to be gay, let’s make him the “pervert” expert!), there are no gay main characters. In a set of shows remarkably for their diversity (male/female, white/Black/Latino/Asian/Native American, young/old, single/married/divorced, etc.), why must our “one in ten” always be a secondary character, and often a chalk outline on a bloody street?

Epicurus and DrG, I agree with you about no portrayals – and this from someone who has every Debbie & Joan episode from Mad About You committed to tape! I am so demoralized at this point with the lack of progress on TV (BtVS being by far the most painful example, but there are others, like the violently lesbophobic NYPD Blue and that train wreck some call Will & Grace) that I would rather slip under the radar screen for awhile until we have some real, balanced representation (preferably without blood). Because right now, for every Debbie & Joan there are ten dead, victimized, or evil gays or lesbians, and I am quite frankly sick and tired of it.

Zahir al Daoud and sam7777, I respect what you say and I really am on the same side as you – it’s just that I seem to have reached a point where for me no portrayal is better than a bad one, for both personal (I don’t want any more negative portrayals in my subconscious or to have to respond to them) and social (these negative images are influencing people on a major, unpleasant scale) reasons. I guess if slipping under the radar means avoiding a beating, I will avoid the beating. At least for now.

Besides, there’s always Leslie Stahl !

SB

urnofosiris · **Posted:** Sun Nov 17, 2002 4:09 pm

Quote:

To me, the ". . . as long as 99% etc. . . ." part of the quote really does not imply that no lesbian should ever die, kill, go mad, or what have you on screen, but that the percentage should be something less than 99%.

You are right Kyraroc, that was an exaggeration, or maybe not, but I am too lazy to calculate the percentage of dead vs alive and miserable vs happy lesbians on TV. Not just too lazy, the outcome would probably depress me as well.

The majority would have been a better choice of words than 99%. Live and learn.

Quote:

I heard the promo for Crossing Jordan today and almost drowned in the oil dripping from my TV when the announcer intoned the word “lesbian.” Titillation, indeed…

Thanks for that

By now I am very curious what that episode will actually be like. Here's to hoping for the best...

Edited by: DrG at: 11/17/02 2:13:01 pm

xita · **Posted:** Sun Nov 17, 2002 4:50 pm

Quote:

Finally, surely it is no surprise to anyone that there is a titillation faction in portraying lesbianism. Xita, for one, has mentioned it many times on this very board.

And? what's your point, this would probably be a big reason why I complain about this. And why people who are so willing to go on with Willow/anyone bother me. All they care about is same sex action. And it isn't for lesbian titilation, it is for the titilation of MEN, men who get off whenever 2 women are on screen. Which is why most women who play lesbians on tv are of a certain kind.. of a certain type. But please don't use me to prove your points.

On an unrelated issue, we have all the right to take a stand. I am a lesbian, have known about it since I was 12, I have been around lesbians since I came out at 18. I have since then been involved in gay/lesbian activism. I have ran 2 very successful sites that are entirely about lesbians. I think, I have a little ground to stand in when I complain about a show... or question the progress of lesbianism on tv.

W/T were the best example and now they are gone, and there is nothing out there to replace it.

Can you tell I am tired of being told I have no reason to criticize tv's portrayal of lesbians?

And Law and Order, I think most of us have complex views on that kind of show. It isn't as simple as being a bad show or not. However, it is NEVER wrong to examine it and question why a scene was shown or a character depicted as gay. Law and Order would make me happy if one of the main cast members was shown as gay. The only ones who have a sexuality are straight.

-------------------------------

Buffy?

Let's change it, the Discovery channel has koala bears.
Edited by: xita at: 11/17/02 4:28:01 pm

kyraroc · **Posted:** Sun Nov 17, 2002 6:15 pm

OK, maybe I'm misreading what's been said, but I think some wires have gotten crossed here.

Dr.G, in reference to the 99% thing, I was actually trying to say that I thought *you* were arguing that, ideally, the number of dead and evil lesbians should be way less than 99%, but that you had never said that it should be zero. (And I agree with you on that.) My post was poorly phrased. I actually have no idea what the actual percentage is either, although quite frankly I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it was above ninety percent if only TV is being considered.

Xita, I don't think Zahir ever meant that the titillation factor was not a reason to complain or criticize. I think Zahir was agreeing with you that titillation is very much a reason to complain and criticize, and bringing up your previous statements about it for support, rather than criticism. I believe, rather, that Zahir felt attacked - in my opinion, from another, earlier set of misinterpretations of what people meant - for bringing the subject up at all.

I apologize if I'm misinterpreting anyone's position or explaining the obvious unnecessarily.

--- KR

Lost in Ecstacy

xita · **Posted:** Sun Nov 17, 2002 6:23 pm

I am sorry I should edit my post because that's not the connection i was making. Those were seperate statements.

-------------------------------

Buffy?

Let's change it, the Discovery channel has koala bears.

Zahir al Daoud · **Posted:** Sun Nov 17, 2002 11:43 pm

You are correct, I do feel I was attacked (and not, alas, for the first time).

However, as someone rightly pointed out to me, my language was intemperate and wrong. For that reason I offer DrG my sincere apologies.

KR, you have accurately described my p.o.v. regarding titillation--namely, that when that is the major reason for including lesbians on a show, clearly progress is still needed.

"GOD created Man in his own image. Man, being a gentleman, returned the courtesy." -Voltaire

Edited by: BytrSuite at: 11/17/02 9:59:30 pm

NoveltyAct · **Posted:** Tue Nov 19, 2002 4:15 am

Hey all,

To switch gears for a moment here--

I know that the FAQ is specifically about portrayals of lesbians in the media (hence the title), but I was wondering if there's been any discussion about the way ME has written Andrew from the Geek Trio, and the subtext that he's gay and in luuurve with Warren? Specifically, if that's been addressed in any of the letters or essays that Kittens have written?

Mods, please shuffle me if this falls under a different thread (or board, like Season 7, for that matter).

---------------

Whisk, woman!

kyraroc · **Posted:** Wed Nov 20, 2002 1:42 am

Several essays and innumerable posts have mentioned at least in passing that the show has a consistently bad track record for its portrayals both of gay men and bisexual characters. I know this is brought up in the FAQ, and Andrew is named as one of the examples. I don't recall any essay taking that as its subject per se, probably in large part because the gay male and bisexual characters have generally had far more minor roles on the show than its two prominent lesbians.

(Note to those not watching season 7 - the rest of this reply contains some minor references to the events of that season.)

I personally thought it was interesting that as Andrew got sucked further down into evil - moving from being basically a prankster to a thief to an attempted rapist to an accomplice to murder and now finally to being an outright murderer - he was also portrayed as being more and more gay. He started out by having the hots for Scully from the X-Files. By mid-season 6, he was admiring Spike's bod. By the end of season 6, he stopped just - and obviously - short of saying that he had thought Warren loved him. (Quite frankly, I would argue that his character crossed over the boundary between subtext and outright text some time ago.)

And of course, Larry is dead, Vamp Willow was evil and died twice, maybe three times over, Vamp Xander (who, if I'm recalling correctly, although I could be wrong, got some bisexual overtones in the visuals) was evil and died. And now, in season 7, we've discovered that Scott, a minor character from season 3, was actually gay and a loser jerk who accused all of his ex-girlfriends of being lesbians. Apparently, this is a great leap forward for Buffy.

Characters with non-het orientations buried under layers and layers of subtext seem to have fared a little better, as they often do. Faith, after all, whom many think was subtextually bi, was evil, in a coma for a year, suicidal for a while, and is currently in jail, but at least she isn't dead. Yet. In terms of characters who have been generally portrayed as good guys, a few viewers have wondered about Giles' past, but I personally think that if that's there it's buried so far down in the writing that it can't even be really properly considered subtext. At any rate, if worth considering him, the worst thing he's done is a reasonably justifiable homicide (which makes him pretty much morally on par or above everyone else in the current cast except Dawn so it's probably best just to let that go.) Lorne on Angel, if we want to bother to go there, is a jump which is a little more reasonable to make, since he has so many of the characteristics television writers like to use as code for stereotypical gay men, but the one time his orientation has actually ever textually come up, to my recollection, it was implied that he slept with showgirls. Anyway, they haven't done anything to revoltingly horrible to or with his character yet.

I know this all has little to do with the question you've actually asked, sorry. The answer to which is pretty much, yes, it's been brought up, but usually in passing rather than in depth.

--- KR

Lost in Ecstacy

Edited by: kyraroc at: 11/20/02 1:57:19 pm

tyche · **Posted:** Wed Nov 20, 2002 1:54 pm

iirc, Lorne checked out a woman (he made an admiring/sexual comment) in the 'Angel' ep 'Happy Anniversary'. It's interesting, b/c most people in the 'Angel' fan community (certainly on the boards I've visited) think that Lorne IS gay. Yet, as kyraroc pointed out, the writers portray him as the stereotypical 'camp', flamboyant gay ... who likes woman. I honestly don't know why they're so lairy about this - hell, it's not like gay characters on *cough* *cough* other ME shows aren't portrayed in a stereotypical way. Or maybe it's just cack-handed writing. Whatever, it's a mystery.

Sister Bertrille · **Posted:** Wed Nov 20, 2002 5:10 pm

Would it make me a horrible, cynical person if I said that maybe the reason the good people at ME switched gears with Lorne, having him go from "girlfriend, you look fabulous - who does your hair?!" to "check out the rack on that one - she could brick my house any day!" is that they changed their minds on the character's fate and didn’t want to kill him off after all?

I thought so.

SB

daddykat · **Posted:** Wed Nov 20, 2002 6:44 pm

Since Lorne is an alien species (and we saw just how alien on the trip to Pylea) I persoanlly think speculation on his characetr's sexuality is a waste of time. But I think ME know that people will do exactly that and hope it'll keep soem of our minds of more substantial issues.

As to Larry; the whole businees of a character being a jerk while in denial and then becoming nice after accepting something (sexual or otherwise) is itself a fairly boring cliche by now.

Patches · **Posted:** Tue Dec 03, 2002 11:44 pm

Quote:
2) What specifically is the "Dead/Evil Lesbian Cliché"?

That all lesbians and, specifically lesbian couples, can never find happiness and always meet tragic ends. One of the most repeated scenarios is that one lesbian dies horribly and her lover goes crazy, killing others or herself.

Hi all, could use your help/advice. I don’t know if this belongs in the Lesbian Cliché FAQ or in the Ask Any Question thread – or maybe somewhere else altogether. It relates to part of the theory of the Lesbian Cliché. Here goes …

I’m writing a novel and until I read the Lesbian Cliché FAQ, I was quite unaware that such a concept existed. I was just so happy to see anything with lesbian content, I didn’t think much beyond the superficial, until now. I am a little embarrassed to say this, but having read the FAQ and essays, I feel a little like a dolt! The Lesbian Cliché is so obvious, but I was (ashamedly) oblivious. I’m afraid that I might be falling prey to it’s concept in my writing. The result is that I’m so torn that I can’t write anymore. I don’t want to perpetuate stereotypes and negativity. I do want to engage the hearts and minds of the lesbian community.

Here’s my dilemma: the characters in the novel are all lesbians, however the antagonist is, shall we say a not nice person (to the n’th degree). The character is a user, manipulator and essentially, by the point in her life in which we engage the story, is almost morally bankrupt. She is the protagonist’s ex-girlfriend. Key into the phrase *almost* morally bankrupt, there is some understanding of her and while there is no acceptance of her deeds, I hope that the reader feels her pain, but rejects her actions.

I had originally plotted the story such that the protagonist leaves to start life anew, falls in love with someone else and then is stalked by her ex. Nothing new there, as some of you will know from unfortunate personal experience; the plot twist revolves around the idea that there’s no such thing as a clean get away, we are all subject to the consequences of the choices we make in life. Everyday, we make choices that affect us to a lesser and sometimes greater degree. The conflict climaxes with a moral dilemma for the protagonist.

I wondered what would happen if faced with a choice between saving someone whom you once loved but is perceived as ‘bad’ and who you know unequivocally will die, and saving the person you love when the answer is not so clean and neat; the one will die, the other may die. One has caused grief the other is innocent. You cannot save them both, it must be a conscious choice of one over the other.

I was tired of reading stories that were predictable, the good guy always wins and the universe unfolds like a perfect bed of orchids in spring. Reality is much different; the world is a nasty place and the universe is not your friend. The choice cannot be easy for the protagonist. I decided early on to build a character the reader would love (protagonist’s lover) and have her die at the end – for the *cough* sake of the story her death is *choke* necessary.

When I began writing last year, it all made sense to me, the protagonist does what is morally correct, but the result is the death of her lover. With choices come consequences. The story ends there. I wanted to wrench the heartstrings of the reader, but have her understand why the choice was made and why the beloved character had to die.

The FAQ has me questioning my story, and after 50,000 words, my sanity. I know that this doesn’t exactly fit the Lesbian Cliché. However, there are elements to it that have caused me to pause. I am hoping that you, in the Kitten community might give me some feedback with this. No one goes crazy, but the lover dies, tragically. Do you think that this ‘type’ of writing, even though the characters are all out, perpetuates the negativity, the killing of the innocent for the sake of the story? Can the death be a tragedy without succumbing to the pratfalls of cliche?

I'd love to resolve my own conflict and continue writing - the dust bunnies on my manuscript grow exponentially by the hour. The Kitten community is such a positive space and is a beautiful snapshot of the audience I'd love to write for. Your opinions are important to me, I'd love for you to (please ) share them with me.

The Angry Lion · **Posted:** Thu Dec 05, 2002 12:38 am

I feel your dilemma patches, you wonder if a lesbian character/ relationship is potrayed in anyway negative whther you are doing more harm then good, but if you wamnt negativity and angs but still avoid stereotypes, follow the lead of show me love, which has you thinking things will end up badly but at the last moment shows a happy ending, thats what Im doing in my novel, you can do a happy ending you know without being all fairy tale, and perhaps a mixed ending is better then a bad one

urnofosiris · **Posted:** Thu Dec 05, 2002 6:49 am

Bleh, Spell Check ate my reply and that only happens when I don't save it first. Will I ever learn?

Anyway, here I go again.

Angry Lion, that's a good example. Show me Love avoids being all happy and fluffy but it also avoids the lesbian cliche. I think the same goes for Tipping the Velvet.

Quote:
I was tired of reading stories that were predictable, the good guy always wins and the universe unfolds like a perfect bed of orchids in spring. Reality is much different; the world is a nasty place and the universe is not your friend.

I know reality is different from that, but that is why I love fantasy, anything can happen in fantasy. Fortunately, happy endings do occur in reality and it never bores me. If we could choose a life for ourselves I think most of us would choose a happy one. That is what I prefer in the stories I read as well. I could read a non stop happy fluffy story, I'd rather read a story which has a mix of angst and happiness (and preferably with humor), I don't want to read a story which is non stop misery. This is of course a personal preference.

A happy story with a happy ending may sound like a cliche in general and I can understand that -if that would be the only type of story out there- it would get tiring and boring as indeed the world isn't just like that, and there are tons of stories out there where the good guy always wins and ends up happy, however it is so very rarely the good lesbian that wins and has the universe unfold before her in a perfect way.

If you compare the amount of positive stories with a straight character to the amount of positive stories with a lesbian character the scales aren't balanced (to put it mildly) when compared to the percentage of lesbians amongst the general population. When you compare the amount of unhappy stories with a lesbian character vs the amount of happy stories with a lesbian character the scales aren't balanced either. In most stories lesbians are dead dying miserable or evil, yet I am pretty sure that isn't the case in reality, heh.

So while a happy story with a happy ending may sound like a cliche in general, I feel it would actually be cliche breaking for a story with lesbian lead characters as that is a type of story that is hard to find, unlike the unhappy stories with the unhappy endings which are the cliche when it comes to stories with lesbian characters. So...

Quote:

Do you think that this ‘type’ of writing, even though the characters are all out, perpetuates the negativity, the killing of the innocent for the sake of the story? Can the death be a tragedy without succumbing to the pratfalls of cliche?

I've said it before, I feel the lesbian cliche will cease to be as soon as there is a balance between -to phrase it simply- happy and unhappy stories, or if there is a balance within the story itself. Most stories have more than one main character and they don't all have to die or be miserable a la Hamlet.

From the brief description you have given it does sound to me like your story perpetuates the cliche eventhough that obviously isn't your intent. I can't and don't want to tell you how to write your story. It is your story and you should write it the way you want. I do not know what is most important to you when you write, your own ideas, the characters or your prospective audience or a little bit of everything and then some.

I hope you will work out your dilemma and finish your story and write it as you want to write it, seeing as you have invested so much effort into it already. A good disclaimer will go a long way, if you don't lie to your readers beforehand and give false promises like some people have done , then your readers can consider whether your story is something that they want to read or not.

Edited by: DrG at: 12/5/02 4:54:58 am

Patches · **Posted:** Fri Dec 06, 2002 1:04 am

DrG, Angry Lion, thanks for the input and sage words. I read your responses and it was like someone turned the lights on and I could see how to continue (and end) the story without perpetuating the cliché. I can still take the reader on an angst filled and emotionally compelling journey and not leave them wanting to fling the book across the room when they reach the last page.

I have changed my tune (or rather adjusted my attitude) - I wanted to have an unpredictable ending, and now I have one. WOO HOO!! I can’t tell you how excited I am to pursue the story again, especially since I’ve realized I don’t have to re-write the entire book (breathing heavy sigh of relief). I was so disenchanted until now that I was ready to scrap the entire project. Although I started writing with a purpose, I reached a point where it became impossible for me to be excited about what I was writing. I couldn’t pin point it, but in hindsight stumbling across the Lesbian Cliché last spring (after an unfortunate hour in front of the television) made me hit the breaks. Reading the essays and discussion again in the past few weeks really made me think about why I couldn’t keep writing.

Given that you were missing 49,500 words+ of the book, you hit the nail on the head; you confirmed my fears and provided a solution. I don’t think I can possibly tell you how much of a positive impact your reply has had. You are right, there’s enough tragedy, it’s time for a good story, with good fun, good lovin’ (lots and lots of good lovin’ , twists and turns but when the lights go down there’ll be contented and smiling faces.

Maybe one day I’ll get on the board in time, toss up a daily thread and get people taking about what they like to read; what kind of characters and story lines turn their crank and stuff.

Thanks, so very very much!

Patches

urnofosiris · **Posted:** Fri Dec 06, 2002 4:20 am

Glad to hear that Patches, I hope I'll get a chance to read your book. I am rather curious now.

tyche · **Posted:** Sat Dec 07, 2002 12:43 pm

Did anyone else in the UK see the second 2-part episode of this show? They did the full-on lesbian cliche - and of course, the lesbian who died was killed in the most horrible way possible. (To be fair, she didn't die right after having sex, but that was the only part of the cliche that they didn't do.)

Someone who watched more of this than I did might be able to describe it in more detail - I only watched approx. the last 15 minutes of the first ep of the 2-parter, and that was with the sound off.

Plot description ahead - spoilers and description of various gory stuff.

The plot seems to be that there's this lesbian couple and one of them is semi-famous (an author, I think - whatever she does, she's rich as she has a huge house) and is being stalked. The couple seem to be living together and they have a scene in a sauna where they're semi-naked and kissing. (The sight of two women kissing in a sauna isn't what inspired me to carry on watching the ep or anything. Nope, not at all... )

Anyway, when they get out of the sauna, they see the stalker guy staring at them through the window and they get scared and call the police.

And of course, the next thing that happens is that the author lady goes out for the day, and when she gets back, calls out, doesn't get an answer, runs up the stairs, finds blood everywhere .. and her girlfriend is dead, tied to a chair with her legs spread, semi-naked and her throat has been cut. This was easily one of the most horrible and least dignified character deaths I have seen on TV. It was really nasty, and my description probably can't do justice to it. You don't see the murder, but you do see the body in quite a lot of detail (they linger on her face, her semi-naked body and her cut throat for quite some time), then the author lady trying to touch her girlfriend's body and being dragged away by the police because she's getting hysterical. And guess what? The description for the next episode (which I decided to skip) says that, in the wake of her girlfriend's death, she's barely managing to hold onto her sanity! (Also, the ep description I read only said 'in the wake of [character name]'s death, [character name] tries to hold onto her sanity', or something along those lines. There's no mention of the fact that they were girlfriends.)

*sigh*

[rant] For crissakes, people, come up with something NEW! Something that doesn't involve a lesbian dying or going mad! It can't be that hard. [/rant]

Edited by: tyche at: 12/7/02 10:51:35 am

silverdragon219 · **Posted:** Tue Dec 10, 2002 2:57 pm

i love willow and tara for who they are....not just because they are gay.....it is comforting to have role models and i love em' both they are the two sweetest chicks that i know of! and are soo cute together!

Edited by: silverdragon219 at: 12/10/02 1:37:36 pm

xita · **Posted:** Tue Dec 10, 2002 3:02 pm

I am honestly don't care if Willow's still gay because I don't trust the people who made it to do anything right. And they haven't been and they will continue not to, but the important part is that this conversation is about season 7 and we don't discuss season 7 anymore on this board.

*edited to add, this board is for willow/tara fans, not for willow the gay girl fans.

-------------------------------

Buffy?

Let's change it, the Discovery channel has koala bears.

Edited by: xita at: 12/10/02 1:21:48 pm

silverdragon219 · **Posted:** Tue Dec 10, 2002 3:15 pm

my apologies.....wont do it again

xita · **Posted:** Tue Dec 10, 2002 3:25 pm

No problem, I'll suggest that you read the FAQ for more interesting tips on what is on topic and what is not.

-------------------------------

Buffy?

Let's change it, the Discovery channel has koala bears.

Patches · **Posted:** Tue Dec 10, 2002 5:43 pm

I hope I'm not violating the board FAQ (this time) with this but here are my thoughts. First off, I believe that Willow and Tara should have remained together - period; no break up and no break apart, no death, no addiction, no psychotic evil I'm going to put the world out of it's misery Willow. Although skilled enough as an actress to pull it off, Alyson should never have been handed that role to play. (Well except that Buffy could have died, Willow could have gone evil because of it - sans the flayer bit, and Tara (not Xander, why is it always Xander who saves the day??) could have saved the world with four simple words: "Willow, I love you", but that was not the direction ME took. So here goes ...

Silverdragon, my feelings were similar to yours, until I hit the Kitten board and the FAQ and I started to think about what I was watching. Initially, I was glad that someone, finally, realistically brought a lead character out and portrayed her in a strong, positive and loving relationship. However, I'd glossed over a few things the ME did with/to Willow's character along the way.

ME used magic as a metaphor for sex. Okay, no biggie, it was a start, Willow and Tara were openly gay, magic was as good a metaphor as any. If homosexual PDA's (a la Buffy and Angel/Riley/Spike) were still taboo at least Willow and Tara could express their love in other ways. The scenes between Willow and Tara, as their characters evolved in the relationship, were incredibly sensual and certainly sexually charged. When Willow chose Tara over Oz I was elated. Finally, the girl gets the girl!

However, from that point on I began to notice (but ignored) subtle changes in Willow. These are my observations and my analysis of the road ME took with Willow. I didn't like what they were doing with Willow's character and the magic, but it was okay because Tara was there to help her. But, as Willow's relationship with Tara deepened, so did her 'addiction' to magic; in essence the more "gay" Willow became the more she became addicted to the "black arts."

Now, in the past Willow frequently referred magic as the "black arts", but the practice was always "white" and used for the greater good, but as season 4 and 5 (and ultimately 6 :puke

) progressed, Willow slipped deeper and deeper into the dark side, acting less and less altruistically "Willowey" [read: straight] and more and more selfishly DMW [read: evil gay]. Killing Tara was a plot device to finally throw the weakened and vulnerable [read: gay, therefore no longer strong] Willow over the edge. Willow's descent into dark magic and transformation into DMW is mildly reminiscent of Marlow's descent into madness in Heart of Darkness, only not done nearly as well.

I'm not going to reiterate the other arguments posted here. I'd suggest (although it will take a while) you read the entire thread - there is a wealth of information provided here as to why we shouldn't be grateful for ME's treatment of Willow & Tara and of homosexuality in general. I hope that with the backlash against ME and BtVS's dismal ratings for season 7, would not further risk the public trust by making Willow straight. He already has a credibility problem with the W/T story line (and not just amongst the gay community) and may find it difficult for people to buy into his other shows/scripts/projects if he continues to mess around. However, don't take this as gospel. He messed around once ...

I found it ironic that the religious right championed BtVS, with the death of Tara and DMW as symbols of the inherent bad, bad evilness of homosexuality. Somehow, I doubt they were the audience ME wanted to attract.

I don't know, perhaps others will follow ME and have the guts to do what they would not and follow the vision through to the (good) end. But this treatment of W/T is one step forward, two steps back. However, here in the Kitten World (as I've joyfully discovered in the past few weeks) - Willow and Tara stay where they belong - alive, together and happy.

Edited by: Patches at: 12/10/02 3:50:29 pm

silverdragon219 · **Posted:** Tue Dec 10, 2002 9:13 pm

yes i agree now to after further readings...willow and tara are very much alive and are now happier than ever.....living and loving by eachothers sides. the goddess wills it so

WebWarlock · **Posted:** Tue Dec 10, 2002 10:00 pm

Patches,

Quote:
I found it ironic that the religious right championed BtVS, with the death of Tara and DMW as symbols of the inherent bad, bad evilness of homosexuality. Somehow, I doubt they were the audience ME wanted to attract.

Where did you see this? I had assumed that something like this would have occured, but have not been able to track anything down.

Warlock

-----

Web Warlock

The Other Side,
home of Liber Mysterium: The Netbook of Witches and Warlocks

"Always the same, playin' your game, Drive me insane, troubles gonna come to you, One of these days and it won't be long, You'll look for me, and, baby, I'll be gone" - Your Time Is Gonna Come, Led Zeppelin

Patches · **Posted:** Wed Dec 11, 2002 7:24 pm

Quote:
Hate groups can only dream of being able to inflict that much pain and suffering. Like Warren shooting Tara, Mutant Enemy did their damage by accident - but that doesn't change the fact that damage was done.

The fact that Tara's death brought cheers from homophobic viewers was made evident by this May 11 post from Steven DeKnight at the Bronze Beta:

"As for those who are happy that 'the lesbian got what she deserved' - these are the people I hold contempt, loathing, and disgust for. That's just plain ignorance and hate, and I openly call for them to stop watching the show and any show I ever work for."

WebWarlock, you know I think I may have made an assumption and equated the “hate groups” and “homophobic viewers” of Robert Black’s essay (#2 in the FAQ) with the religious right – I don’t really separate them in my mind and did not in my post. I was thinking of his essays when I posted my response and included the following second hand information from a conversation with friends after the end of season 6. I spoke with the woman who mentioned it and she thinks it was either an article she read or possibly might even have been from a discussion her kids had in church or school (RC, if that makes any difference).

She’d said that religious groups were applauding the death of Tara and demonizing of DMW as a lesson that, essentially even the horrid producers of BtVS knew homosexuality was evil and used Willow’s madness as proof, in the “look, see what happens – homosexuality is a perversion and makes you crazy” kinda way. Sorry, I don’t have the exact reference. In future, I’ll be more careful to state when info is second hand and/or opinion based.

Though, something else has occurred to me since I posted my piece. In addendum to my previous post: when Willow was in magic “rehab,” she wasn’t with Tara. This echoes an also familiar message; it’s okay to be gay, as long as you’re celibate. Willow could have the knowledge of magic but she couldn’t practice it. Humm…

The Kitten, the Witches and the Bad Wardrobe - Willow & Tara Forever

The Lesbian Cliche FAQ

Who is online