Hrm, I think you're conflating two sections. Maybe I should just remove the first quoted part altogether, since it doesn't really have a bearing on what I'm saying here, which is completely independent of who's writing or what they are in relation to what they're writing. (When it comes to "you must be X to write Y," I've essayed already against that one plenty of times, and wasn't up for retreading it here, yet again, not to mention it's beside the actual point of the post.)
The story may not always require depicting that part of a gay person's life. But when it should, then it should.
That is exactly my point, well, flipped around a little: that a story that does not require depicting that part of a gay person's (or woman's) life should not have to contort itself sixteen ways to Sunday just to include that part solely to gain the moniker of "realistic" and therefore avoid the derogatory label of "okay-gay" (or even "okay-female"). There are other -- equally valid -- ways to measure the value of a story, rather than only using the ruler that a story must show us how much the world sucks.
no subject
Date: 25 Oct 2010 03:48 pm (UTC)The story may not always require depicting that part of a gay person's life. But when it should, then it should.
That is exactly my point, well, flipped around a little: that a story that does not require depicting that part of a gay person's (or woman's) life should not have to contort itself sixteen ways to Sunday just to include that part solely to gain the moniker of "realistic" and therefore avoid the derogatory label of "okay-gay" (or even "okay-female"). There are other -- equally valid -- ways to measure the value of a story, rather than only using the ruler that a story must show us how much the world sucks.