The Mission: Reviewing Gay Content & Positivity

Why?

I am not affiliated with the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), but I agree with their mission statement: to promote fair, accurate and inclusive representation of gay people in all forms of media, including news reporting, movies, books, TV, music, and stage performance.

I have two primary reasons why I evaluate gay content for stereotypes, clichés, and negative imagery.

First, from the perspective of an activist, I want to raise consciousness about how the media portrays gay people. Understandably, most reporters, filmmakers, authors, musicians, etc. (”creators”) don’t seem to give the issue a whole lot of thought. But the result may be a misleading absence of gay content, which creates fertile ground for misinformation, misunderstandings, and outright prejudices to take root. Or the result may be inaccurate, stereotypical, and often derogatory gay content, which directly feeds bigotry. Ideally, in a perfect world, creators would consider their work from all different perspectives to make informed choices about content.

Second, from the perspective of a consumer, I am an enthusiastic reader and cinemaphile, and as a gay man I have a particular appreciation for books and movies that include gay characters or themes. But if the gay content is negative or clichéd, it pisses me off. I want to provide a resource to help people like me identify potential sources of reading, viewing or listening entertainment that include positive portrayals of gay men and women, with emphasis on my own areas of interest, such as mystery, science fiction, and fantasy.

Does nothing please me?

Those who read my reviews will note that I criticize gay content quite often. It’s hard to please me. Heck, I’ll even nitpick a gay author writing a gay-themed book populated primarily by gay characters!

It’s tricky evaluating the gay content and positivity of a work because I’m always looking at it in terms of a larger context. It’s not just the work itself, and when I criticize, I’m just as often commenting on stereotypes and clichés established by the media as a whole. But because I’m reviewing a specific oeuvre, the criticism gets directed at the particular creator.

For example, an author like Garth Nix might not include gay characters in his “Keys to the Kingdom” series because it doesn’t work for the story he’s telling. I support his right as a creator to do whatever serves his work best. At the same time, Nix isn’t writing in a vacuum. Whether he likes it or not, he’s complicit in an overarching trend of under-representation of gay folks in fantasy fiction. So I’m going to comment on that, while trying very hard not to judge him personally and to keep the “Overall Quality” and “Gay Positivity” scores distinct.

So how do I evaluate for gay content and positivity?

Readers of my reviews might conclude that I’ll only be satisfied if every book and movie ever made from now on contains substantial gay characters to whom nothing bad ever happens, and who are all powerful, positive, non-stereotypical good guys.

Here’s the story of nothing bad ever happening to the gay character: Once there was a gay person, who lived happily ever after. The End. I like it when the gay person has a happy ending, although I have to admit the story was, well, boring. And what if the gay person is an effeminate queen? Then I’ll just yell: “How stereotypical!”

And every story has to have gay characters? Even a short story straight romance? Well, she better have a gay best friend, and he better have a love interest (because otherwise I’ll complain about the cliché of the de-sexualized gay best friend) and it better work out for the gay romance (because if it doesn’t I’ll scream about the stereotype that it always ends badly for gay characters). And never mind if including the gay storyline distracts from the main focus of the story, because if the author leaves the gay character out, I’ll complain about defamation by omission. So there!

Seriously, just like GLAAD’s mission statement goes, I want fair, accurate, and inclusive representation of gay people in the books I read and the movies I watch. It comes down to balance. For straight people, there’s every kind of book, movie, etc. that you can imagine. There are plenty of straight villains. About as many as there are straight heroes. You can find lots of straight tragedies. About the same number as straight comedies. Yeah, there are plenty of straight people in the media whose lives suck. And plenty who live happily ever after.

That balance doesn’t exist for gay content. There are more gay villains than heroes, more gay tragedies than comedies, more gay people who end badly than otherwise. And there are more gay stereotypes portrayed than not. Most images of gay themes in the media portray gay people as (1) victimizers (i.e., mean, bad, bitchy, cruel, evil, dangerously disturbed), or (2) victims (weak, diseased, beaten up, killed, brutalized, ineffectual, helpless). In other words, the preponderance of images in the media suggests that if you’re gay, either bad things will happen to you, or you are bad.

Take “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” for example. Joss Whedon, the show’s creator, made Willow into a lesbian and gave her a loving relationship. If anything, he was nicer to Willow than the other characters, whose relationships almost always sucked. Then Willow’s girlfriend Tara was murdered, and Willow in her grief turned into a major villain (so that storyline neatly fit into both categories 1 and 2 above).

Whedon’s defenders point out the great things he did for gay people by incorporating major gay characters. Absolutely true. They point out how this plot development fit within the internal logic of the show: no one’s relationships worked out well, and everyone on that show struggled with their inner demons. (Sometimes literally). Can’t argue with that.

But I am always aware of the larger context. So Buffy’s latest romance ended in disaster. I can change the channel and easily find a het romantic comedy to satisfy my desire for a happy ending. Balance. That’s not the case with gay romances. Am I going to point my finger at Whedon and say he’s a homophobe? No. He’s not single-handedly responsible for that.

But is he complicit in a larger trend of defamation to gay people? Yes. By adding another negative image to the pile, intentionally or not he reinforced the false and damaging stereotype that if you’re gay, bad things will happen to you, and/or you are bad.

And all of that is when gay content appears at all.

I mentioned Garth Nix’s “Keys to the Kingdom” series, which (so far) does not include any gay characters or themes. Again, it comes down to balance and the relative invisibility of gay people in general. Gay people do not occur in the media in the same proportion that they occur in real life.

For example, according to GLAAD, there are 679 series regular characters on the six major networks in the 2006-7 season. Of those, 1.3% are gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Last season the figure was 1.4%. The standard statistic assumed for the proportion of gay people in the general population is about 10%. Even if I accepted, for the sake of argument, that figure was a little inflated, 1.3% would still under-represent the gay community.

Nix’s primary obligation is to his work. In other words, as author he has to do what’s right for the story, and that legitimately may not include any gay content. In terms of the one book, I can’t say he’s guilty of homophobia. But stepping back and looking at the big picture, I can say he’s part of an overarching trend that, in effect, defames gay people.

In conclusion

Even if creators are not conscious of how the media in general portrays gay people, they must be aware that their audience bring all different perspectives to the table, and there will be readers/viewers who look at their works from a perspective they don’t expect. And it would be naive for the creators to think that their work doesn’t have a place in a larger context, and won’t or can’t be evaluated in that context.

So if Garth Nix chooses not to include gay characters, for example, or the people behind “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” opt for their gay characters to follow stereotype, that’s a fair choice for them to make. But they must be willing to accept that their work will be evaluated by people who have different concerns and priorities, and they must realize that people like me will compare their individual oeuvre to the larger context of similar works.

I don’t do it to be mean, nitpicky, or to take out my frustrations on these poor creators. I do it for exactly the reasons stated at the beginning of this commentary: to raise consciousness about the issue, and to inform gay consumers what they can expect from any given work.

Scoring Guidelines

Gay Content

5.0 – totally gay! (characters, plot, and subplots all revolve around gay themes)
4.0 – mostly gay (main characters & story gay, with hetero subplots and secondary characters)
3.0 – more gay than not, but major characters and storylines also hetero
2.0 – mostly a hetero story, but contains one major or several minor gay characters/storylines
1.5 – gay content is explicit but minor (e.g., minor gay character, or C-story may be gay-themed)
1.0 – gay content hinted at, but nothing explicit
0.0 – no gay content

Gay Positivity

5.0 Рwonderful positive potrayal: innovative, populated by strong, proud, and powerful gay people with nary a stereotype or clich̩ to be seen
4.0 – a positive portrayal with strong, proud, gay characters; some minor derogatory and/or stereotypical elements may have snuck in, though
3.0 – a mixed potrayal: more positive than negative, but significant derogatory and/or stereoptyical elements are present
2.0 Рmay or may not be explicitly anti-gay, but nevertheless filled with negative stereotypes and clich̩s
1.0 – trash; anti-gay propaganda with actual facts twisted to serve an anti-gay agenda.
0.0 – total garbage; sheer anti-gay propaganda filled with absolute fiction without a shred of redeeming value