Does YA Challenge or Reinforce Gender Stereotypes?

You may have remembered a few months ago, I begged for responses to a long thing about gender and stereotypes and then a few weeks later I begged for responses to a shorter one. HUGE THANKS TO ALL OF YOU FOR GIVING ME RECS OF WHAT TO READ AND THINK ABOUT AND/OR DATA TO QUOTE HERE! 
This was for a level two project, also known as a higher project qualification or HPQ. We got to choose anything to research and come up with a 2000 word essay on it. It was finished in February 2014, and came back with an A* :)
 Anyway, I chose to write about YA and how heavily gender stereotypes feature in it. A googledoc of this essay can be found here; the essay is uncut here, but there you can find the whole bibliography, and results of the shorter surveys. What do you think? Does YA challenge or reinforce gendered stereotypes, or is it changing? Share your thoughts in the comments.

Does Young Adult Fiction challenge or reinforce gender stereotypes?

Introduction

Gender stereotypes invade every aspect of life. From the moment a child is born and pronounced a boy or a girl, they will have the trappings of gender thrust upon them.  However, by the time they are teenagers, they will have started questioning these, and many other things about the world around them.   Literature written for teenagers, also known as Young Adult literature (YA), addresses many issues such as grief, bullying, drugs, suicide and rape. However, in my years reading a wide range of books on the market, I have not found many books that prominently challenge gender stereotypes, unless it is one of the few with a main character on the transgender spectrum. I have also often thought about the more general representation of gender throughout YA-the characteristics, traits and ideas attached to characters of different genders. In my time as a book blogger, I have also grown to know the methods of marketing YA literature, and I am going to analyse these, and if and how gender plays a part in these.  Gender stereotypes are rife throughout all forms of media, not just young adult literature. But as teens question and explore life, and are influenced by the media they consume, the books they read challenging or reinforcing gender stereotypes will help form their ideas that will stick with them throughout their lives.

Mr. Gove, you are the UK's education secretary. Educate. #saveourbooks

It's no secret that I disagree with Michael Gove on the majority of the things he's doing. But his changes being made to the GCSE English Literature co
urse made me very very angry. Angry enough to write  a 650 word post on it. With footnotes.

---

Gove, Gove, Gove. Once again, I must ask: what are you doing? You’ve already played with GCSEs and A Levels to the point no teenager really understands fully what they're doing in the next part of their school years. And now you're changing the literature syllabus to remove important  non-British works from the classroom.

Such works include American classics like The Crucible,  To Kill A Mockingbird and Of Mice and Men, which is studied by 90% of students,[1] and works from other cultures like Purple Hibiscus and Follow the Rabbit Proof Fence.

These works are important. Not just because they’re works of literature that have stood the test of time. But because as well as being able to be studied and teach us about symbolism and metaphors and all other things you do when you study them for a literature course, they teach us about other cultures and themes.

Of Mice and Men’s themes include: power, privilege, friendship, racism, sexism, ageism, injustice, and prejudice. To Kill A Mockingbird’s themes include: racism, education, bravery, and justice. Both are set in cultures different to our own, but have themes and ideas that are timeless, and relevant to life today.

I understand that the main point of the English literature course is to develop analysis skills. But you can do that with many pieces of literature, regardless of where they originate from-look at my language notes for the start of Of Mice and Men.

You say that "If [exam boards] wish to include Steinbeck – whether it's Of Mice and Men or The Grapes of Wrath – no one would be more delighted than me, because I want children to read more widely and range more freely intellectually in every subject." [2]
The new plans  state that students should study “at least one play by Shakespeare, at least one 19th century novel, a selection of poetry since 1789, including representative Romantic poetry [and] fiction or drama from the British Isles from 1914 onwards” [3]. I can’t see Grapes of Wrath or Of Mice and Men fitting into any of those categories. No, your four guidelines don’t say you can’t study other things too, but two years to study these four things in depth, alongside multiple other subjects, means that exam boards will probably want to steer clear of piling extra things on students, meaning they will likely be excluded.

Britain is a multicultural country. We have students of all races and backgrounds studying the course, and we don’t need solely British Victorian viewpoints and ideas about poverty and romance, which is what the majority of Dickens and Austen is made up of.
Likewise, English is a multicultural language, spoken in most parts of the world either as a first or foreign language. It should not be surprising that quality literature written in English comes from all corners of the Earth. The study of world literature is important to broadening all our horizons.

Of course, British literature is important too. You know my love of Shakespeare, and works by Orwell and Huxley might go on the list to be studied, and some of these books are pretty good. But these aren't the easiest to understand and read and engage with. Difficulty levels really can put people off reading. One reason why 90% of students get taught Of Mice And Men is because it is short enough to be studied in depth, and the language is both  accessible to lower level students and good for analysis for higher level ones.

No, you’re not banning teenagers from reading these books. I get that these books will still be available to teens in bookshops and the dwindling number  libraries that are still going. But according to the Reading Agency, 46% teenagers don't read for pleasure [4] . For some, the books they read in school will be the only books they read at all. Shouldn't the few books these people read showcase experiences and ideas other than those of long-long dead people, and be able to teach us something about cultures and issues both historical and contemporary?  You are the secretary of state for education, Mr. Gove. Educate.

---

References
 1- BBC findings, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12829392 
 2- Guardian website, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/27/michael-gove-denies-ban-of-american-novels-from-gcse  
 3- The Department of Education’s document on GCSE English Literature
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/254498/GCSE_English_literature.pdfhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12829392 
 4- The Reading Agency http://readingagency.org.uk/news/reading-facts003 


To try and do something about it, there are a number of petitions. What are your thoughts on the changes to the GCSE?

Sex and Violence-the Age Appropriateness of Media

This weekend, two films I'm interested in seeing come out.

One features two girls falling in love  and go through all related experience, including having sex. One features twenty four people, most often teenagers, fighting to the death. The British Board of Film Classification will not allow me, a 16 year old, to see one. Guess which.

These two films are Blue is the Warmest Colour and Catching Fire. Blue has been awarded an 18, meaning strictly no under 18s, certificate, Catching Fire has a 12A, meaning 12 and overs get in unaccompanied and 11 and unders get in with an adult. I think  if you stripped both stories to their bare bones  and took them out of the book/film context, you might say some romance is more suitable. Why the difference between the two?

First, let's look at  the BBFC's reasons for each certificate.

Blue- Contains strong sex and very strong language.
Catching Fire- Contains moderate violence and threat, and infrequent strong language.

Put like that, I do think that Blue deserves a higher rating than Catching Fire. But is it necessary to give it the highest rating that they can?

Both are adaptations of printed media, one a graphic novel and one part of a bestselling trilogy. Blue is aimed at an adult audience, Catching Fire at a teenage one. I don't know exactly how explicit Blue is in graphic novel form (according to Caroline, "you see them but they're illustrations"), but I remember as a 13ish year old being woah at certain descriptions of people getting beaten up in The Hunger Games (even more so at Mockingjay. I had nightmares at the deaths in the tunnels of the Capitol).

 I think the main reason for the difference is the way directors decide to do things. Director Abdellatif Kechiche has, apparently made the sex scene in Blue very explicit, and the way he did so has prompted complaints from many people, including Julie Maroh, the original author. Director Francis Lawrence, I'm not sure how they're treating it, but remember the 7 seconds of footage that was cut from The Hunger Games to get it taken down to a 12? Those seven seconds were the "sight of blood splashes and sight of blood on wounds and weapons.”

If both films had been placed on equal terms of explicitness, say with Blue's sex scene  being cut to before and after, or maybe with closeups on wounds and deaths, would there still be a different rating for them? I think yes.

This society has grown a lot more accepting of violence than sex in media. Both are more common in society than say 50 years ago, but you won't see anyone hiding the fact that they have the latest edition of Call of Duty.

The whole point of censorship in this country, day and age is to protect children from seeing certain things. But why do we stop the viewing of a sex scene in a society inundated with sex? It's used as a selling point for so many things, that you can't go anywhere without it. Music videos, perfume adverts, the freely available adult images on the internet. This society can't be as shocked, or at least shocked enough to force change, about casual sexuality being everywhere, but when it's shown in a loving relationship, it's adults only.

Now let's look at violence. It's prevalent in, sometimes even the basis of, many fictional products. A lot of film's climaxes are giant fight scenes. In the case of The Hunger Games, people are killing each other while people watch, cheer and bet on the winner.

Don't get me wrong, I am  against the idea of younger young people having to be exposed to explicit material without proper education surrounding it, but surely more mature teens can handle it?

Children and teenagers are good at self censoring. If they don't feel comfortable with seeing or reading things, then they won't. This goes for content of all types.

I don't see the point of age ratings because everyone will take everything differently. I also don't see why one day, when you see 17, you can’t do things and a day later you turn 18 and you can. You don't get a magical dose of maturity with each birthday. But I do see why we have them because we need to draw a line somewhere. I prefer content warnings and recommendations from trusted sources to decide what is suitable for me, and that's why I like the fact that books, while having general warnings like "not suitable for younger readers" but no set limits, instead of saying you can’t access something  until you’re a certain age.

The Hunger Games is a great series. I love the commentary on divides in society, on what's held up as entertainment, and the general actionfilledness of the films and books. And you’ll find young people, mainly young queer women, who would enjoy and provably benefit from seeing Blue is the Warmest Colour and the honest presentation of lesbianism, at least in the non-sexual bits. But they don't even have the chance to go and see it.
Because some people have decided that one long sex scene is more inappropriate than glorified violence. People have decided on the morals coming through to society and have decided what is suitable for the young people of today. These people have decided to not let the young people experiment and decide for themselves what is suitable for them, something which would  ultimately make them a more mature person. 

Erasure in Literature

This was meant to be long and eloquent. It stopped being so after the second paragraph. Enjoy.

 Representation has gotten better over the years (I'll do a post about that towards the end of the event) but we've still got a long way to come in terms of full representation of the queer com


Gayya.org has a long list of book featuring LGBTQ characters. This list is helpfully sorted out by whether the characters are gay, lesbian, or other. According to Word bullet numbering, there are 108 with gay male characters, 37 with lesbian characters and 12 with trans or otherwise queer chararacters (bisexual characters are included by gender of them and who they endup with). Nearly 3/4 for gay males. 23% for lesbian. 8% for trans and otherwise queercharacters. Literature doesn't feature that many representations of queer characters that aren't attracted to someone of the same gender.

It also doesn't feature many characters who are not attracted to anyone. I can think of one book with a confirmed asexual character, and that's only because I looked it up in general research for this event.

Same goes for genderqueer/non-binary characters.

When we do get queer characters, there's a distinct lack of of people of colour. Sure, we get some, like Magnus from The Infernal Devices/The Mortal Instruments, the main characters of Aristotle and Dante Discover the Secrets of the Universe and Kitty from Hollow Pike. But queer representation in teen lit, heck, queer representation in most mainstream literature, is predominantly white, and this needs to change.

Literature doesn't seem to get that being gay and being trans are not exclusive.

Don't get me started on queer erasure in fandom.

Bisexual people don't get that much representation, and when they get it, they get lumped by gender. Even London's only LGBT specialist bookshop, Gay's The Word, doesn't have a specific bisexual section.

According to this tumblr "Random House uses “Gay and Lesbian”, HarperCollins uses “Gay Studies” and “Gay and Lesbian Fiction”, Macmillan uses “Gay and Lesbian Studies”, Simon and Schuster uses “Gay and Lesbian”," (credit here to fuckyeahlesbianliterature), which, while I'm glad means that B and T people don't waste time looking there for things relating to them where they're not there in the LGBT tag, pretty much sums up the lack of full queer representation.

So, yes. This has been me summarizing what I haven't seen in queer lit. I haven't read every single book featuring queer characters (and I don't intend to), but of the selection I have, and of what a non-detailed google search tells me, there are some key things that we're missing.

Q&A-Negative Portrayals

Hello! Today, we're discussing negative portrayals of the queer community, ie h

ow it has been shown badly, and  how some of it isn't shown at all.

Big thanks to today's contributers: Suzanne van Rooyen,  Zoe Marriott, Charlie Morris, Illjolras, Sean Cummings, Ashley Chunell,  Ria Bridges, Alfie, James Dawson, Rie, Caitlin,  Megan, M from We Sat Down,  and Harriet.

Do you think any part of the LGBTQIA gets overlooked/subject to erasure?

Suzanne: Hm... Having not read all of the LGBTQIA books available, this is impossible to answer. I'm sure there are aspects that are not as well examined as others. Perhaps it's more about a lack of balance, where most stories tend to focus on the discovery of sexuality and the coming out process, especially in teen fiction.

James: I think trans characters are very overlooked. I wonder, at this stage, if writers feel any book with trans characters would have to be ABOUT being trans. I think authors worry both about getting it right and angry internet people.

Ria: Absolutely. Asexuals and agendered people get overlooked all the time. That's been slowly changing, and work is being done to legitimize those identities, but if a positive gay role model is rare in teen fiction, then a positive asexual or agendered role model is rarer still. I can think of only 1 single asexual character in teen fiction (at least none where their asexuality isn't explained away as being due to religion or trauma), and I can't think of any agendered characters.

Alfie: Yep. Our actual thought processes, not being accepted by everyone. It generally tends to be shoved to the side in favour of ""WOO LESBIAN SECKS And while I have no problem with sex in fiction, don't use an LGBTQIA character for the pure sexual aspect of it."

Zoë: My personal feeling is that transgender and genderfluid/genderqueer kids are getting a bum deal right now. For some reason gender binaries seem to have become a bit of a frontier in the portrayal of non-hetero characters. People who seem perfectly fine with a mainstream portrayal of gay and lesbian characters will get squirmy over the idea that gender in our culture is a largely artificial construct (there is no pink gene on the X-chromosome, dammit!). But I also think that bi/pansexual kids and asexual kids aren't seeing the representation they need, either. Like I said above, we still have a long way to go.

Rie: Intersex and Asexual, both seem to be completely ignored.

Sean: That depends on the whims of the editor.

Caitlin: I'd say LGBT gets a lot more coverage than the QIA side, maybe because people feel more comfortable writing about it? Maybe I just haven't been reading the right books? This is why I am very much looking forward to your event, Nina!

Megan: I think gay/lesbian/bisexual gets covered quite a lot.  Definitely more than before.  The others...  Not as much really.  That I know of, anyway.

Charlie : I cannot name a book that features an asexual character, except maybe Struck By Lightning by Chris Colfer (Carson Philips has an intellectual crush on Rachel Maddow, but is otherwise more interested in pursuing his career.)

Illjolras: Anything but gay, white, cismen or lesbian, white, cis women. Writers act like there's no such thing as bisexual, nonbinary, asexuals, pansexuals,trans*, more than one way to be lesbian etc.

Have you ever had issues with the way LGBTQIA characters (in general or in a particular book) have been presented?

Suzanne: Not really because I'm quite picky when it comes to what I read. I have been mildly annoyed by certain gay characters being presented as super emotional to the point of melodrama as this is borderline stereotyping. I'm also saddened by books where the futuristic world is shown as open and accepting, even encouraging, of same-sex couples and yet, the main character remains hetero and only ever engages in a hetero relationship despite almost every other character around her being bi or homosexual.

Me: I don’t like the fact that LGB peoples’ sexualities are, unless they’re the main character, often their defining feature.

Ria: Mostly in that books involving LGBTQIA characters often completely centre around the character's sexuality, giving the impression that that's all there really is to someone. I won't deny that seeking validation and acceptance is a big part of coming to grips with your own identity, especially when you've got bigots bellowing at you that you're wrong for being who you are. But that isn't the only thing that matters. And currently, most fiction doesn't express that well. A single issue has been focused on to the exclusion of so much else, and it does some people a disservice.

Alfie: I can't think of any specific books presently, but it's generally the points I outlined previously.

Rie: The Immortals series by Alyson Noel has one of the most stereotypical gay characters I have ever read.

Ashley: I do think there has been a lot of stereotyping, but from shows I've watched with gay characters, I think they've mostly always been presented well.

M:no

Caitlin: Not that I can think of off the top of my head no. Which, I guess, is a good thing?

Megan: "I feel sometimes guy-friends are made gay to support a plotline: like, their sexuality is just a convenient way of getting rid of a love triangle, rather than the boy feeling actually like they are real. 

Also there can be stereotypes, as mentioned earlier, and I hate this."

Charlie: Yes, I think sometimes writers have one viewpoint they are trying to put forward and they forget to look at the bigger picture. If characters are casual insulting other marginalised people in the LGBTQIA spectrum who might be reading the books, then that is counterproductive (unless their prejudices are part of the narrative intent.)

Illjolras:Yes, plenty of times. The gay best friend trope is so over used and so easily ruined.

Harriet: no, not at all.

So...a wide range of answers for the second question, a smaller one for the first. What are your opinions on these topics? 

Q&A-The Writers' Edition

Hello! For today's  Q&A for Rainbow Reads, it's the invasion of the writers!. Ok, you’ll have seen some of these answers already from them being posted in their own interview, but I put everyone’s answers  in the collection of answers and I don’t have the patience to go throug

h them. Anyway, I think it’s good you’ve got everyone’s answers in one place.

Today we have Suzanne van Rooyen, Daniel Kaine, Zoe Marriott,  Charlie Morris, Illjolras, Sean Cummings, Ashley Chunell, Laura Lam and Ria Bridges. Enjoy!

How do you avoid sterotypes when writing?

Suzanne: I try to be as authentic as possible in my characterization. I'm quite an odd person and have had the privilege and delight of interacting and befriending many colourful characters throughout my life that do not conform to stereotypes. Drawing from these experiences and being conscious of how stereotypes are used in fiction, has helped me to avoid them. I like to buck expectations so every time I've got characters that need to behave a certain way, I try to put less likely individuals into those roles.

Daniel: Being gay, bi, straight, or anything in between, shouldn’t define the character, it should just be another part to them. Every character should be their own individual, regardless of their sexuality and whether or not they fit any of the stereotypes. For that reason, sexuality is the last thing I decide when creating my characters.

Zoë: Stereotypes are basically a result of a lack of knowledge. They're a product of only having One Story about what gay or transgender or genderfluid means; the fact that really no one in our culture gets a fair and nuanced representation in media apart from straight, white, cis-gendered, able-bodied males. So the first step in avoiding stereotypes and one dimensional or offensive portrayals is to learn. Read books, watch films, seek out TV programmes that portray all kinds of different QUILTBAG people doing all kinds of different things, like falling in love, conquering strange planets, solving crimes, making funny YouTube videos. Seek out and join groups that seek to promote allyship among different groups. Talk to people in real life and online. *See* people. See people as people first and whatever other labels are attached to them later, not even second, but way down the list after their taste in books and whether they're, you know, annoying or maybe a Linkin' Park fan...

Illjolras: I just write them as people, not a serious of boxes that need ticking to make up a queer character.

Charlie: Research, ask people, think.

Sean: I think avoiding stereotypes is something authors try to do but it's very hard unless you've walked a mile in someone's shoes.

Ashley: While writing my two main characters in "A Melody in Harmony," I completely stayed away from stereotyping and it was easy. I didn't think of the characters as "two gay men," I thought of them as two young men in a relationship and just like any other couple.

Ria: It's hard. I kind of believe that some stereotypes exist for a reason. Not in that every gay male is flaming, for example, but let's be honest -- some are. So if I write a character who's like that, it comes across as me believing that every gay male acts that way, when that's a skewed perception. So it's very difficult. It's almost gotten to the point where the opposite of many stereotypes have become stereotypes in themselves (e.g., the gay jock as a contrast to the effeminate man). The only thing I can do is write the characters as they come to me, try to be fair and balanced in my presentation, and hope for the best.

Do you feel you accurately represent LGBTQIA people in your writing?

Ria: I feel that I'm doing it as accurately as I can, based on my own personal experience. But then again, I'm sure people who are badly representing LBTQIA characters feel the exact same way - writers don't set out to write badly."

Ashley: I hope I do. It's all about love. Writing the love my two main characters share, I think I did it justice.

Sean: Not yet I don't as I haven't written one. Actually scratch that, I am .. but it's not supernatural

Illjolras: I feel like yes, but that's because I am queer.

Suzanne: I accurately represent the characters I'm creating and try to be as authentic as possible in those representations. I don't try to represent any subgroup, be that race, religion or sexual identity. Some of my characters might accurately represent LGBTQIA people, others might not simply because they're oddities themselves and that's okay because diversity in real life is something to celebrate.

Zoë: I feel that I do. I hope that I do. I'm not sure how 'accurate' is really defined though. It's not like... I don't know, say, 'accuracy' in your depiction of playing the violin. If you show someone doing it with a hammer rather than a bow, you've got it wrong. I don't think there's a right or a wrong answer if you're presenting readers with what are hopefully complex, fully-realised characters. I'm mostly concerned with making readers love the characters I want them to love, hate the characters that I want them to hate, and with making all my characters seem like evolving people. I do try to be aware of stereotypical or negative portrayals of marginalised groups in the media so that I can avoid adding to them,

Have you ever gotten homophobic, transphobic or otherwise negative reactions regarding your inclusion of LGBTQIA characters? How did you deal with it?

James: I honestly haven't had any negative feedback about Kitty and Delilah. Ryan, in Cruel Summer, is the main character so it'll be interesting to see what reaction he gets. Personally I've had homophobic messages on my Facebook fan page - I suppose given how open I am about my sexuality it was only a matter of time. Rest assured, I won't be deterred.

Laura:  So far, there's been no homophobic outcry in response to Pantomime, and I think that's surprised some people. Though I might have gone and jinxed myself now by saying that. In fact, the only controversy has been some people wishing the blurb was more open about the intersex nature of the protagonist. I think that's great.

Suzanne: No, thankfully. What I have noticed, which serious irked me, is that some reviewers put 'warnings' on their reviews for LGBT content. They didn't warn people that my book contained bad language, violence, underage drinking, or depictions of self-harm and suicide. No, the big bad thing about my book was the LGBT content which included an alluded to blowjob and some kissing. This offended me. I wanted to edit every single review I'd ever written and put 'WARNING: Main character is straight. Avoid if that's not your thing* - See how ridiculous that looks? So why 'warn' people of LGBT content? I really thought we'd be past this by now.

Illjolras: Someone said I was trying too hard to be diverse when a story I wrote had very few straight characters. I said 'so?'

Ashley: "A Melody in Harmony" is brand new, so I haven't yet, but a lot of the bigotry and homophobic remarks that appear in my novel are actually things that I have witnessed in real life. I decided to take the hate and ignorance and bigotry that I've seen and put it into my story, which I think makes it all the more realistic.

Ria: Most of what I write hasn't seen public eye. But what little has has generally been well-received. I'm lucky in that regard. I have, however, received negative reactions based on my own identity when it comes to sexuality and gender expression. I don't delude myself into thinking that people will avoid negative comments on what I write when they won't avoid it on what I am.

Zoë: Apart from a couple of reviews on blogs or Goodreads (which did make me fuming mad, but obviously weren't directed at *me*), no. I thought that I would, and braced myself for it, but it hasn't happened yet. I think that, in a way, being a midlist author with a quite small but devoted group of readers is an advantage in that way.

Yet another set of fantastic answers from a wide range of authors. As always, please comment with your thoughts and remember our multiple giveaways. 

Q&A-Main Characters vs Secondary Characters in LGBT fiction

Hello people! Continuing with the discussion on presentation, I asked people

Do you think LGBTQIA characters are presented as well as they are when they are main characters, when they are secondary characters?

Here are their responses.

Suzanne: Main characters tend to be more three dimensional and more fleshed out just because they're main characters and the author takes more time getting into their head and presenting their various traits to the reader. From what I've read, LGBTQIA main characters are treated better and are less inclined towards stereotype than secondary characters that often conform to a certain archetype or simply fulfill a role required for the trope.

Ria: When they happen, I think they can happen well. But they're not as likely to happen. It's far more common to see a straight protagist with a gay best friend and sidekick, for example, than it is to see a gay protagonist.

LH: There's a difficulty in using sexuality as a defining character for a secondary character, because due to their 'secondary' status, that's all the time they have to make an impact. I do think though that with the shift in children's / YA literature over these past few year, you've got more and more authors writing with an increased awareness of what they're doing and what they're creating and that can only be a good thing.

Alfie: Too much emphasis is put on the sexual aspect of the characters.

Rie: No, usually when they are main characters they are portrayed in a realistic fashion. When they are secondary characters they are a joke, a plot device, or a stereotypical version of themselves.

Sean: Again, that depends on how familiar the author is with his/her subject matter.

M: I don't think I've read a teen novel where they are main characters (though I know these books exist).

Caitlin: I'd like to think so. Most of the recent books I've read have featured them more as secondary characters. I just like my characters to be well-rounded regardless of whether they are main or secondary, and being LGBTQIA features as part of that.

Megan: I think so.  Normally, anyway.  Except for when the secondary character is a guy and the lead character is a girl and the boy is gay.   Then it seems like it's just making the best friend gay to avoid a love triangle, something I think is wrong...

Charlie M: No, unfortunately some times they are more stereotypical. However in Cassandra Clare's Mortal Instruments series, Bane is particularly well represented and appears initially as a secondary character. Authors should take care to make their secondary characters well rounded individuals, or have editors pick up on stereotyping.

Illjolras: No, their usually very exploitative, act like conforming to some stereotypes is bad, and almost tries to downplay the character's queerness.

Harriet: "Every character is presented in a different way, it doesn't matter if they are first or second characters.
In any novel, the protagonists of the story normally get the lime light, because you're following their story. If it was a book about the second character, they'll automatically become the protagonist of the story.
If the protagonist of the story is LGBTQIA then more detail will be put into their character. If the protagonist is not a LGBTQIA, then their character will have an equal amount of detail, as well. However if the LGBTQIA person is the second character, naturally there will less effort put into making and developing that character, unless you're going to continue the story as a series and have a book from the LGBTQIA point of view - thus you'll have a LGBTQIA protagonist and it goes back to what I was saying before."


A great range of answers from everyone. Please add your comments below, and remember that each comment is an extra entry in the giveaway.
Also, because this is a short post, you'll get another short post later.

Q&A- Stereotypes in LGBTQIA fiction

So. Yes. Question and answer time, because fabulous people answered so well that their answers won’t fit in with my posts. These posts are only edited for spelling and profanity, otherwise, these are exactly what people think. Please share your comments, and remember you could win some awesome books!

Today’s question: How prevalent are stereotypes in LGBTQIA fiction?

Suzanne: In general? I think many gay characters have, in the past, been token sidekicks, like the gay best friend who makes a great shopping partner and helps the female lead pick shoes for a date. I think fiction has also had the tendency to present LGBTQIA characters as confused and intrinsically unhappy in life. I've also seen lesbians portrayed as man haters, as women hurt or abused and therefore turned off men, instead of these women simply loving other women. Time and again, I've seen gay, lesbian and bi characters presented as promiscuous, more promiscuous than straight people, which is just ridiculous.

Harriet:"In my opinion, the term 'stereotype' belongs as a cheat code to describe what something or a type of group is like. For example, if I were to say 'Goth', we'd all get an image of a person dressed all in black, with black make-up on and sat in a dark corner (and so forth.)
Stereotypes belong because the human race (generalising) ignore the fact that they can describe each person as being different and not in a sub group.
We also only use stereotypes because it is easier to identify the character and portray them.
You can look on at the term as a cheat code or a derogatory word, either choice we all know that everyone knows that not everyone is like their stereotype.
I believe, because I have this opinion, that others have this opinion too.
Now, I haven't read every LGBTQIA fiction under the sun but I do believe that not everyone is going to portray a character the same. Therefore, stereotypes are prevalent."

Illjolras:"Very. Usually the side characters are gay, and if that's so, they're very camp and flamboyant. If it's a main POV character, they are always closeted until they fall for just that /one/ person."

Charlie M: I think some stereotypes are prevalent, but am hesitant to say that those stereotypes shouldn't be represented (theatrical gay guys exist after all). But there should be MORE fiction that contains a variety of personality types and interests. Sexuality shouldn't define those interests or restrict them.

Megan: "I think we're definitely going away from the stereotypes now - not all gay men are overly feminine and not all lesbians are 'butch' or whatever.  Something I think is stupid: it's not like all people who are LGBTQIA are the same person - they don't all have the same, stereotyped personalities and likes!  Everyone avoids stereotypes when writing heterosexual people so why don't they do the same when they're writing gay people?!
Sorry for the rant.  It annoys me when people judge.
Anyway, my point is that we're getting away from stereotypes.  Now LGBTQIA are 'normal' - unique and their own person, rather than a bunch of stupid stereotypes."

Caitlin: I honestly couldn't say, I guess, when you have people writing about them who don't really know...there might be some stereotypes? But then, there are always stereotypes in fiction? Most of the things I've read I wouldn't class as being stereotypical.

M: Not sure because I don't go out of my way to read this. I avoid 'romance' as a genre and this might be where they pop up in storylines? But, I have noticed that LGetc. characters pop up more in current teen fiction than when I was younger, albeit as secondary (or even tertiary) characters.

Sean: I suspect the stereotypes are quite real because some authors aren't intimately involved in the reality of life for LGBTQIA teens.

Rie: Very. Every time I read a secondary character that is gay they are always as flamboyant as can be. It's become an immediate groan when they introduce gay characters.

Alfie: Very prevalent in shi-- sorry, worse books, but after all, they are the bad books. Unfortunately, most LGBTQIA fiction is badly written, because it's often very badly-written smut. Or at least, what I've been exposed to has been badly-written smut.

Ria: Hard to say. Less prevalent than years ago, as greater exposure and media coverage doesn't allow for blatant negative stereotyping as much anymore. That being said, we're not completely free of stereotypes, partly because the stereotypes are so numerous in themselves, and partly because some writers aren't quite sure how to not write a stereotype.

You can see (mostly) my thoughts on the matter here, but they’re essentially that the camp stereotype is overplayed,   but we’re getting better and more varied representation now. What are your thoughts on the matter? 

Discussion post: Presentation of LGB characters

Hello and welcome to the first of our discussion posts. I thought a lot

 about how to present this, but in the end, I settled on raising a question/topic, giving my thoughts, and quoting other people as we go along, when they fit. Then, there’ll be a Q&A post, with everybody’s response to the questions I set, with no comment from me. I hope this format gets across everybody's views, and interests you.

So, the first one is about how LGB people are currently presented in YA lit. 

Stereotypes are everywhere, and this is true for every demographic of everything.  They’re set in people’s minds, and it’s really hard to avoid them. TV Tropes has a lot of lists of tropes, or conventions, revolving around the LGBTQ community in general and bisexuality and gender bending. A quick look over, I’d guess that about a third of these are very common stereotypes, in general or in YA literature.

I asked about bad presentations of LGBT people in literature. I’m really glad that most people couldn’t think of specific examples, because it means that there can’t be that many in prominent literature. Of course, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t some, because there almost certainly will be, but still. 

There are some certain stereotypes that come through particularly. Suzanne says “I have been mildly annoyed by certain gay characters being presented as super emotional to the point of melodrama as this is borderline stereotyping.” Charlie says “Usually the side characters are gay, and if that's so, they're very camp and flamboyant. If it's a main POV character, they are always closeted until they fall for just that one  person. The gay best friend trope is so over used and so easily ruined.” I’ve seen a couple of times in teen fiction the “all gays are promiscuous” , but the one I see most is the “camp best friend” one.

The thing that often gets me when reading LGB fic is that sexuality is the one of the  first things presented about a character. In very explicit terms. For example, Boy Meets Boy, there’s chapter 2 which says “Paul is definitely gay”, and then in other books  that I don’t have to hand there’s things to that effect. And I don’t mind that so much, but the fact that it’s presented as a defining thing. Sexuality does not define a person. I’m sure for any character introduced this way, you can find a much more interesting thing about them than the gender of who they fall in love with.

That presenting first of sexuality, I find, comes across mainly when the person in question is a  secondary character (by secondary, I mean not the main one, nor the POV).  I get that secondary characters don’t need quite the detail of a main one, but my thoughts are put  nicely by Rie as “usually when they are main characters they are portrayed in a realistic fashion. When they are secondary characters they are a joke, a plot device, or a stereotypical version of themselves.”

Overall, whether a character is main or secondary, sexuality is often one of the facets of them that is most focused on. I understand the reasoning for this when a book is generally about this, ie a coming out story, but for when it isn’t the plot, I don’t see why. Luckily, we’re moving away from this slightly, and I hope representation will continue to improve in the future. 

Spoilers, Sweetie -Embracing My Inner Geek

The week off has been so useful! I have written a few reviews and read and come up with some story ideas. I have also been using Memrise, a website that is stupidly useful for learning vocabulary and things, to a point of addiction, mainly because there's a leaderboard feature and I plan to beat Katy at all of it. And she plans to beat me. It's excellent motivation!

I'll do a post or two a week while my heavy revision happens. Email replies will be slow but
will happen in time.  I'm planning the Rainbow Reads (LGBTQIAetc) event, and have some ideas-if you have any or would like to be included when I email things out, please share them in comments/emails. 


Anyway, it's Lucy the Reader/Queen of Contemporary's blogoversary week, and she asked us all to make an Embracing My Inner Geek post. I am totally in favour of this being a full on meme, by the way. It might actually make me write a discussion post. So, for the first feature, I'm talking about...well, you can tell. This was totally not an excuse for having a picture of River Song on my blog. Ok, maybe. Onwards.

---

Stories are great. They should grip you from the beginning and hold you until the end. And often they do. And so your friend wants to share their love of this thing, and you're listening and thinking "this is rather good" and getting into it and.... ARGH. They've given away an important plot twist! SPOILERS!!!

So, what's the problem with spoilers? There's a difference between knowing and ending to a story because you've read it and loved it, and knowing the the ending to a story because someone told you. Going into a story knowing what happens, who survives, who doesn't, takes away a little of the thrill of the ride, the suspense, the terror, the anticipation. 

I try and avoid sharing spoilers as much as possible. I think it's a simple courteousy to anyone who hasn't enjoyed the story and  wants to. If I enjoyed it for it's twists and turns, and then told someone all these twists and turns, then they can't enjoy the story for its twists and turns because they won't be a surprise.


I know some people like knowing endings to books. There's a feature,  Happily Ever Endings by Down the Rabbit Hole, devoted to them-more for the purpose of  refreshing before book 2, but if you stumble across it by accident, you may ruin a book (I'm NOT saying there's anything wrong with this feature. It's extremely useful. Go check it out. But be careful). And  some things are just so well known that it's not a spoiler, more common knowledge.


Sometimes, spoilers are really really hard to keep. Or hard to determine whether or not they're a spoiler. Or are from older sources so more people may have heard of them. Marking a spoiler is tricky in certain cases, and I for one feel bad if I accidentally spill  a plot twist.

What if it's the catalyst for the main events? For example, something in Will Grayson Will Grayson regarding Will's boyfriend that he has been chatting to online. Does it count if it gets the rest of the plot going?  I'd say yes, particularly in this example as it was kind of important to Will's self esteem/mental health/happiness and marked a kind of turn for him.

Plot twists- if it happens early enough, I'd say that it isn't a spoiler.  For example, I found an angry person complaining about being told about someone's death in Supernatural. Said death happened in the first few minutes of the first ever episode. It was not a spoiler in any way, and was really amusing seeing that person getting worked up about it. My general feeling is if it happens within the first 10% of the novel/story, it's fair game, if it's an addition to the plot such as a character or subplot opening, say it, if it's something that made you go "whoa. What. That was unexpected", it's a spoiler.

Age of source comes into it aswell. Aiden Turner was being interviewed about his role in the Hobbit as Kili, and someone asked him "have you got any spoilers for film two, that you're filming now?" His response went along the lines of "It was written in 1937. There'
s not much to spoil." And I get where he's coming from. Things that have been around for such a long time may have seeped into common knowledge, and if they havent, have existed long enough for you to get your hands on it. Sarah and I have a rule- no spoilers on anything that's older than 50 years.

The only rule that I think everyone should keep is TAG YOUR SPOILERS. That way, you can say what you want, and those who want to know things can, and those who don't want to know can walk away. That way everyone's happy.  

So, yeah.  That's a basic sum up of my spoiler rules. If it's old, early, or not that surprising, then it's not a spoiler. If it's something surprising to you,  it is  a spoiler, so either keep it quiet or tag it.  I hope that helped, Sweetie.

---

The Beauty of Covers in YA

So, last week, The Book Smugglers did the cover reveal for The City's Son, US version. My thoughts- YAY! Pen :) Yay-her scars :)  And then I thought, why aren't there many scars/unconventially beautiful people on covers? We've already had this discussion with whitewashing, but I thought it would be interesting to bring up a different issue.

Body image and self esteem is an important topic.
I believe that everyone should be proud of what they look like, and not worry about weight, blemishes etc. But there's a lot of people who feel insecure about their looks, society  does not help by promoting that beauty=key to getting partner=happiness, and I'm wondering if YA book covers are doing anything to help.

I've been asking the internet about books with main characters  who don't typically conform to society's  standards of beauty, and I have a list. Thank you people! (You're all listed at the bottom). With the covers, I take either the one I've seen most often in the UK or the first one that came up in Google Images.

So what happens with books with main characters who aren't typically beautiful?

1. Publishers get it right. They get portrayed accurately.

The City's Son by Tom Pollock.	Mortal Instruments by Philip Reeve.

2. They get shown in shadow, they're covered up, or you see the character but you can't tell that they don't fit society's ideals. 

Jepp Who Defied the Stars by Katherine Marsh. I've been told that  the main character is a dwarf, but the lack of scenery gives you nothing to compare him to.	The Days of Judy B by Rose Heiney. I believe the issue here is weight. The skirt and hand could be anyone.
Black Heart Blue by Louisa Reid. Rebecca, the sister with Treacher Collins Syndrome, is in shadow.	Henry Franks by Peter Adam Salomon. Henry has a lot of scars for reasons you'll find out, and the cover hints at this, but doesn't make it clear.
North of Beautiful by Justina Chen Headly. Terra has a large birthmark on her cheek.	Pushing the Limits by Katie McGarry. After the incident, Echo has scars up and down her arms.
Girl of Fire and Thorns by Rae Carlson. Not only this an example of whitewashing, you don't get a full picture of Elisa.	Shark Girl by Kelly Bingham. Jane's attack meant that her right arm was amputated, we only see her left here.
Skin Deep by Laura Jarrat. Jenna is in a car crash that leaves her face scarred. These have magically disappeared (I doubt that a car crash would leave scars on just one side. Correct me if I'm wrong)	The Duff by Kody Keplinger. Bianca gets called the Designated Ugly Fat Friend, and her esteem suffers as a result.
Sisters Red by Jackson Pearce. Scarlett is scarred and missing an eye.	Wonder by RJ Palacio. The big one. August has a facial deformity. This cover doesn't really say that he's deformed, and doesn't say he isn't.

3. Symbols or  other abstract things are used on the cover, and the character isn't depicted at all.

The Fault in Our Stars by John Green. Hazel's cancer visibly takes its toll and Augustus had his leg amputated.	Fat Vampire by Adam Rex. I'm assuming that weight's the issue here.
Pure by Julianna Baggott. Apparently, it's full of scarred characters.

So why is this done? It may be for practicality reasons-obtaining models etc. It may be because it is just better for the book-Black Heart Blue and Henry Franks both have covers that suit them. But the reason those who are less than ideal-looking aren't shown on covers is:  Publishers or cover designers don't think that they'll sell. It may not be that person's personal view. It probably isn't.

 But it is society's. Magazines aimed at teen girls are often full of tips to look better, clothes and makeup pages-sometimes for other people's benefit. I have nothing against looking good, and taking pride in your appearance. But we're being the sold the message that those who don't look "perfect" won't get anywhere. And this leads to problems in people's psych, lead them to feeling worthless.

School's might try and help. At mine an all girl's school. I think we get (the same) talks in years 7,9,10, or around age 12 and then again 13-15.  Other girls  get less than this. The sample of the few teenage boys I know tell me that they don't get this at all.

Stories are an important part in people's lives. They have the power to take your to another world and to change your thinking, your ideology. Teenagers are easily impressable.

So what kind of message are we getting when the majority of covers try to avoid the fact that they are centred around someone who isn't traditionally picture perfect?

---

Thank you to: Laura Ferguson, Cait from The Cait Files, Cicely Loves Books, Laure Eve, Jace McCoy, Kim Curran, Ellie from Curiosity Killed The Bookworm, Tom Pollock, Clover from Fluttering Butterflies, Keris from UKYA, Melissa Maria, Sean Cummings,Laura Sister Spooky, Philip Reeve, Lucy  Queen of Contemporary, Rhys from Fiction Thirst, Bella/Cheezyfeet,  Caroline from Portrait of Woman, Emily datawesomeunicorn, Faye, Cara, and Sarah mindspiel for giving me different viewpoints, suggesting awesome books and making my tbr list grow.

PS. This post should not have taken five hours to put together. It did. XD Please comment!