I am guessing the phrase "homosexual behaviour has no place on Star Wars" clearly outlines Steve's views.

Oh sure, I'll admit that it doesn't look good, but being the eternal optimist, I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong.

I'll try that one day! Sounds like a great position to be in mentally.

Well he has yet to clarify. If his position is heterosexual is okay while homosexual is not then I vehemently disagree.

It seems to me if you're wanting to advocate tolerance you ought to practice it lest you paint yourself a hypocrite.

This is really just an artefact of the way something is phrased: that if someone is tolerant they must tolerate other people's intolerance. But really our position is that we are in favour of universal tolerance. Phrased correctly there is no hypocrisy in deriding its lack in other people. There is a qualitative difference between judging someone based on their sexuality and judging someone for how they treat others.

I again have no issue with LGBT characters being included in any genre, but in general regardless of the particular 'group' if it's done in an obvious shameless attempt to grab some free PC points, that's usually a good sign it's bad art and the artist is replacing real talent and vision with controversy.

See my problem with this is not that it's wrong absolutely but that the book isn't even out yet, the book hasn't been promoted based on this - it's just something that someone got wind of and wrote a short blog post about. So why would you assume or imply that this should be the case? Just raising it with no evidence at all, suggests one thinks that a character being a lesbian traces its origins to such a cause. When the point everyone else is making is that there is no special reason needed to make a character gay.

Hey, does this mean the planet Transexual is canon now?

Oh hang on, nevermind, that's FOX.

There is, however another issue. It has already been pointed out, but it bears repeating, and broadening.

Who cares which way people, or fictional characters swing? SW characters have always been Disney-fied, kiss-kiss-I love-you-I know-children pop up in the next book. Huh? But now suddenly it is interesting, and I think the reason for this is less than fantastic. Pure marketing. Yes, I know that it wasn't announced officially that there was going to be a lesbian character in the book, and that some reviewer found out and blogged it. But let's be honest, it is a marketing stunt like so many others before. And that I don't like. One could even claim that it is a depreciative of the lgbt communtiy. I won't start that one here.

Before everyone starts telling me that "the author has already stated that that is how he saw the character" and so on, here is how I see it: (and, yes, I may be wrong, this is just what I see)

Tarkin is published. In it we are treated to the emperor's first name for the first time ever! Before publication some blogger picks up on this and money is saved on advertising, the internet does it for the company.

Heir to the Jedi is published. In it we hear, for the first time ever, that Luke had a different colour lightsaber or some such. (please correct me if I am wrong, i haven't read he book) Before publication some blogger picks up on this...

Lords of the Sith is published. In it we are introduced to the first open lgbt character in SW. Before publication some blogger picks up on this...

The next SW book is released, and my guess is it will contain one thing that puts it apart from earlier SW works. Before publication some blogger picks up on this...

It seems to be the age old, tried and tested marketing scheme of hiding something in plain sight, and letting the internet do the work for you. Not really anything wrong with that, except it doesn't necessarily mean we get quality books, and I can't help but find that using homosexuality as a selling point seems a bit derogatory.

Its Bullcrap, stop sexualizing and politicizing everything! Homosexual behavior has no place in Star Wars!

Well, that took a while, but I guess every neighbourhood gets its moron...

So explain why it's ok for you to label him and call him names if you're promoting an issue where you don't want someone labeled and called names? It may lead to group adoration from people that agree with you but it certainly doesn't further an agenda. It's more or less valueless if you're actually trying to open eyes and broaden horizons. It seems to me if you're wanting to advocate tolerance you ought to practice it lest you paint yourself a hypocrite.

I again have no issue with LGBT characters being included in any genre, but in general regardless of the particular 'group' if it's done in an obvious shameless attempt to grab some free PC points, that's usually a good sign it's bad art and the artist is replacing real talent and vision with controversy.

Let's replace LGBT with black. Would you still consider me calling him a moron hypocritical? Frankly I am sick and tired of people asking others to be tolerant of utter intolerance and I will never stoop so low. The rest of your post? I have no idea, it seems like speculation just for the heck of it and I'll cross that bridge when we find it.

Warning - can of worms opening in 3. . . .2. . . .1 . . . .

Its Bullcrap, stop sexualizing and politicizing everything! Homosexual behavior has no place in Star Wars!

Well, that took a while, but I guess every neighbourhood gets its moron...

So explain why it's ok for you to label him and call him names if you're promoting an issue where you don't want someone labeled and called names? It may lead to group adoration from people that agree with you but it certainly doesn't further an agenda. It's more or less valueless if you're actually trying to open eyes and broaden horizons. It seems to me if you're wanting to advocate tolerance you ought to practice it lest you paint yourself a hypocrite.

The key difference is that tolerance for bigotry* is a load of crap - any right minded, compassionate person SHOULD hate bigots. If hating the klan or neo nazis or the black panthers or any other subset of people who are actively trying suppress the rights and freedoms of others makes me a hypocrite, then I gladly embrace it, because that s#it is just plain wrong.

* This is assuming that Steve is coming from a place of bigotry - which I freely admit may very well not be the case. But for the sake of argument, we'll discuss the Bigger Picture beyond just this one post.

But he didn't say "homosexual" he said "homesexual behaviour", and he did say it just didn't belong in a fantasy genre that really isn't the greatest vehicle for expression of an opinion of it. I don't think homesexual, heterosexual, or any sexual behaviour belongs in Star Wars at all really.

No one should ever hate anyone, ever. This story itself talks about that and how all hate does is lead to negativity.

The *** agenda imo hasn't been advanced by people standing on boxes, virtual or otherwise, screaming and name calling. The biggest thing to me that's changed the dynamic has been the scenes of marriages and people taking that pretty human act of love into account. Not how well people can scream and hate.

I say it again, you want to preach about tolerance, you need to practice it.

I don't think homesexual, heterosexual, or any sexual behaviour belongs in Star Wars at all really.

Oh? You do realize that heterosexual behavior is exhibited in all six of the Star Wars movies. There will probably continue to be heterosexual behavior in the rest of the sequel trilogy and in future books.

Homosexual behavior is nominally present in everyday life so it only makes sense that it is reflected in Star Wars, too. The complete and utter lack of it would frankly strain credulity—particularly in a setting that is rife with so much variety. There are multiple races, crazy languages, fuzzy creatures, anal-retentive robots, huge mafia slugs, and even non-binary gender gets representation in Star Wars. But sexual orientation is the bridge-too-far?

This is me making my "Really?" face.

I say it again, you want to preach about tolerance, you need to practice it.

Here's the thing about tolerance:

• Tolerance is not a "Kick Me" sign on your back.
• Tolerance is not a "Kick Anyone Else That You Want To" sign.
• Tolerance is a "You Are Not Allowed To Kick Anyone " sign because we've established that kicking people is bad.

But he didn't say "homosexual" he said "homesexual behaviour",

Pretty much one and the same thing, isnt it?

he did say it just didn't belong in a fantasy genre that really isn't the greatest vehicle for expression of an opinion of it.

I completely disagree with this - science fiction is at it's best when it's about something. Rod Serling wrote the Twilight Zone to be gonzo, out-there science fiction for the sole purpose of airing social commentary in a format that the censors (who would normally put the kibosh on many things he was trying to say) would ignore. Science Fiction has always been a platform for people speaking out - from Roddenberry to Asimov to Bradbury. Why should Star Wars be any different?

Also, up until recently genre fans were the ostracized outsiders. Nerd was not always a hip, cool, desirable thing to be. Admitting that you played D&D would get your ass kicked at school on a daily basis. If there's a group that should be open to the infinite diversity of the universe - it should be us.

I say it again, you want to preach about tolerance, you need to practice it.

Tolerant with the guys that beat Matthew Shepard to death and left him tied to a fence? Tolerant of the men who murdered Emmett Till and then threw his body in a river for just talking to a white woman? Absofuckinlutely not.

I'm not saying to rise up all Malcom X style and fight fire with fire. However if I see someone spouting bulls#it, I will call them on that bulls#it - bigotry is wrong, regardless if it's white on black, man on woman, straight on gay, black on white, human on martian - that s#it is wrong, wrong, wrong and we should not stand for it in ANY form.

No one should ever hate anyone, ever.

Yeah, well I gotta say that there is plenty of hatred in my system. I hate child abusers, rapists, racists, mysogonists, bigots, dictators, genocidal maniacs, slavers, serial killers, etc. no amount of forum folk telling me to tolerate any of them will ever make me change my mind on those issues.

The fact that you state that no sexuality has any place in Star Wars while it has been in all six makes realize the problem. For some reason people think:

Heterosexual relationship = love

Homosexual relationship = sex

Also I asked you about your stance when the word LGBT would be replaced with black... Should we have been tolerant of that as well?

Hey, does this mean the planet Transexual is canon now?

Ziro the Hutt says "Yes!"

(video of TCW Ziro the Hutt synced to the song Sweet Transvestite)

Pure marketing. Yes, I know that it wasn't announced officially that there was going to be a lesbian character in the book, and that some reviewer found out and blogged it. But let's be honest, it is a marketing stunt like so many others before.

It seems to me there is no criteria which you would not accept a lesbian character as not being marketing, then. We have a character who is a lesbian, the book has not been promoted on the basis of the character's sexuality, someone merely found out about it and posted a short blog post on the subject. What then would be required by you to have a lesbian character where you didn't declare it a marketing stunt? It seems to me that the only criteria you have allowed room for in escaping judgement is to not have any gay characters at all.

Essentially this comes down to the preconception that having a lesbian character is not normal, therefore any inclusion of one must have a special reason to do so.

Please do not paint me as somwone who doesn't accept a lesbian character. That is reading something into my statement, which simply isn't there. And do not presume to know my peeconceptions and make judgements based on that.

Actually, my angle is another. Namely, that I don't like that kind of marketing. And to me, it looks very much like that, seeing as it is the case with other books.

Please do not paint me as somwone who doesn't accept a lesbian character. That is reading something into my statement, which simply isn't there. And do not presume to know my peeconceptions and make judgements based on that.

You mean like your assumption that it is a marketing ploy?

Actually, my angle is another. Namely, that I don't like that kind of marketing. And to me, it looks very much like that, seeing as it is the case with other books.

If it was initialized by the author or the book company I might be inclined to agree, but here it seems the author wrote a book which contains an LGBT character and a reviewer noticed this and felt it should be highlighted.

Homosexual behavior needs to shown in the same light as heterosexual behavior. It needs to be seen as commonplace and normal just as the latter is for others. Just as one time multicultural relationships were hidden, but now we see them on regular basis in commercials and TV shows and other mediums. Things like this will not become commonplace if they are continuously hidden and not called out. So you can call it a marketing ploy, which is fine, but even if it is I still applaud it since LGBT people need to see that their lifestyles are just as normal as others even if they are not the same.

Please do not paint me as somwone who doesn't accept a lesbian character. That is reading something into my statement, which simply isn't there. And do not presume to know my peeconceptions and make judgements based on that. Actually, my angle is another. Namely, that I don't like that kind of marketing. And to me, it looks very much like that, seeing as it is the case with other books.

What I pointed out was that there don't appear to be any criteria under which you would see a lesbian character as not being a marketing ploy. I don't see how given the your argument there are any circumstances under which you would not accuse the books creators of this. The reasoning is that I can't see anything more that could be done here to make it not done for marketing. If that's incorrect, then please tell me what the author could have done here to avoid you calling it a marketing trick. Because all I can think of at this point is for the author to hide the fact that there is a lesbian in there. The love that dare not speak its name and all that.

And the problem this is that it should not be seen as abnormal for a lesbian character to appear in fiction without there being some special justification necessary. Basically, what is it you feel the author could have done here that would make the inclusion of a lesbian character not a marketing gimmick to you? If the answer is nothing, then there's no way your argument can be evidence that it is a marketing gimmick because your argument is always true and your mind is made up.

EDIT: And as mouthymerc observes - even if there were an element of deliberateness in the character's sexuality (which we don't know), most progress begins this way. An inter-racial kiss on television probably once had an element of deliberateness. And yet it still helped normalize things and was not done for ratings, i.e. not a marketing ploy.

And the movies certainly are not. I've heard social justice warriors whine for years about how sexist, racist and non-diverse Star Wars is.

This is an example of what I'm talking about. It's space opera. You want to shoe horn your pet political and social theories into the framework of the story and I want to just enjoy a unique brand of space opera. I want to leave all the acrimonious cultural and political stuff at the door.

I don't think you get it. But in any case it's mighty telling and pretty convenient that you can dismiss racism, sexism, etc as simply inconveniencies to stories you enjoy.

So you see Star Wars as "problematic"?

So you do see Star Wars - the original trilogy and the prequels - as sexist and racist (and whatever else)?

Isn't this basically admitting that Star Wars is something you don't actually like - because it's sexist and racist - and that it's important to fundamentally "fix" and transform Star Wars?

Because I don't see the movies as sexist or racist. It's something I've loved from the beginning in the form it was presented in. I don't have a problem with it. I'm not upset if more women or actors and characters of color or whatever are part of it but I don't take it as some indication of a racist and sexist past history of Star Wars. Ultimately, I don't want Star Wars to become politicized and a vehicle for pushing political or "social change". We live in a society polarized along many lines and I enjoy things where people can engage each other and enjoy something without signalling they adhere strictly to the "proper" policital or social ideology.

On the one hand there are those who get upset because a *** character appears in the setting and on the other hand are those who won't be satisfied if the story isn't pushing a social agenda. I think most people are neither and just want to enjoy something without being preached to (Note: I'm not saying having a gay character is preachy, but it seems a certain number of people who get excited about it or have been waiting for it to happen seem to want it to become preachy).

Wait, so a story about an evil all encompassing, genocidal Empire that is thwarted by a group of heroic rebels isn’t political or pushing a social agenda? Okay… Glad we cleared that up.

Also, being a product of its time we wouldn’t see the original trilogy as sexist or racist, just as we wouldn’t see Gone With The Wind as such, however the world is now not the same as it was in 1977. We don’t use the guillotine anymore, we don’t dole out physical punishment to children and we see more women in strong roles and we have more diversity in our entertainment. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with making Star Wars something that appeals to more people of different gender, race and sexuality. Nothing wrong with pushing the boundaries of what SW is. Not rejecting 1977 Star Wars doesn’t mean it would not be absolutely lopsided if it had been released today.

Also, being a product of its time we wouldn’t see the original trilogy as sexist or racist, just as we wouldn’t see Gone With The Wind as such, however the world is now not the same as it was in 1977.

Actually, I don't work on that principle. I consider many historical works to show prejudice even if that was typical for the time. I don't say Lovecraft's work isn't racist because his views were common at the time he was writing for example. Anything else is moral relativism.

Note, this is not me saying that the OT was sexist or racist however. There are positive female and Black roles for example and Han's dismissiveness to Leia isn't on the grounds that she's female, but that she's a princess. Honestly, I find the PT more racist than the OT what with Jar-Jar Binks and Nemoidians with (what turns out to be) Thai accents.

I do agree with that, however Lovecraft spouted racial slur and prejudice, Star wars did neither.

The OT just didn’t push the boundaries it could have and stayed safe within the confines of its time this doesn’t make Lucas wrong or shortsighted it just didn’t propel him as the one going over and beyond social conventions, that’s all. We’ve come a long way since then. You have to agree with me that if it were released as such today there would be a shitload of complaints about it (well, you don’t “have to” anything of course….)

Wait, so a story about an evil all encompassing, genocidal Empire that is thwarted by a group of heroic rebels isn’t political or pushing a social agenda? Okay… Glad we cleared that up.

Also, being a product of its time we wouldn’t see the original trilogy as sexist or racist, just as we wouldn’t see Gone With The Wind as such, however the world is now not the same as it was in 1977. We don’t use the guillotine anymore, we don’t dole out physical punishment to children and we see more women in strong roles and we have more diversity in our entertainment. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with making Star Wars something that appeals to more people of different gender, race and sexuality. Nothing wrong with pushing the boundaries of what SW is. Not rejecting 1977 Star Wars doesn’t mean it would not be absolutely lopsided if it had been released today.

So what are your expectations for The Force Awakens? What is you hope it will do to increase appeal to people of varying sexuality? Is making explicit appeals to people based on their sexuality important for Star Wars?

Is Star Wars going to be backward until it deals with the GBT(+) letters of LGBT?

This is also one thing that bothers me about discussions like this - people are reduced down to one-dimension. A woman cannot enjoy Star Wars if it's not somehow explicitly inclusive of them on the basis of gender (also implying that all or most women will find the same thing appealing)? Same for race, ethnicity and sexuality. Nothing in Star Wars excludes people from enjoying it. And nothing in Star Wars means it can't include more "diversity" in characters. But what makes Star Wars special and interesting isn't the degree to which it is "inclusive" to people along these uni-dimensional lines. As I've said I certainly don't have a problem with more female characters and all the rest but it's the idea that it needs to be done to make Star Wars appealing. It's about the myth and the story and adventure - things that are universally appealing. Adding more "diversity" doesn't interfere with those things - myth, story, adventure - but from what I've seen of the social justice crusaders over the years they don't seem satisfied until a particular thing becomes focused on pushing their agenda which does reduce the appeal and subordinates things like the myth, story, adventure to the "cause". And I'm not necessarily describing you (I don't pretend to know you well enough to do so) but this is what's motivating my comments.

Han Solo is - according to modern lights - a misognyist and a sexist. He had several lines to Leia that would make him a "problematic" character. Does Star Wars going forward need to reform him or are we going to keep on enjoying the lovable scoundrel? Is an Alpha Male like Han acceptable now? Can he still wonder if things would go better if they can avoid taking any more female advice? Do we need to sit our kids down and talk about the "problematic" things they will experience before exposing the next generation to the movies?

Can we add "diversity" to Star Wars without throwing out what's already there?

Please do not paint me as somwone who doesn't accept a lesbian character. That is reading something into my statement, which simply isn't there. And do not presume to know my peeconceptions and make judgements based on that.

You mean like your assumption that it is a marketing ploy?

No. Because that is actually there. So quite the opposite in fact.

Please do not paint me as somwone who doesn't accept a lesbian character. That is reading something into my statement, which simply isn't there. And do not presume to know my peeconceptions and make judgements based on that. Actually, my angle is another. Namely, that I don't like that kind of marketing. And to me, it looks very much like that, seeing as it is the case with other books.

What I pointed out was that there don't appear to be any criteria under which you would see a lesbian character as not being a marketing ploy. I don't see how given the your argument there are any circumstances under which you would not accuse the books creators of this. The reasoning is that I can't see anything more that could be done here to make it not done for marketing. If that's incorrect, then please tell me what the author could have done here to avoid you calling it a marketing trick. Because all I can think of at this point is for the author to hide the fact that there is a lesbian in there. The love that dare not speak its name and all that.

And the problem this is that it should not be seen as abnormal for a lesbian character to appear in fiction without there being some special justification necessary. Basically, what is it you feel the author could have done here that would make the inclusion of a lesbian character not a marketing gimmick to you? If the answer is nothing, then there's no way your argument can be evidence that it is a marketing gimmick because your argument is always true and your mind is made up.

EDIT: And as mouthymerc observes - even if there were an element of deliberateness in the character's sexuality (which we don't know), most progress begins this way. An inter-racial kiss on television probably once had an element of deliberateness. And yet it still helped normalize things and was not done for ratings, i.e. not a marketing ploy.

You keep repeating lesbian and abnormal in the same sentence. Please don't on account of my posts. If so, you are most definitely reading them wrong.

Books and movies with lgbt characters in them that work well, are the ones where it doesn't mean anything. Who cares about peoples' sexuality?

My point is, that there really isn't much sexuality in SW in the first place. Put in one lesbian (or two? I don't know if the character is single or in a relationship) and suddenly it is a thing. And being that Disney owns the whole **** thing, I dare to presume that everything, no matter how small or insignificant, is done with an eye on profit.

Examples of lgbt characters that work well:

Johnathan Littel: The Kindly Ones

Richard Morgan: The Steel Remains

Buffy, the tv-series

Batwoman, comic book series

Examples where it works not so well:

Battlestar Galactica.

Others are free to chip in.

Wait, so a story about an evil all encompassing, genocidal Empire that is thwarted by a group of heroic rebels isn’t political or pushing a social agenda? Okay… Glad we cleared that up.

Also, being a product of its time we wouldn’t see the original trilogy as sexist or racist, just as we wouldn’t see Gone With The Wind as such, however the world is now not the same as it was in 1977. We don’t use the guillotine anymore, we don’t dole out physical punishment to children and we see more women in strong roles and we have more diversity in our entertainment. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with making Star Wars something that appeals to more people of different gender, race and sexuality. Nothing wrong with pushing the boundaries of what SW is. Not rejecting 1977 Star Wars doesn’t mean it would not be absolutely lopsided if it had been released today.

So what are your expectations for The Force Awakens? What is you hope it will do to increase appeal to people of varying sexuality? Is making explicit appeals to people based on their sexuality important for Star Wars?

Is steering away from them?

Is Star Wars going to be backward until it deals with the GBT(+) letters of LGBT?

It might be looked upon in it in that way in a few years from now. However, let’s not make the mistake of you trying to steer away from your original point, being that you didn’t want to see a political point shoehorned into a space opera. Right? Imagine saying that over a black stormtrooper (you know I am not pulling that one out of thin air) then what an ******* you would appear right? Saying such a thing about race has come a long with (with the decent folk) and is no longer accepted. Heck, you would probably think it extremely weird if the word political was used in such an instant (or at least I hope you would) but that *** kid having a representation in Star Wars? “No, that is political!” Well, I only think it is political if you make it so and thus far I see no problem with it being put out there.

10% of our population is homosexual, did you know that? Does that number astonish you as much as it did me? The non-closeted gays I know amount to perhaps 1 or 2% of the people I know, and I run in highly liberal circles (so much so, that I at times feel like the conservative ******* in a conversation), imagine that. The rest stay in the closet. Is that “political” as well?

I think that is a god awful thing to say about who and what people are.

This is also one thing that bothers me about discussions like this - people are reduced down to one-dimension. A woman cannot enjoy Star Wars if it's not somehow explicitly inclusive of them on the basis of gender (also implying that all or most women will find the same thing appealing)?

Gays in Star Wars = just political. How is that for one dimensional?

And no-one here said that someone cannot enjoy something where they have no representation. My wife loves The Shawshank Redemption for instance. You are putting words in people’s mouths.

The problem is, and I’ll refrain from quoting the rest of your post and pointing out why so much is wrong with it, is that you seem to understand what representation means and why it is not always necessary (no one here denies this) but you call LGBT representation a “pet political project” and “social theorie.” But you have no idea why that is inherently offensive.