Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

If you look at societies throughout history (such as ancient Rome), it becomes evident that the percentage of a population that engages in homosexual relations is HIGHLY dependent upon the context of said society. In the example I referred to above, people did not even really identify as 'gay' or 'straight', certainly not in the sense that we in the contemporary Western world do. Sexuality is fluid and not as imprisoned by labels as we tend to think of it to be. So, no, there is really not much inaccurate about a society in which most individuals tend towards being queer in varying degrees.
Additionally, if she were to write the novel so that only protagonist characters were queer, it would feel preachy and heavy-handed. Just like if we never had villains who were people of color, it would in turn be racist because that would cast said people as only being able to exist in certain dimensions rather than to be full people/characters.

Granted, I mostly thought the book was 'okay', personally. But I thought I would provide some insight into this aspect.

While gender roles didn't identify as "gay" or "straight" based on the gender of the participants in ancient Rome (or Greece, for that matter), they nevertheless were rather rigidly defined by the roles played by the participants. So while a man wouldn't be "immoral" for having sex with another man, that only applied as long as he took the "male" role in the sexual activity (i.e. penetrative). Which means those "relationships" we would call homosexual were pretty much exclusively exploitative because they were only "acceptable" with slaves, prostitutes, or outcastes. I'm pretty sure that isn't a model you'd want to actually advocate as an alternative or as desirable, though, so I'm not sure what your point is in bringing them up.

I suppose that if Kushner had decided to model that kind of morality I would have to change my point. Since she did not, my point stands, I think--i.e. that every character was gay, or at least bisexual, and that's a little much. I maintain that it is rather heavy handed to be so very absolute.

And I still don't see why she would want to portray gay relationships as so universally mean. Even if you want every relationship in a book to be gay for some reason (though that'd be a single-generation culture if there ever was one), I'd think you'd want at least one of those relationships to have a hint of love (or at least kindness).

I brought it up as an example of a society which viewed sexuality through a different lens than our present one does, not to say that that specific system is somehow preferable or that that was the particular concept she was modeling her world after. My point was more towards the fact that homosexual encounters were more common in general and not seen as something only specific ('gay') people tended towards.

In general, I am just saying that if a culture does not happen to label homosexual relations and/or relationships as niche and assumes it is normal and common, then the population will follow suit by being more likely to engage in those activities. 'Gay' and 'straight' and 'bi' are just identity constructs, which we mould ourselves into more firmly than we would by nature because of the context of the society we grow up in. (Obviously some people incline more towards favoring one sex/gender more than others. But even already, the upcoming generation cares less about labels and is tending more towards being bi/pan.) So they are not all just plain homosexual, so much as less bound by pre-established codes of sexuality that they adhere to.

I agree that the relationships in the book are, in general, weird and not really healthy ones. But I think that applies to /all/ relationships in the book, more due to the fact that all of these people are schemers more loyal furthering their own power and wealth, than it has to do with a relationship happening to have same gender participants. That's all I'm trying to suggest! :) Although, I agree that it would be nice there was some less antagonistic pairing going on.

Sounds like we largely agree on the relationship aspect of the book, at any rate. The rest is more relevant to a generalized discussion about society and homosexuality. I don't find that interesting, really, and this isn't the place for it, even if I were interested in pursuing the discussion.

Fair enough!

Well damn! Holly Black recommended this and I was so excited. Well, more specifically, she commented on the world and society building. Now I don’t know that I want to bother.

Holly *I have no idea what I’m doing* wrote: "Well damn! Holly Black recommended this and I was so excited. Well, more specifically, she commented on the world and society building. Now I don’t know that I want to bother."

To be fair, the issues I had were evident right from the start. So reading a sample should tell you if you'll have the same reaction I did or if you're as intrigued as others are. It's very popular, so it may be worth trying out a bit.