cornerofmadness

I actually have a topic this week. I was thinking about world building and what we're trying to say with our worlds. Yesterday, in an unrelated topic, we were discussing homophobic characters in our LGBT fiction and if they're robust characters or just one-note haters. Anyhow, someone brought up their world (I've heard about it before but can't remember the title. that's beside the point). Their world is homosexuality is the norm and anyone heterosexual is considered perverted and wrong. The reason is because women are considered so low that to want to be with one is icky and terrible.

Putting aside how these people breed (I don't know if it's ectogenesis or women kept like breeding cattle and I don't really want to know), I wondered why someone would create this universe. What are they trying to say? All I know is that to me it makes it sound like homosexuality is purely choice and misogynistic beyond belief. Is the point of this to overcome this belief? I don't know because I wouldn't read past the blurb of this one to find out.

I've noticed that many SF/Fantasy authors often create universes, where they could create anything, that still have gay and female characters being marginalized. It might be because they want to tackle those issues but most of the ones I've read that has not been the case.

Other times, the world building doesn't make sense. I've seen that leveled against Harry Potter, actually, mostly in why would anyone leave Harry in that place to be abused and why in the world do they tolerate Slytherin, if as Ron says, every bad wizard came from Slytherin. In this case I'm more tolerant since it's a simple model for kids. If this had been written for adults I'd be less excited about always knowing the villain would be Slytherin.

I think in some ways my earliest models were positive worlds, Star Trek was the extreme in this with men and women and all races being equal. If Roddenberry could have gotten away with a gay character in 1966, I'm pretty sure he would have (certainly DS9 is credited with the first gay kiss on Tv). Even Buck Rogers in the 25th Century was fairly male/female equal and positive in spite of having the villains threatening every week. Star Wars was darker but again Leia was the equal of Luke or Han and just as tough.

So I have to wonder why some chose to world build things misogynistic or homophobic and then not seem to really have a reason for it. Some do, of course, because they want to tackle issues. In Until the Ice Breaks, I do this. It's the most political thing I've ever written, really. Homosexuality isn't really looked down upon and women are equal and the villains of the story want to return it to 'traditional' values, i.e. straight male centric.

Maybe it's just that in my SF, I prefer the Roddenberry model. I'd like to think that by the time we've mastered space travel we won't be keeping women as breeding stock and hating on homosexuals (the SF I'm reading right now for review the character is sure his shipmates will hate him for being gay but they're like so what? we knew.)

Regardless of content we should ask ourselves, does our worldbuilding make sense, is it a necessary thing that we're adding, being it cultural, environmental etc.

As promised here is a marketing link: Author Brand & why reviewing matters (seriously, if you like an author review them!)

Jana’s week in writing

and in non-writing links... Cat takes better selfies than me

glass clay cabochons

ETA - one more book challenge here

Yearly word count -