We Are All People

I mentioned sometime last year (Nov 21, 2014...I checked my Tweets) I would eventually write a blog post that gives a bit of insight as to why I write some of the characters I write. More specifically: "One day I will explain why I support LGBTQ folks and why I have so many characters who are LGBTQ. It will be a blog because 140 characters (on Twitter) isn't long enough." Oh hey, this is the day.

For those who are new here or don't pay a lot of attention to my Twitter/this blog or for those who don't check out the novel series tab to see what the heck I do: I write A LOT. In most of my novels I have a non-cis or non-binary character. Only two novels in the 42 (as of Jan 2015) I've written DO NOT include someone from the LGBTQ community. This means the other 40 novels have a character who is in said community.

Who are these characters? I made a list:

• Xeros, Drake, Zahnee, Zanrah, Denxen, Kien, Adara, Vesgha, Ekard, from Cara: attracted to the same gender.
• Raven, Havoc, Gold: Bonehemmer Princess and Harmonizer: attracted to the same gender
• Shawn, Ice, Derrick, Ray: Seer and Seeker: attracted to the same gender
• Jayden/Jordan: Changed: transgender
• Andre, Gary: Chosen Ones of the Forbidden Object: attracted to the same gender
• Star Von Vette, Jammer: Model: attracted to the same gender, Star is also considered "androgynous" and dresses in women's clothing even though he's a he. No, Star is not transgender and does not wish to become a female. He likes being male and likes dressing as a woman all of the time.
• Glitch, Dylan: Lies: Glitch is a gay cyborg and Dylan's an ambiromantic asexual
• Archard, Noam: Warriors Eight: attracted to the same gender
• David: Protectors: Attracted to the same gender
• Drew: Testing Grounds: attracted to same gender and cross-dresses
• Samuel, Greg: Glory Hole Series: married to each other
• Rowan: Burnt: the Story of the Fire King: male to female transgender who transitions as a point of view character over the course of the novel.
• Lucy McGregor, Anne, various minor characters: Thriller/Mystery Series: attracted to the same gender, female to male transgender (minor character of note), cross-dressers, and various others.
• Blair, Tim: Mists of Time Series: Blair is bi-gender and Tim is bi-sexual.
• Angelus: Tale of the Twins Trilogy: attracted to the same gender
• Kiyvn and Derke: Trees of Life: attracted to the same gender
• Garrick: Heroes Dilemma: attracted to the same gender

This list doesn't include the various short stories or any of the novels I have planned in which a character's gender identification or sexuality isn't known yet. Now. Why do I write so many characters who are part of a non-binary or non-cis sexuality or gender?

The simple answer? I am under the firm belief everyone who is alive today no matter what their identity, race, color, etc deserves to be represented in fiction.

The complicated answer? There aren't enough works of fiction (RE: novels) featuring LGBTQ or even People of Color as characters in a predominate, meaningful role other than the token gay/black/lesbian/PC character. See all those characters listed above? Without them there would be no story. They each have an important role to play and in most of the stories they are the main character.

Why? Because everyone deserves to be represented and it bothers the HELL out of me when a character is included in a novel, in a minor role that serves no purpose, and the author makes a big deal about them being gay or lesbian or whatever because "O-M-G, I'M BEING INCLUSIVE!" It bugs the HELL out of me a popular author didn't mention the sexuality of a popular, well-loved character until SOMEONE ASKED and the books were over and done with.

I'm not saying you have to scream your character's sexuality/gender preferences from the mountain tops but there should be obvious clues as to who/what the character prefers or doesn't. And yes, we do need more LGBTQ main characters so issues like the Leelah Alcorn case don't happen again.

If people understand what certain groups go through for simply being themselves then maybe there wouldn't be so much hatred in this world. Maybe if there were more authors willing to write about a real, normal (whatever that means) transgender woman (or gay person, or black person, or any other "non-normal" person) in fiction there wouldn't be so many transgender (etc) suicides going on and perhaps there would be a little more tolerance in the world.

I'm not saying you have to be best friends with everyone and everything can be all kittens, puppies, and rainbows. I am saying everyone deserves the same level of respect no matter what their skin color, gender, sexuality, religion, or what have you.

In order to get to some semblance of respect people have to see that no matter what a person's skin color, gender, or sexuality is the person is STILL A PERSON. They have the same wants, needs, and feelings as everyone else and they deserve to be represented and respected like everyone else.

Maybe I'm being optimistic but I think if I represent everyone as well as I can in my novels and people see these "non-normal" people as normal then maybe, just maybe, I can change someone's mind. Maybe I can bring a little more acceptance into the world. Maybe I can make a difference.

So, why do I have so many LGBTQ characters? Because everyone deserves a little love, respect, and acceptance.

Until next time: rants, rage, out-right insults, comments, questions and everything in between can be directed to the comments.

Childless by Choice

So as I was eating dinner tonight (it's where I get my best thoughts, I swear) I said to myself: "Wow, it's great eating as a single person. I can eat what I want, when I want and not have to worry about someone complaining about my cooking" which is true. I don't have to worry about the carrots being too hard (it's a salad), the chicken being too spicy (it's Shake n' bake; don't blame me) or being told that I should make more things from scratch (HA!). I can just decide, cook, and eat. If I blow something up or burn it then it's my own fault and the only witness is my cat.

As per normal my mind began to wander. It strode to a conversation I had a while ago with a religious relative who could not understand why I wasn't married with at least one kid by now. Then came the explanation: I don't want to get married or have kids. Of course, that's the wrong thing to say to anyone who's religious and over 50.

But children are God's gift. You can't be alone forever. That would be wrong," etc, etc, etc. Oh poor deluded religious relative of mine: I don't believe in the same things you do. Which is fine. She is entitled to her beliefs and I respect her for believing in them as strongly as she does. But (contrary to popular belief) I am not a horrible woman for not wanting to be married or not wanting kids.

I am simply a woman of the 21st century. We don't have to be stay at home moms, we don't have to get married, we can have careers, we can be successful, and *le gasp* we have choices.

It's not all cut and dry: find your true love, get married, have 1.5 kids, live in the white picket fenced house, and cook all day so when your manly man comes home with the pay check he can eat well. It can be more like: wake up, go to work, come home to your cat, feed said cat and self then write until bedtime.

Is either woman better than the other in those instances? Not really. It's their choice and if they're happy with their choice then it's good enough. Who are we to tell people what they can and cannot do? It's not the right of anyone but the person who's making that choice. Pressures from family, friends, coworkers, and society should not dictate who we are or what choices we make.

My choice is not to pass on my genes. Why should I allow a being that fed off me like a parasite for nine months dictate the rest of my life? Why would I want to give up the freedom of doing what I want, when I want because I have to bend to the needs of a being that's only goal in life is to make me worry? Sorry, that's not for me. BUT KUDOS TO ALL THE PARENTS OUT THERE. You folks are awesome for taking on that responsibility. Me? I'll stick with my cat. Maybe a dog later down the road and a few fish.

Of course, when you pose those two questions to said religious relative the answer is: "It's fulfilling." Bullcrap. Fulfilling is getting to laze around in your pjs all day doing whatever the living heck you want. There is no fulfillment in knowing that a mini-me will be running around until after I die then produce mini-not-me-but-genetically-close-to-mes. Well unless one of them dominates the world. That might prove to be cool. But that is not enough to sway me to produce the mini-me.

Then of course: "What if your parents thought like that?" Well, then I wouldn't really know now would I? I mean I'd still be a body-less soul hanging out with other body-less souls doing whatever souls do before they get a vessel. Don't get me wrong: I'm happy my parents made me and all that but if they hadn't then I wouldn't have known, right?

"But you'll love kids." Uh, no. I barely stand my cousin's kids. Plus, why would I want to bring a little girl into a world that pressures her to look a certain way and act a certain way then makes fun of her if she doesn't? Why would I want to bring a little boy into a world where a boy can't have long hair and God-forbid he act feminine? I can preach that "gender roles don't matter, be yourself, be unique, F the haters, just be you" all I want but that doesn't mean they'll have the strength to listen.

Why do I want to bring any child into a world where despite our best efforts racism, sexism, war, hate, famine, and all that other ugly stuff still reign? And don't forget about the persecution if you're gay, want to be the opposite gender, or don't share any beliefs with the "norm." Our world sucks. I don't want to subject a child to the true suckiness of the world. Why do I want to bring a kid into a world where we're told to be ourselves then are ridiculed for not being normal? Whatever normal is. Has anyone figured that out yet?

"You're over-thinking things." No I'm not. If my hypothetical little boy wants to keep his hair long then you're going to tell me to get his hair cut (and don't lie; I saw how you reacted to a fictional character's little boy's long hair). Then you're going to slyly insult him enough (without coming off as truly insulting unless I say something, which I will)that he'll feel like crap and tell me to get his hair cut. And I'll do it because I want him to be happy, even if he's not happy and he's just conforming to society's belief of what a little boy should look like because he wants to please you and strangers.

And therein lies the problem. I know my kids will be different because I was different. I didn't push the barriers until I was in my later teens and even now I'm not pushing barriers simply because society doesn't want me to. We can all pretend that we'll teach our kids to be themselves and be strong but eventually the need for acceptance from peers (and people in authority besides us) wears them down until they morph into something a tad more acceptable.

There are very few people who can be exactly who they want to be without fear and my genetic dice are not strong enough to produce that type of person. Frankly, I don't want to see my hypothetical spawn hide their true selves like I did for so long and not realize their dreams because of it. Also, I know, deep down, those people who seem to be living exactly as they want without fear have all ready conformed so well that they think they're free. Or they've conformed another way. I don't believe that anyone is truly free from society's rule.

"Well that's just depressing." I know, trust me, I know. But, there is one more point. "What?" Why should I bring another child into the world when one: we're over-populated as it is, and two: there are over 150 million orphans in the world? "150 million?" Yes. One hundred and fifty MILLION. So, ask me again why I'm childless by choice. Go ahead. "*silence*" That's what I thought.

And another thing. "There's more?" Yep. One more thing. "Okay, what?" If I'm going to subject myself to children it'll be one of those orphans. If I'm going to try and raise a kid to survive in this Battle Royal we call life I'm going to make sure it's one of those poor souls who through unfortunate circumstance came into this world without the love and care of their biological parents or who can no longer experience their parents' love. "What's the difference?" Well, I'm not bringing a child into the world, for one which means no over-populating the planet for me. For two, I'm simply helping a kid who's parents checked-out unwillingly. It's the least I can do for the poor kid. "You're strange." I hadn't noticed.

But seriously: I choose not to bring a child into this messed up world for the sake of passing on my genes. I'd rather help, nurture, and protect one of those kids who were brought into the world then dumped into an orphanage for whatever reason. If it ever comes to that which it might not solely because hey, I had fish and salad for dinner tonight without having to consult anyone first.

Until next time: Comments, questions, rants, rage and everything in between can be directed to the comments.

Freedom of Speech (Part Two)

As a follow up to part one, about the South Park writers getting threatened with death by certain Muslim factions, here is part two.

This part is more author based, that is, speaking more about books that get banned for whatever reason.

Now, don't get me wrong, some of the books that do get banned, I can completely understand. For instance, Stephen King's 'Salem's Lot' being banned in some schools because it was too violent.

I can understand the banning of Hitler's novel (at the time) because of the extremist nature of the novel and such. I can understand why people would not want others to read it and such.

But, in B.C, Harry Potter was banned. Why? Because it promoted witchcraft. Personally I don't think any child (or adult) is going to seriously attempt witchcraft after reading Harry Potter. Dan Brown's 'The DaVinci Code' was also banned in some areas because it was offensive to Christianity.

It's examples like the two above that make me shake my head and wonder where people's minds are when they make that decision. As authors, we are given a certain right to be able to express ourselves in the way we see fit.

Banning a book just because you do not like it's ideals or like what it may or may not teach is wrong. Again, if it's too violent (or too offensive) then yes, ban it. But if not, leave it alone.

Now, there is a difference between Dan Brown's 'Da Vinci Code' and Hitler's 'Mein Kampf'. Brown did not kill thousands of people based of the 'ideals' in his book. Brown did not try to take over parts of the world. Yes, some of the clues he laid out ARE true but that does not mean people are going to stop believing in Christianity because of it.

To summarize, book banning should be looked at more closely. That is, those who wish to ban a book, should take a good hard look at it and really determine if it is going to make someone offended. Most of the books banned, won't do that.

I did end up writing a whole other explanation on book banning and censorship. If you wish to read it, go to my website (www.vonravenstone.com) and head off the the F.A.Q.

Freedom of Speech (part one)

For those of you who don't frequently check the news or see the news, South Park creators/writers are being threatened with death by a particular faction of the Muslim Community. Why? Because they had the Prophet Mohammad featured (though covered by a bear mascot suit) in their 201st episode.

This may be old news to some, I found out about it mid-week but never got the chance to make a formal comment about it until now.

Regardless, this brings up an issue of freedom of speech. Now, don't get me wrong, I respect the Muslim community and their wants for wishing their Prophet not be seen. But, a death threat is a bit far. South Park DID cover their prophet, so really I don't see the major issue.

I agree, it can be insulting to have your prophet or God made fun of. But, there was no death threat made by Christians when Jesus was featured various times. There was no threat made by Paris Hilton, Tom Cruise and various other celebrities when they were featured on the show.

Personally, I think the death threat is going just a bit too far. I can understand a request to censor said offensive material and I can understand a formal complaint to various networks regarding the episode. Again, a death threat is a bit much.

I'm not 100% brushed up on my Freedom of Speech laws, but I am fairly certain people have a right to say what they want. I know certain limitations (moral or otherwise) apply, but I am fairly certain that the punishment is NOT death if one does not follow those rules.

Freedom of Speech is important to every writer (television show or otherwise) and its a sorrowful day when a member of the writing community has their life threatened (or book banned) for something they said or did (even if it is South Park).

I will be posting a second part to 'Freedom of Speech' - hence the part one - that pertains more to novel-writing in the future. Until then, watch who you say what to. ;)