Just writing my personal diary here...

Anyways, there was a lot of debate ages ago about BS placing a gay character in WoT because he felt it necessary for whatever reason. Nothing wrong with that, really, BS enjoys fan service more than RJ ever did, such as his style of coming up with a really cool scene and then writing it in no matter how badly it fits the story (novel Gateway tricks come to mind).

Now, the problem I have with it was how 'unorganically' it was done. It did not fit, it didn't contribute to the narrative. If you look at Rowling and Dumbledore, that did fit! It filled a gap in the story: how could a moral man like Dumbledore help Gellert when he knew the man was evil, did he suddenly turn crazy for a while? No, he just had a crush. Or Marcel Proust's portrayal of gay men (homophiliacs in his terminology, still the official term for homosexuals in Norwegian, by the way, and perhaps more romantic with its implication of love, not intercourse) in À la recherche du temps perdu that was certainly unsympathetic but just as surely grounded in his own experiences and conflictions with his identity.

But what did BS give us? Nothing. A barren character, like ticking off a box in some checklist of political correctness. It wasn't even like RJ's situational and real lesbians which highlighted (his views about) gendered institutions where interaction between the sexes is restricted.

So what's the problem, can't a guy just be gay and that's it? We don't require justification for every heterosexual character's sexuality, do we? Well no, we don't. But I think the point here is that being straight is the norm. Being straight just means you're straight - being gay, on the other hand, is a conscious choice to be not-straight. I don't mean to say people can choose their identity, but they do choose to accept and embrace it - as they probably should. BS's token gay men are not 'not-straight', they are unreal cardboard, standing in figurative poses to appeal to people's sensitivities. They highlight the straight-norm instead of defying it.

Now, the real gay man in the series was Baldhere, the respected soldier who commanded Kandor's army and was described as fussy, sharp-tongued and elegant. Why pay so much attention to the gay stereotypes? Because they, like all stereotypes, are true - they reflect noteworthy differences (or prejudices about perceived differences) about social groups. While no gay man has to really fit the stereotype, many of them do and that reinforces a common perception. From a narrative sense, it then makes perfect sense for Baldhere to be gay. I am just disappointed BS lacked the finesse to hint at it - just a small nod in that direction, like Ethenielle thinking that it would be wrong of her to pressure the man into an arranged marriage because she knew what made his boat float.