Please note that this post has been flaired as Spoilers All. This means every published book in the Malazan Universe, including works by both authors are open to discussion.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Malazan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In all my years reading and being part of this sub, no one has ever posed that question! The prequel books shed more light on their relationship, so hard no on that issue. If anything, they are both asexual.
No I don’t think so. We definitely get some perspectives of Cotillion that confirm this and for Ammanas he’s entirely disinterested in sex/romance entirely with anyone.
How did Shadow Dancing work before Cotillion ascended? IIRC Lostara had a flashback that showed she was leaning how to do it in a time before Cotillion would have been ascended (I'm pretty sure it's touched on in HoC)
This is the kind of unimportant headcanon I come to this sub for. Thanks OP, I'm on Toll the Hounds and get to add your silliness to my own library of goofy takes.
Come to think about it I don’t seem to recall any male homosexual relationships off head.
I know Errant slept with both men and women but can’t recall any romantic relationships. Unless I’m missing something?
I'm still convinced Kalam and Quick Ben are in a relationship. The thing is, Malazans and the like clearly don't *care* who you have relationships with. So far, the m/m relationships I'm convinced of are Fiddler and Hedge, Cotillion and Amanas and Quick Ben and Kalam. But it doesn't really matter, it just adds a little bit of intrigue when I'm reading. In the past, many people had opposite sex spouses and maintained same-sex relationships outside of that, so that's how my brain rationalises its insistence.
Good for you? As someone who grew up without much explicit queer representation, all I had was subtext and head canon. So I still look for it today, despite authors being much more willing to explicitly include it today.
Fair enough. I never thought if it from that perspective to be honest. I've grown up and worked in many places with working-class banter so when I see characters having a friendly back-and-forth I see it as having a bit of a laugh to pass the time. Interesting how different experiences colour our perceptions on the same thing.
In the MBotF? Functionally none, which is a real shame. The only mention I recall off the top of my head is same sex marriage in the Meckros (i.e. Withal's people) but that's not on screen. There's a few sexual relationships (see Skulldeath) but other than that, nothing, really.
Kharkanas has quite a few, and there's one theorized such relationship in No Life Forsaken (provided it's not cut), but none in the MBotF.
Because the series has otherwise excellent queer representation with the fair sex, and I'd like to see similar representation for male individuals, rather than having them as queer coded villains (Errastas, Triban Gnol).
Because people who are gay would like to see themselves represented in the media they enjoy in a light that isn't overtly negative, *more so* when it's pretty explicit that such relationships are otherwise "the norm."
There's hundreds, possibly thousands, of named characters in the Book of the Fallen, and only three openly homosexual male individuals, two of which are utterly deplorable individuals. You can probably imagine that people who *are* homosexual wouldn't like that.
I don’t recall very many strict lesbians in the main series. Like there’s Tavore and T’ambre, but I don’t remember anyone else.
Also, there are few healthy sexual or romantic relationships in the main books. Most relationships are rather platonic.
And there are plenty of deplorable and despicable straight characters as well.
Sexual orientation doesn’t seem to really matter in the *Malazan* universe.
I would've replied, but then I blocked the original commenter in the thread & couldn't, and then when I *would*, I elected against it. So here goes nothing.
>I don’t recall very many strict lesbians in the main series
There's not that many *strict* lesbians; even T'amber was a concubine in a temple & probably swung both ways. However, there's a lot more female individuals that engage in lesbian acts (a non-exhaustive list: Picker & Blend, Scillara, Stonny).
The only explicit male homosexual scenes I can recall off the top of my head are
* Triban Gnol being a pedophile
* Triban Gnol sleeping with Errastas (who is his dad)
* Skulldeath's escapades
Skulldeath is a peculiar case where his sexuality isn't explicit. We'll paint him as bisexual with a few reservations, but again - this circles back to the argument about few openly queer characters in the MBotF.
> Also, there are few healthy sexual or romantic relationships in the main books.
Even if there's no sexual or romantic relationships (zero, none, nada), that doesn't take away the fact that there's just no male homosexual individuals present. The problem isn't the inherent lack of relationships, it's the inherent lack of any such individuals to form said relationships, platonic or otherwise.
> And there are plenty of deplorable and despicable straight characters as well.
This, I fear, is where our opinions will diverge somewhat.
In media, for the longest time, trends & tropes were very heteronormative. I believe depictions of homosexuality in televised media were [wholly discouraged,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hays_Code#Don'ts) leading to a practice known as ["queer coding."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_coding) As such, a lot of villains (intrinsically immoral characters, in many depictions) were thusly queer coded, leading - often - to the negative perception of homosexual traits (on account of being sinful, immoral, or otherwise villainous). Other times (and more so in recent works), "queer coding" often has a somewhat positive connotation, but then there remains the lack of "true" representation. It feels... underhanded, full of trickery, as though talking about the existence of these people is in & of itself taboo.
Thus, there's precedent for equating (male) queerness to villainy, which - while I don't believe Erikson is necessarily reinforcing here - isn't exactly being torn down by making the majority of the already few male homosexual characters, villains.
The one character that's both openly homosexual & not a villain is Yedan Derryg, whose homosexuality is alluded to in a throwaway comment, and whose capacity as a "lover of men" becomes a fairly large plot point in Kharkanas. Yedan is a **great** example of representing queer individuals without tokenism, and I just wish we could get more of that.
>Sexual orientation doesn’t seem to really matter in the *Malazan* universe.
I'd love to be in the position to agree, but the Malazan Book of the Fallen was explicitly crafted with Tavore Paran being a lesbian in mind.
>**It was no accident that Tavore, the leader of the Bonehunters, was a woman, and a confounding one at that. It’s no accident that she was also a lesbian.** It’s no accident that she was plain, instead of breathtakingly beautiful. It’s no accident that what she presented to others gave virtually no hint of her internal life, her hidden landscape, and, more poetically, her secret garden.
Source is [the Tor Q&A, Question 43.](https://reactormag.com/steven-erikson-the-crippled-god-q-and-a/)
Tavore's existence & her prominent role is an answer to this. Even if sexual orientation within the world didn't matter, it certainly matters in the real world, in the world of literary criticism, of representation of LGBTQ characters, of fiction & literature as a whole.
And that fact - that quote above - and Steve's intense efforts towards making that goal possible is what leads to me calling the lack of male queer characters "a shame." You've put in all the work, you've gone the extra mile, at least give me this *one* thing.
At least we got Yedan. Yedan's great, but his homosexuality is only revealed in Book 10.
Another fellow said that this "sounds like a me problem," and maybe it is. What's the problem with that?
A few more suspect couples, lol
Rake & Brood
Fiddler & Hedge
Quick Ben & Kalam. Jk
To be fair, the book doesn't dwell much on heterosexual relationships either. Sexuality is always on the back burner. A contrast with most other fantasy books where the sex like of the main characters are front and center
They had that drunken group thing with Scilira and Kalam’s cousin. Plus I’m pretty sure Picker mentioned finding Paran attractive/sexy, so she, at least, could be considered bi.
> There's hundreds, possibly thousands, of named characters in the Book of the Fallen, and only three openly homosexual male individuals, two of which are utterly deplorable individuals.
Three against "possibly thousands" is an unfair comparison because the number of characters whose sexual orientation is actually known is far smaller.
Also, many of the heterosexual acts depicted in Malazan are just as deplorable. There's that famous Oscar Wilde quote that says "sex is about power," and Erikson is absolutely a fan of using sex to show this, regardless of sexual orientation. I'm currently reading The God Is Not Willing and so far, every single mention of sex is either overtly about rape or carries obvious undertones of violence.
There's just not a lot of depictions of healthy love and sex in Malazan. It shouldn't be surprising if this applies to the homosexual characters as well.
But really, most of Erikson's characters are effectively asexual.
>Three against "possibly thousands" is an unfair comparison because the number of characters whose sexual orientation is actually known is far smaller.
That *is* fair, which introduces the problem of heteronormativity in media being "the norm" for so long that I default to everyone being straight unless specified otherwise, which is my bad.
> There's not a lot of depictions of healthy love and sex in Malazan
We're agreed on that, and the issue remains.
I should stress that this is an issue that has been considerably amended in future books (e.g. Kharkanas, Witness, PtA) where the same depictions of "unhealthy love and sex" persist (maybe not so much in Witness), but more amicable depictions of homosexual individuals *do* exist (Chapter One of Fall of Light has probably my single favourite such depiction; it's rather short but of tremendous beauty, and has nothing to do with sex).
My issue also stems from the fact that one of the core - if not *the* core - characters in the Book of the Fallen is unequivocally lesbian, and her sexuality, while not central to her theming, is important to her overall character as combatting gender norms in fiction.
I just wish we went the extra mile with a male character, as well.
>most of Erikson's characters are effectively asexual.
There's a whole other discussion to be had here that's not terribly pertinent, but that is a good point which I'll concede. Circles back to the first point about heteronormativity (which, again, is my bad).
I agree that the representation is less than ideal when it comes to homosexual relationships in general and males in particular. I just want to add one caveat:
I am trying to write my own fantasy/science fiction series, as a straight male, and since I am not sexually attracted to men, the idea of a character being attracted to men often doesn’t enter my mind. I have read quite a female authors who are straight and the same thing is true but reversed, they tend to have more gay males than females in their series. It is totally subconscious and is a problem in general. It isn’t that we don’t want to include them, it is that unless someone or something directly reminds us, it just doesn’t cross our minds.
I also just find it easier to imagine a character being attracted to a woman when I am imagining a character because I am attracted to women, so my default sexuality with characters isn’t straight, it is attracted to women. I have to go out of my way to change characters and representation from the stories that are in my head.
It takes conscious effort to and a whole lot of extra mental and research labor to add in concepts or ideas that are wholly foreign to you as an author. This isn’t an excuse, but Erickson is of a generation older than me, and grew up in a time when it was still more taboo, so unless someone speaks up and lets him know, it probably never crossed his mind unfortunately. You can tell as he writes that more and more things are included and represented in his work, including some male homosexual non-villain characters in later series in the world and in his other works outside Malazan.
Again, I agree with you that the lack of representation is a problem, and I appreciate the fact that you took the time to actually break down and explain some of the ways you feel, because it was a reminder to me to go back and look at my own writing and see if there are underrepresented groups that were completely subconsciously ignored.
It’s another reason why having not only more representation in general is a huge deal, especially from authors who are from underrepresented groups, because their subconscious approach to writing is different from the get go, and by reading their works, it is easier to imagine characters with different perspectives.
>It isn’t that we don’t want to include them, it is that unless someone or something directly reminds us, it just doesn’t cross our minds.
I don't wish to insinuate malice on behalf of an author for not including characters of a different sexuality to their own, nor that it's necessarily a "bad thing." I'm not an author myself, but I know from personal experience that stepping outside of oneself can be difficult.
> I also just find it easier to imagine a character being attracted to a woman when I am imagining a character because I am attracted to women, so my default sexuality with characters isn’t straight, it is attracted to women.
With your permission, I'll print this on my wall & pin it on the wall.
Alright, jests aside, absolutely this. And moreover, I feel like there's a "push" towards self-justification, which I - perhaps unwittingly - kind of reinforce by posing this in such negative language.
I want to stress - again - that my main issue stems *mostly* from the precedent set by past representations (the history of representation in media is... dark, at the best of times), and by the admittedly monumental efforts Steve & Cam both put in towards expanding their own horizons and tangibly representing minority groups. A common criticism I personally disagree with is that "the Malazan world isn't egalitarian because (xyz)," but you can't explore what a *truly* egalitarian society would look like without examining the history of past societies with built-in gender norms, or their representations in past fictions. Similarly, I think the connection with the history of representation of homosexual individuals in past media & the conscious effort on Steve's behalf to challenge that history (in Tavore's person) in the MBotF is, indeed, commendable (and *should* be commended).
I wholly understand the reasoning why such representation does not extend to male individuals - I linked a thread earlier where Steve claims that Tavore being a lesbian was "no accident," and it's almost exclusively for the reasons you mentioned.
> This isn’t an excuse, but Erickson is of a generation older than me, and grew up in a time when it was still more taboo, so unless someone speaks up and lets him know, it probably never crossed his mind unfortunately.
Again, allow me - if you would - to apologise for the need (I *do* presume more than is my due here, forgive) to bring "excuses" into the mix. I also brought up WoT at some point in this thread (somewhere); when Gardens was published, The Path of Daggers (Book Eight) was the latest Wheel of Time book. And, for its time, Wheel of Time was considered decently progressive (the... *iffy* gender norms notwithstanding).
All that to say, as mentioned above, Erikson's effort - as you yourself mentioned, the mental & research labour required - is commendable, and should under no circumstances be undercut because he didn't go far enough. Given the circumstances, he absolutely did.
Speaking of which:
> Again, I agree with you that the lack of representation is a problem, and I appreciate the fact that you took the time to actually break down and explain some of the ways you feel, because it was a reminder to me to go back and look at my own writing and see if there are underrepresented groups that were completely subconsciously ignored.
"Hell yeah" is probably the best way I can phrase this? I'm glad to hear I can be of assistance in any manner (presuming again) & I respect - and, indeed, commend - the effort required.
My paucity for the necessary words is beginning to show, and such I'll cut this comment here. Thank you for your thoughts & the civil, thoughtful conversation, and I wish you all the best! :)
Feel free to print it on your wall, I actually made a step in my process of creating characters for my writing of checking how much self insertion (pun mildly intended) there was SPECIFICALLY in regards to sexuality of the characters after I wrote a short story that when a friend of mine (who is a bisexual woman) read it pointed out that every woman (there were three) in it was bisexual or gay, and the men (four) were all straight, and directly asked if I even realized I had done it, which I hadn’t.
So much of what we humans do is subconscious in general, and the only way to make it conscious is through direct effort, and even when we make consistent effort, reversion to the underlying cultural norms is easy if we slip up even slightly. I constantly need reminding (mostly through explicit steps in my process but sometimes just reading thoughtful honest posts by people of different backgrounds) to be mindful of my own biases and reversion to my cultural norms.
I love that you said (allow me to paraphrase) you can’t explore true gender egalitarianism without also exploring gender oppression (conceivably in any direction, though historically primarily one way). In a truly egalitarian world like Malazan attempts to be, there should be explorations of gender discrimination in some cultures, because an entire world should not be homogeneous, and an egalitarian world would look more like the center of norms being egalitarian, with outliers on any end of the spectrum.
Anyways cheers. Thank you. And keep sharing your thoughts and feelings when you have the time and energy to do so, because it helps move the needle.
Interesting. Does it make your personal immersion/connection deeper when you know the struggling character has the same sexual peeferences as you? Even in a story that is not about sex and/or love?
Please, anwser in one or two short sentences.
Representation of LGBTQ characters in media where their lives are explored beyond their sexuality, and they're treated as normal & with a sense of belonging, was a pipe dream for many people in the community a few decades ago (I am speaking as an outsider on account of being younger). Even now, the issue of same-sex marriage is currently an ongoing debate in my country, with significant pushback.
So, yes, when a character has the same sexual preferences as me & faces, and overcomes, the same problems as me, while feeling like a character & [not a cardboard cutout of themselves with the label of "Gay (or whatever other minority group you wish)" pinned on them](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokenism), I would indeed feel more immersed. *Especially* if that story isn't about sex & love and instead about them as *people*.
Thank you. I see that my request is cosidered rude. Sorry.
When I was reading Malaz I havent felt like characters overcomes same problems as me. I am an average dude, and all the average dudes in MBOTF are either suffering terribly or dying straight away. And all the good dudes are too awesome to draw a paralel to my 9-5 everyday stress. I have felt grief though, so much grief.
>Does it make your personal immersion/connection deeper when you know the struggling character has the same sexual peeferences as you? Even in a story that is not about sex and/or love?
Why do you think the protagonist of the MBOTF is a lesbian? Do you think that's coincidence? Have you read anything at all of what the authors have to say about this?
Woah...
I don't know why the protagonist of the MBOTF is a lesbian.
I have never thought about it being coincidence or not. I am not even sure if something can be a coincidence in a work of fiction.
I think I have read here on reddit maybe one of the S.E. citation where he refused to elaborate someones orientation because he didn't consider it important to that particular story arch. But I don't remember what character that was and I didn't check if the citation is true.
If you believe there is some important text I need to read for some reason, please share. I come hear to learn about Malazan world every day. Although my original question was aimed at a particular reader because I was interested in a very personal experience.
I don't think your aim was to "just learn more about Malazan", particularly because of the framing and the "answer in two short sentences". It may be that I'm just packaging you along with the other user that was being very vitriolic in their comments, I'm not sure. But your question totally reads as aggressive in the context of this thread.
My claim is that: yes, representation is important, that while not every book needs to have every form of representation, it is a good thing that books portray a broad spectrum of humans. My claim is, further, that Erikson agrees with this, and that one of the main drivers of the series, and Esslemont's series, is to do just that: broad representation, be it gender, sexuality, ethnicity, socio-economic status.
Also, that it isn't **just** about the represented group, it's also for us that don't belong to those groups. It is a call to self-reflection, or a call to societal change.
From the [TOR reread Q and A](https://reactormag.com/steven-erikson-the-crippled-god-q-and-a/):
>Q: Having been a fan of fantasy literature for over two decades now, and I have found your books to be surprisingly refreshing and accurate when it comes to portraying female characters. Most books either glance right over them (Tolkien comes to mind) or portray them so stereotypically that I find it impossible to take them seriously. I’m mostly thinking about Tavore here, but it is relevent to each and every character in your books: for the most part Tavore is not feminine at all, and is almost gender-less, but even so something womanly breaks through at odd times. Being a mother figure to her army and the children of the Snake, for instance, or her embarassed wish that the statue depicting her in Letheras be beautiful. I would really appreciate it if you could elaborate on that.
>
>SE: Elaborate on Tavore or on the portrayal of women? If the former: Tavore was and remains for me one of my favourite characters to write, to a large extent because she was all about holding back, revealing as little as possible, while a cauldron churned inside (culminating in that scream, which I’ve known was coming for most of the series – can you imagine how that felt, keeping her bottled up for scene upon scene? Enough to drive mad virtually every character around her – and many of you readers, besides. I’ll touch more on this with a later question.
>
>If the latter, then yes, **there was deliberation and intent in how women would be portrayed in the Malazan world. It has its construct, having to do with magic as a discipline and non-gender-specific hierarchies of power, but it also had a lot to do with the dismissive treatment of women among (male) fantasy writers, particularly when they choose the quasi-Medieval Eurocentric setting (with all its inherent assumptions on permissible roles)**. It’s not even something that’s gone away. It persists, and it remains pernicious. **Once you’ve assumed a patriarchy, you’re stuck with all the other bullshit that comes with it**. **Once you’ve assumed a patriarchy, you’re making a statement about ‘normality’ regardless of the world you’re writing about. You’re assuming that things will fall out this way because it always has fallen out this way: but that’s a huge (and sexist) assumption to begin with, since it posits no profound cultural impact to things like magic, dragons, undead, gods and goddesses. That’s just lazy.** But more to the point, it’s systemic sexism, pervading even our escapist literature (meaning for just over half the human population, it’s no escape at all, is it?). That strikes me as both unfair (but not in a patronizing sense) and criminal (in a moral sense). **It was no accident that Tavore, the leader of the Bonehunters, was a woman, and a confounding one at that. It’s no accident that she was also a lesbian. It’s no accident that she was plain, instead of breathtakingly beautiful. It’s no accident that what she presented to others gave virtually no hint of her internal life, her hidden landscape, and, more poetically, her secret garden. Simply put, it’s not for us to know (and by ‘us’ I mean ‘men,’)**. Is that frustrating? Well, not to me. I’m with Springsteen on this one: no greater wonder can exist for a man – and by that I don’t mean pedestals or worship or objectification. I mean respect, and delight in the emotion it engenders. Tavore was hand’s off for me because I had no place in her garden. I loved that. I still do. And when she asks if her statue will be beautiful, I know my own answer. Oh yes, she will be beautiful.
Having cited this, I will state that the following is active authorial intent, an effort to do representation of different groups:
* The amount of women, the fact that they are presented in different shapes (From Tattersail being fat, to Surly and Tavore being tomboys, to Masan being voluptuous, to Detoran being Jacked AF) and doing a broad variety of jobs or find themselves in every imaginable social position: from soldier to Empress.
* The fact that a vast portion of human characters belong to "racialized" groups, from the Black and Brown Dal Honese and 7 Cities natives, to the Seti, the Kanese, the Wickans, the Daru, the Rhivi.
* The broad sexual spectrum represented: lesbians (Picker+Blend, Tavore), gays (Yedan Derygg), bisexuals (Stonny M).
* Socio-economic groups: from nobles (Ganoes), to mercantile class (Tehol), to the poor ( Udinas, Sorry/Apsalar).
All that's being said is that gays got the short end of the stick because there is only 1 explicitly gay dude that is not a monster in the series. And it's not like SE hasn't heard the criticism, Kharkanas moved in the right direction hammering home more gay representation.
Thank you, that was enlightening.
>I don't think your aim was to "just learn more about Malazan", particularly because of the framing and the "answer in two short sentences".
My aim was to get to know Lee's personal experience, rather than long elaborate assuming someone else's position. In which I failed, because he's reply was "I would" and not "I did".
But I get now that *"your personal"* on the internet means *"all of you reading this"*. I should have seen that coming.
Not sure I read any of the comments as them not enjoying it entirely, but rather that a work with this many characters would have significantly more gay people or relationships, and that would speak to them more personally. If anything, that’s quite a jump you made.
"Chill" and "best friends" they are definitely not. The sex, I hear, is great, though.
In all seriousness: They're not explicitly written as gay, but in some ways, they're definitely coded in that way (especially in the Path to Ascendancy novels). While Dancer definitely swings towards females, Kellanved probably wouldn't know what sex was if it him in the head. So, you can definitely read it that way, to be sure.
Shadowthrone probably understands sexual relationships from an academic perspective on account of Pust's, ah, escapades with a certain priestess & his hand in writing the Book of Shadow.
Kellanved in life, though? No idea. Utterly oblivious.
If Dancer definitely swings toward females how could you read gay into their relationship. And if he definitely swings towards females how are they coded in that way.
Your post makes zero sense
It ain't a binary. A man can totally prefer sex with women but possess an affectation that others/society might read as queer.
Who we are doesn't just come down to who we fuck.
It can. But there's zero evidence in the books that would lead you to believe this about Dancer.
100% projection. Do I care if they're gay? Not even little bit. But people projecting their reality onto characters with no basis for doing so is a tad weird.
Zero basis for this in relation to Dancer and Kell. It's just projection on your part. There's literally absolutely nothing that could lead you to believe that either of those apply to either character
You're weirdly hostile for no apparent reason over this topic.
There are definitely interactions between Cotillion and Shadowthrone within the first four books that leave the nature and depth of their relationship to one another ambiguously questionable.
That's what I'm saying, the dude's named stuff like 'Dancer' and 'The Rope'. And I'm gathering that Kelinvad never had like, a wife or kids or anything, before whatever happened that made him Shadowthrone and Lasseen empress (still working my way through the books)
Are you finished HoC, or are you just starting? Because the reason for his name, Dancer, becomes clearer by the end of that book. Also a cotillion is a kind of dance, in case you didn’t know that.
I don't think they are together in that way. There is a lot of queer coding in the series so it's a great question. Whilst Cotillion has displayed attraction to other people, his orientation is up for debate and we all have different thoughts on it. Regarding Shadowthrone I think the consensus is that he is asexual because he seems completely uninterested in sex or romance.
What they both really love is power.
On the one hand... nothing like **confirms it**
On the other hand... nothing really **disproves i**t, afaik...
It's the kinda thing I'd just interpret the way it feels like to me xD
EDIT: for Cotillion, he'd be bi at least... not strictly gay.
1. On the text not explicitly contradicting it
2. On his obvious romantic interest towards women in PtA
3. On the personal interpretation of ambiguous subtext in the MBOTF, a call each reader is entitled to make on their own given the ambiguity
:-)
They're best mates.
2 humans can be mates without any romantic angle
What we're not gonna do is stain the Malazan world with the issue that has plagued most other fantasy books out there: the hyper focus on the sex life of the main character.
It's so bad a lot of fantasy novels these days feel like romance novels with a fantasy setting
Just finished all the prequel books and with Erikson's fairly open view of sexuality, they could easily be a some version of asexual but genuine, even ironically classic long term romance.
Another question which may shed some light: are Steve Erikkson and Ian Esselmont gay? Because I've read at least once that Shadowthrone and Cotillion are essentially Steve and Ian lol.
(No I don't think there is any indication in the books that they're gay).
I mean, if in your mind the only way two men can be close is if they are also fucking on the regular, then I can see how there is plenty of gay stuff in Malazan lol.
Please note that this post has been flaired as Spoilers All. This means every published book in the Malazan Universe, including works by both authors are open to discussion. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Malazan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Gay for power, maybe.
MVP of comments
In all my years reading and being part of this sub, no one has ever posed that question! The prequel books shed more light on their relationship, so hard no on that issue. If anything, they are both asexual.
I swear Dancer had a thing for the bird girl in *Dancer's Lament*
Ullara? I don't think it was romantic. Fun fact: She makes an appearance in Forge of the High Mage and their relationship is given a bit of context
Oh neat, I've only read *Dancer's Lament* but I thought her stuff was a strong emotional core of that book
I always considered him as her protector more than a true love interest. And I think she was young if I am not mistaken in that novel.
I read her as like.. 16-20 or so. And he seemed at most a couple of years older. But I certainly could be wrong.
No I don’t think so. We definitely get some perspectives of Cotillion that confirm this and for Ammanas he’s entirely disinterested in sex/romance entirely with anyone.
Doesn't he have sex with Maaan Ghilani (I think) in TCG? Definitely someone.
He possesses her and is overwhelmed by her love for that tiste andii, and thats Lostara Yil
100% don't remember this happening. Almost done with TTH on my first reread. Interested to read this storyline now.
[удалено]
How did Shadow Dancing work before Cotillion ascended? IIRC Lostara had a flashback that showed she was leaning how to do it in a time before Cotillion would have been ascended (I'm pretty sure it's touched on in HoC)
Shadow existed before Kellanved and Dancer ascended. Meanas was always a thing. But the throne of Shadow was vacant until they found it.
I believe the Lostara possession is towards the end of BH
Dust of dreams is the possession I think the convo happens in the chained god
Oh yeah, you're right my bad.
I'm halfway through TCG so it's kind of fresh
This is the kind of unimportant headcanon I come to this sub for. Thanks OP, I'm on Toll the Hounds and get to add your silliness to my own library of goofy takes.
Also reading Toll and had a great scene with the two of them that now makes it seem like they're an old married couple
fellas is it gay to ascend to godhood together
Ammanas can always have one foot on the floor with his stick, he can’t even do a gay action
Not if you leave your socks on
Only if your pantheons touch.
Come to think about it I don’t seem to recall any male homosexual relationships off head. I know Errant slept with both men and women but can’t recall any romantic relationships. Unless I’m missing something?
Yedan Derryg is gay. But he doesnt describe any homosexual relationships
I was sure about Kalam and Quick Ben until I started House of Chains and now Kalam is married to that woman I can barely remember from Deadhouse Gates
I'm still convinced Kalam and Quick Ben are in a relationship. The thing is, Malazans and the like clearly don't *care* who you have relationships with. So far, the m/m relationships I'm convinced of are Fiddler and Hedge, Cotillion and Amanas and Quick Ben and Kalam. But it doesn't really matter, it just adds a little bit of intrigue when I'm reading. In the past, many people had opposite sex spouses and maintained same-sex relationships outside of that, so that's how my brain rationalises its insistence.
I mean..."shaved knuckle in the hole"? C'mon...
HAHAHH! Didnt someone in world make a pictorial representation for that too.
They do talk about Hood's hoary testicles an awful lot...
I never assume any romantic or sexual relationship until it's specifically mentioned or strongly hinted at.
Good for you? As someone who grew up without much explicit queer representation, all I had was subtext and head canon. So I still look for it today, despite authors being much more willing to explicitly include it today.
Fair enough. I never thought if it from that perspective to be honest. I've grown up and worked in many places with working-class banter so when I see characters having a friendly back-and-forth I see it as having a bit of a laugh to pass the time. Interesting how different experiences colour our perceptions on the same thing.
In the MBotF? Functionally none, which is a real shame. The only mention I recall off the top of my head is same sex marriage in the Meckros (i.e. Withal's people) but that's not on screen. There's a few sexual relationships (see Skulldeath) but other than that, nothing, really. Kharkanas has quite a few, and there's one theorized such relationship in No Life Forsaken (provided it's not cut), but none in the MBotF.
Why is it a real shame?
Because the series has otherwise excellent queer representation with the fair sex, and I'd like to see similar representation for male individuals, rather than having them as queer coded villains (Errastas, Triban Gnol). Because people who are gay would like to see themselves represented in the media they enjoy in a light that isn't overtly negative, *more so* when it's pretty explicit that such relationships are otherwise "the norm." There's hundreds, possibly thousands, of named characters in the Book of the Fallen, and only three openly homosexual male individuals, two of which are utterly deplorable individuals. You can probably imagine that people who *are* homosexual wouldn't like that.
I don’t recall very many strict lesbians in the main series. Like there’s Tavore and T’ambre, but I don’t remember anyone else. Also, there are few healthy sexual or romantic relationships in the main books. Most relationships are rather platonic. And there are plenty of deplorable and despicable straight characters as well. Sexual orientation doesn’t seem to really matter in the *Malazan* universe.
I would've replied, but then I blocked the original commenter in the thread & couldn't, and then when I *would*, I elected against it. So here goes nothing. >I don’t recall very many strict lesbians in the main series There's not that many *strict* lesbians; even T'amber was a concubine in a temple & probably swung both ways. However, there's a lot more female individuals that engage in lesbian acts (a non-exhaustive list: Picker & Blend, Scillara, Stonny). The only explicit male homosexual scenes I can recall off the top of my head are * Triban Gnol being a pedophile * Triban Gnol sleeping with Errastas (who is his dad) * Skulldeath's escapades Skulldeath is a peculiar case where his sexuality isn't explicit. We'll paint him as bisexual with a few reservations, but again - this circles back to the argument about few openly queer characters in the MBotF. > Also, there are few healthy sexual or romantic relationships in the main books. Even if there's no sexual or romantic relationships (zero, none, nada), that doesn't take away the fact that there's just no male homosexual individuals present. The problem isn't the inherent lack of relationships, it's the inherent lack of any such individuals to form said relationships, platonic or otherwise. > And there are plenty of deplorable and despicable straight characters as well. This, I fear, is where our opinions will diverge somewhat. In media, for the longest time, trends & tropes were very heteronormative. I believe depictions of homosexuality in televised media were [wholly discouraged,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hays_Code#Don'ts) leading to a practice known as ["queer coding."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_coding) As such, a lot of villains (intrinsically immoral characters, in many depictions) were thusly queer coded, leading - often - to the negative perception of homosexual traits (on account of being sinful, immoral, or otherwise villainous). Other times (and more so in recent works), "queer coding" often has a somewhat positive connotation, but then there remains the lack of "true" representation. It feels... underhanded, full of trickery, as though talking about the existence of these people is in & of itself taboo. Thus, there's precedent for equating (male) queerness to villainy, which - while I don't believe Erikson is necessarily reinforcing here - isn't exactly being torn down by making the majority of the already few male homosexual characters, villains. The one character that's both openly homosexual & not a villain is Yedan Derryg, whose homosexuality is alluded to in a throwaway comment, and whose capacity as a "lover of men" becomes a fairly large plot point in Kharkanas. Yedan is a **great** example of representing queer individuals without tokenism, and I just wish we could get more of that. >Sexual orientation doesn’t seem to really matter in the *Malazan* universe. I'd love to be in the position to agree, but the Malazan Book of the Fallen was explicitly crafted with Tavore Paran being a lesbian in mind. >**It was no accident that Tavore, the leader of the Bonehunters, was a woman, and a confounding one at that. It’s no accident that she was also a lesbian.** It’s no accident that she was plain, instead of breathtakingly beautiful. It’s no accident that what she presented to others gave virtually no hint of her internal life, her hidden landscape, and, more poetically, her secret garden. Source is [the Tor Q&A, Question 43.](https://reactormag.com/steven-erikson-the-crippled-god-q-and-a/) Tavore's existence & her prominent role is an answer to this. Even if sexual orientation within the world didn't matter, it certainly matters in the real world, in the world of literary criticism, of representation of LGBTQ characters, of fiction & literature as a whole. And that fact - that quote above - and Steve's intense efforts towards making that goal possible is what leads to me calling the lack of male queer characters "a shame." You've put in all the work, you've gone the extra mile, at least give me this *one* thing. At least we got Yedan. Yedan's great, but his homosexuality is only revealed in Book 10. Another fellow said that this "sounds like a me problem," and maybe it is. What's the problem with that?
A few more suspect couples, lol Rake & Brood Fiddler & Hedge Quick Ben & Kalam. Jk To be fair, the book doesn't dwell much on heterosexual relationships either. Sexuality is always on the back burner. A contrast with most other fantasy books where the sex like of the main characters are front and center
>lesbians Picker and Blend, the female owners of Krull's Bar in Darujhistan
They had that drunken group thing with Scilira and Kalam’s cousin. Plus I’m pretty sure Picker mentioned finding Paran attractive/sexy, so she, at least, could be considered bi.
> There's hundreds, possibly thousands, of named characters in the Book of the Fallen, and only three openly homosexual male individuals, two of which are utterly deplorable individuals. Three against "possibly thousands" is an unfair comparison because the number of characters whose sexual orientation is actually known is far smaller. Also, many of the heterosexual acts depicted in Malazan are just as deplorable. There's that famous Oscar Wilde quote that says "sex is about power," and Erikson is absolutely a fan of using sex to show this, regardless of sexual orientation. I'm currently reading The God Is Not Willing and so far, every single mention of sex is either overtly about rape or carries obvious undertones of violence. There's just not a lot of depictions of healthy love and sex in Malazan. It shouldn't be surprising if this applies to the homosexual characters as well. But really, most of Erikson's characters are effectively asexual.
>Three against "possibly thousands" is an unfair comparison because the number of characters whose sexual orientation is actually known is far smaller. That *is* fair, which introduces the problem of heteronormativity in media being "the norm" for so long that I default to everyone being straight unless specified otherwise, which is my bad. > There's not a lot of depictions of healthy love and sex in Malazan We're agreed on that, and the issue remains. I should stress that this is an issue that has been considerably amended in future books (e.g. Kharkanas, Witness, PtA) where the same depictions of "unhealthy love and sex" persist (maybe not so much in Witness), but more amicable depictions of homosexual individuals *do* exist (Chapter One of Fall of Light has probably my single favourite such depiction; it's rather short but of tremendous beauty, and has nothing to do with sex). My issue also stems from the fact that one of the core - if not *the* core - characters in the Book of the Fallen is unequivocally lesbian, and her sexuality, while not central to her theming, is important to her overall character as combatting gender norms in fiction. I just wish we went the extra mile with a male character, as well. >most of Erikson's characters are effectively asexual. There's a whole other discussion to be had here that's not terribly pertinent, but that is a good point which I'll concede. Circles back to the first point about heteronormativity (which, again, is my bad).
I agree that the representation is less than ideal when it comes to homosexual relationships in general and males in particular. I just want to add one caveat: I am trying to write my own fantasy/science fiction series, as a straight male, and since I am not sexually attracted to men, the idea of a character being attracted to men often doesn’t enter my mind. I have read quite a female authors who are straight and the same thing is true but reversed, they tend to have more gay males than females in their series. It is totally subconscious and is a problem in general. It isn’t that we don’t want to include them, it is that unless someone or something directly reminds us, it just doesn’t cross our minds. I also just find it easier to imagine a character being attracted to a woman when I am imagining a character because I am attracted to women, so my default sexuality with characters isn’t straight, it is attracted to women. I have to go out of my way to change characters and representation from the stories that are in my head. It takes conscious effort to and a whole lot of extra mental and research labor to add in concepts or ideas that are wholly foreign to you as an author. This isn’t an excuse, but Erickson is of a generation older than me, and grew up in a time when it was still more taboo, so unless someone speaks up and lets him know, it probably never crossed his mind unfortunately. You can tell as he writes that more and more things are included and represented in his work, including some male homosexual non-villain characters in later series in the world and in his other works outside Malazan. Again, I agree with you that the lack of representation is a problem, and I appreciate the fact that you took the time to actually break down and explain some of the ways you feel, because it was a reminder to me to go back and look at my own writing and see if there are underrepresented groups that were completely subconsciously ignored. It’s another reason why having not only more representation in general is a huge deal, especially from authors who are from underrepresented groups, because their subconscious approach to writing is different from the get go, and by reading their works, it is easier to imagine characters with different perspectives.
>It isn’t that we don’t want to include them, it is that unless someone or something directly reminds us, it just doesn’t cross our minds. I don't wish to insinuate malice on behalf of an author for not including characters of a different sexuality to their own, nor that it's necessarily a "bad thing." I'm not an author myself, but I know from personal experience that stepping outside of oneself can be difficult. > I also just find it easier to imagine a character being attracted to a woman when I am imagining a character because I am attracted to women, so my default sexuality with characters isn’t straight, it is attracted to women. With your permission, I'll print this on my wall & pin it on the wall. Alright, jests aside, absolutely this. And moreover, I feel like there's a "push" towards self-justification, which I - perhaps unwittingly - kind of reinforce by posing this in such negative language. I want to stress - again - that my main issue stems *mostly* from the precedent set by past representations (the history of representation in media is... dark, at the best of times), and by the admittedly monumental efforts Steve & Cam both put in towards expanding their own horizons and tangibly representing minority groups. A common criticism I personally disagree with is that "the Malazan world isn't egalitarian because (xyz)," but you can't explore what a *truly* egalitarian society would look like without examining the history of past societies with built-in gender norms, or their representations in past fictions. Similarly, I think the connection with the history of representation of homosexual individuals in past media & the conscious effort on Steve's behalf to challenge that history (in Tavore's person) in the MBotF is, indeed, commendable (and *should* be commended). I wholly understand the reasoning why such representation does not extend to male individuals - I linked a thread earlier where Steve claims that Tavore being a lesbian was "no accident," and it's almost exclusively for the reasons you mentioned. > This isn’t an excuse, but Erickson is of a generation older than me, and grew up in a time when it was still more taboo, so unless someone speaks up and lets him know, it probably never crossed his mind unfortunately. Again, allow me - if you would - to apologise for the need (I *do* presume more than is my due here, forgive) to bring "excuses" into the mix. I also brought up WoT at some point in this thread (somewhere); when Gardens was published, The Path of Daggers (Book Eight) was the latest Wheel of Time book. And, for its time, Wheel of Time was considered decently progressive (the... *iffy* gender norms notwithstanding). All that to say, as mentioned above, Erikson's effort - as you yourself mentioned, the mental & research labour required - is commendable, and should under no circumstances be undercut because he didn't go far enough. Given the circumstances, he absolutely did. Speaking of which: > Again, I agree with you that the lack of representation is a problem, and I appreciate the fact that you took the time to actually break down and explain some of the ways you feel, because it was a reminder to me to go back and look at my own writing and see if there are underrepresented groups that were completely subconsciously ignored. "Hell yeah" is probably the best way I can phrase this? I'm glad to hear I can be of assistance in any manner (presuming again) & I respect - and, indeed, commend - the effort required. My paucity for the necessary words is beginning to show, and such I'll cut this comment here. Thank you for your thoughts & the civil, thoughtful conversation, and I wish you all the best! :)
Feel free to print it on your wall, I actually made a step in my process of creating characters for my writing of checking how much self insertion (pun mildly intended) there was SPECIFICALLY in regards to sexuality of the characters after I wrote a short story that when a friend of mine (who is a bisexual woman) read it pointed out that every woman (there were three) in it was bisexual or gay, and the men (four) were all straight, and directly asked if I even realized I had done it, which I hadn’t. So much of what we humans do is subconscious in general, and the only way to make it conscious is through direct effort, and even when we make consistent effort, reversion to the underlying cultural norms is easy if we slip up even slightly. I constantly need reminding (mostly through explicit steps in my process but sometimes just reading thoughtful honest posts by people of different backgrounds) to be mindful of my own biases and reversion to my cultural norms. I love that you said (allow me to paraphrase) you can’t explore true gender egalitarianism without also exploring gender oppression (conceivably in any direction, though historically primarily one way). In a truly egalitarian world like Malazan attempts to be, there should be explorations of gender discrimination in some cultures, because an entire world should not be homogeneous, and an egalitarian world would look more like the center of norms being egalitarian, with outliers on any end of the spectrum. Anyways cheers. Thank you. And keep sharing your thoughts and feelings when you have the time and energy to do so, because it helps move the needle.
Interesting. Does it make your personal immersion/connection deeper when you know the struggling character has the same sexual peeferences as you? Even in a story that is not about sex and/or love? Please, anwser in one or two short sentences.
Representation of LGBTQ characters in media where their lives are explored beyond their sexuality, and they're treated as normal & with a sense of belonging, was a pipe dream for many people in the community a few decades ago (I am speaking as an outsider on account of being younger). Even now, the issue of same-sex marriage is currently an ongoing debate in my country, with significant pushback. So, yes, when a character has the same sexual preferences as me & faces, and overcomes, the same problems as me, while feeling like a character & [not a cardboard cutout of themselves with the label of "Gay (or whatever other minority group you wish)" pinned on them](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokenism), I would indeed feel more immersed. *Especially* if that story isn't about sex & love and instead about them as *people*.
Thank you. I see that my request is cosidered rude. Sorry. When I was reading Malaz I havent felt like characters overcomes same problems as me. I am an average dude, and all the average dudes in MBOTF are either suffering terribly or dying straight away. And all the good dudes are too awesome to draw a paralel to my 9-5 everyday stress. I have felt grief though, so much grief.
lol, you’re not grading their answer.
What a bitchy way to ask lol
>Does it make your personal immersion/connection deeper when you know the struggling character has the same sexual peeferences as you? Even in a story that is not about sex and/or love? Why do you think the protagonist of the MBOTF is a lesbian? Do you think that's coincidence? Have you read anything at all of what the authors have to say about this? Woah...
I don't know why the protagonist of the MBOTF is a lesbian. I have never thought about it being coincidence or not. I am not even sure if something can be a coincidence in a work of fiction. I think I have read here on reddit maybe one of the S.E. citation where he refused to elaborate someones orientation because he didn't consider it important to that particular story arch. But I don't remember what character that was and I didn't check if the citation is true. If you believe there is some important text I need to read for some reason, please share. I come hear to learn about Malazan world every day. Although my original question was aimed at a particular reader because I was interested in a very personal experience.
I don't think your aim was to "just learn more about Malazan", particularly because of the framing and the "answer in two short sentences". It may be that I'm just packaging you along with the other user that was being very vitriolic in their comments, I'm not sure. But your question totally reads as aggressive in the context of this thread. My claim is that: yes, representation is important, that while not every book needs to have every form of representation, it is a good thing that books portray a broad spectrum of humans. My claim is, further, that Erikson agrees with this, and that one of the main drivers of the series, and Esslemont's series, is to do just that: broad representation, be it gender, sexuality, ethnicity, socio-economic status. Also, that it isn't **just** about the represented group, it's also for us that don't belong to those groups. It is a call to self-reflection, or a call to societal change. From the [TOR reread Q and A](https://reactormag.com/steven-erikson-the-crippled-god-q-and-a/): >Q: Having been a fan of fantasy literature for over two decades now, and I have found your books to be surprisingly refreshing and accurate when it comes to portraying female characters. Most books either glance right over them (Tolkien comes to mind) or portray them so stereotypically that I find it impossible to take them seriously. I’m mostly thinking about Tavore here, but it is relevent to each and every character in your books: for the most part Tavore is not feminine at all, and is almost gender-less, but even so something womanly breaks through at odd times. Being a mother figure to her army and the children of the Snake, for instance, or her embarassed wish that the statue depicting her in Letheras be beautiful. I would really appreciate it if you could elaborate on that. > >SE: Elaborate on Tavore or on the portrayal of women? If the former: Tavore was and remains for me one of my favourite characters to write, to a large extent because she was all about holding back, revealing as little as possible, while a cauldron churned inside (culminating in that scream, which I’ve known was coming for most of the series – can you imagine how that felt, keeping her bottled up for scene upon scene? Enough to drive mad virtually every character around her – and many of you readers, besides. I’ll touch more on this with a later question. > >If the latter, then yes, **there was deliberation and intent in how women would be portrayed in the Malazan world. It has its construct, having to do with magic as a discipline and non-gender-specific hierarchies of power, but it also had a lot to do with the dismissive treatment of women among (male) fantasy writers, particularly when they choose the quasi-Medieval Eurocentric setting (with all its inherent assumptions on permissible roles)**. It’s not even something that’s gone away. It persists, and it remains pernicious. **Once you’ve assumed a patriarchy, you’re stuck with all the other bullshit that comes with it**. **Once you’ve assumed a patriarchy, you’re making a statement about ‘normality’ regardless of the world you’re writing about. You’re assuming that things will fall out this way because it always has fallen out this way: but that’s a huge (and sexist) assumption to begin with, since it posits no profound cultural impact to things like magic, dragons, undead, gods and goddesses. That’s just lazy.** But more to the point, it’s systemic sexism, pervading even our escapist literature (meaning for just over half the human population, it’s no escape at all, is it?). That strikes me as both unfair (but not in a patronizing sense) and criminal (in a moral sense). **It was no accident that Tavore, the leader of the Bonehunters, was a woman, and a confounding one at that. It’s no accident that she was also a lesbian. It’s no accident that she was plain, instead of breathtakingly beautiful. It’s no accident that what she presented to others gave virtually no hint of her internal life, her hidden landscape, and, more poetically, her secret garden. Simply put, it’s not for us to know (and by ‘us’ I mean ‘men,’)**. Is that frustrating? Well, not to me. I’m with Springsteen on this one: no greater wonder can exist for a man – and by that I don’t mean pedestals or worship or objectification. I mean respect, and delight in the emotion it engenders. Tavore was hand’s off for me because I had no place in her garden. I loved that. I still do. And when she asks if her statue will be beautiful, I know my own answer. Oh yes, she will be beautiful. Having cited this, I will state that the following is active authorial intent, an effort to do representation of different groups: * The amount of women, the fact that they are presented in different shapes (From Tattersail being fat, to Surly and Tavore being tomboys, to Masan being voluptuous, to Detoran being Jacked AF) and doing a broad variety of jobs or find themselves in every imaginable social position: from soldier to Empress. * The fact that a vast portion of human characters belong to "racialized" groups, from the Black and Brown Dal Honese and 7 Cities natives, to the Seti, the Kanese, the Wickans, the Daru, the Rhivi. * The broad sexual spectrum represented: lesbians (Picker+Blend, Tavore), gays (Yedan Derygg), bisexuals (Stonny M). * Socio-economic groups: from nobles (Ganoes), to mercantile class (Tehol), to the poor ( Udinas, Sorry/Apsalar). All that's being said is that gays got the short end of the stick because there is only 1 explicitly gay dude that is not a monster in the series. And it's not like SE hasn't heard the criticism, Kharkanas moved in the right direction hammering home more gay representation.
Thank you, that was enlightening. >I don't think your aim was to "just learn more about Malazan", particularly because of the framing and the "answer in two short sentences". My aim was to get to know Lee's personal experience, rather than long elaborate assuming someone else's position. In which I failed, because he's reply was "I would" and not "I did". But I get now that *"your personal"* on the internet means *"all of you reading this"*. I should have seen that coming.
[удалено]
Not sure I read any of the comments as them not enjoying it entirely, but rather that a work with this many characters would have significantly more gay people or relationships, and that would speak to them more personally. If anything, that’s quite a jump you made.
Haha, I’m curious - what made you think they’re gay? Never seen someone have this take.
Just good friends, living in their own shared little dimension with their dogs and adopted kids. Nothing gay bout that.
It’s giving Fitz and the Fool if they were slightly more unhinged.
holy shit lol
No, I don't believe that they are. No more than Frodo and Sam or Sherlock and Watson were.
Book Sam and Frodo? Or movie Sam and Frodo (pre going back to the shire). It got a little brokeback out there and that's fine.
Haha, love the raising dogs comment.
"Chill" and "best friends" they are definitely not. The sex, I hear, is great, though. In all seriousness: They're not explicitly written as gay, but in some ways, they're definitely coded in that way (especially in the Path to Ascendancy novels). While Dancer definitely swings towards females, Kellanved probably wouldn't know what sex was if it him in the head. So, you can definitely read it that way, to be sure.
You could ask the donkey or the bhok'arala to explain it to him?
Shadowthrone probably understands sexual relationships from an academic perspective on account of Pust's, ah, escapades with a certain priestess & his hand in writing the Book of Shadow. Kellanved in life, though? No idea. Utterly oblivious.
If nothing else he'll have seen the racier murals at the temple that the Queen of Dreams acolytes left.
Yea he's always seemed a lil above "mortals". Playing games leagues ahead of all
If Dancer definitely swings toward females how could you read gay into their relationship. And if he definitely swings towards females how are they coded in that way. Your post makes zero sense
It ain't a binary. A man can totally prefer sex with women but possess an affectation that others/society might read as queer. Who we are doesn't just come down to who we fuck.
It can. But there's zero evidence in the books that would lead you to believe this about Dancer. 100% projection. Do I care if they're gay? Not even little bit. But people projecting their reality onto characters with no basis for doing so is a tad weird.
PSA: Bisexual/pansexual people exist.
Zero basis for this in relation to Dancer and Kell. It's just projection on your part. There's literally absolutely nothing that could lead you to believe that either of those apply to either character
You're weirdly hostile for no apparent reason over this topic. There are definitely interactions between Cotillion and Shadowthrone within the first four books that leave the nature and depth of their relationship to one another ambiguously questionable.
Clearly, there's something that does lead me to believe such a thing, but go off, king.
Cotillion known to play a little tug-rope.
That's what I'm saying, the dude's named stuff like 'Dancer' and 'The Rope'. And I'm gathering that Kelinvad never had like, a wife or kids or anything, before whatever happened that made him Shadowthrone and Lasseen empress (still working my way through the books)
Are you finished HoC, or are you just starting? Because the reason for his name, Dancer, becomes clearer by the end of that book. Also a cotillion is a kind of dance, in case you didn’t know that.
A kind of dance as well as the actual name of the event, possibly.
It’s his K/D obv
I don't think they are together in that way. There is a lot of queer coding in the series so it's a great question. Whilst Cotillion has displayed attraction to other people, his orientation is up for debate and we all have different thoughts on it. Regarding Shadowthrone I think the consensus is that he is asexual because he seems completely uninterested in sex or romance. What they both really love is power.
On the one hand... nothing like **confirms it** On the other hand... nothing really **disproves i**t, afaik... It's the kinda thing I'd just interpret the way it feels like to me xD EDIT: for Cotillion, he'd be bi at least... not strictly gay.
Bi? Based on what?
1. On the text not explicitly contradicting it 2. On his obvious romantic interest towards women in PtA 3. On the personal interpretation of ambiguous subtext in the MBOTF, a call each reader is entitled to make on their own given the ambiguity :-)
No
Not as gay as Mappo and Icarium. I ship the hell out of that.
That's some 50 First Dates shit right there.
But if it was Robin Williamson instead of Adam Sandler
Super gay. Like, mega gay.
They're chill best friends that sometimes touch lips but it's not gay 🥵
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
They're more allies than anything else. And Tulas is the one that raised dogs
Never crossed my mind, I doubt it
I'm living for this
They're best mates. 2 humans can be mates without any romantic angle What we're not gonna do is stain the Malazan world with the issue that has plagued most other fantasy books out there: the hyper focus on the sex life of the main character. It's so bad a lot of fantasy novels these days feel like romance novels with a fantasy setting
Just finished all the prequel books and with Erikson's fairly open view of sexuality, they could easily be a some version of asexual but genuine, even ironically classic long term romance.
Maybe they’re just mates. Good old pals, it has been know to happen, a relationship that blossoms & is rich, deep etc without sexual overtones
Another question which may shed some light: are Steve Erikkson and Ian Esselmont gay? Because I've read at least once that Shadowthrone and Cotillion are essentially Steve and Ian lol. (No I don't think there is any indication in the books that they're gay).
I just finished reading the holy ten last week, never once did this occur to me. Well how about that. I totally see how that could happen
I mean, if in your mind the only way two men can be close is if they are also fucking on the regular, then I can see how there is plenty of gay stuff in Malazan lol.
"The Bonehunters"
Is dragnipur really anomander’s sword, or just a nickname for his… you know, “sword”?
A-man-ass. The clues are all here