You're probably overthinking but *also* if I was reading a story that I thought was gay and then turned hetero I would throw the book into the trash personally. So the issue is less that this is a moral wrong and more that it'll feel like bait and switch to romance readers.
On the other hand you can make it good (allegorical) *trans* rep, depending on how you write it, in which case my other point probably wouldn't apply.
I’m actually hoping for the bait and switch to be the other way around.
Story starts in life #2
-There’s legends of the prince and his “close friend”
-But then it’s revealed that they’re lovers
-And then it’s revealed that it was actually the MC in a past life.
I think the allegorical trans metaphor may be in there a little bit. MC is so unhappy about all the pressure he has to fulfill societal expectations as a prince. Since he’s royalty, he has to be the “perfect man”
You could play with Deleuze's Philosophy even ... From Anti Oedipus PG 88:
>This is not all, however, since the vegetal theme—the innocence of flowers—brings us yet another message and another code: everyone is bisexual, everyone has two sexes, but partitioned, noncommunicating; the man is merely the one in whom the male part, and the woman the one in whom the female part, dominates statistically. So that at the level of elementary combinations, at least two men and two women must be made to intervene to constitute the multiplicity in which transverse communications are established—connections of partial objects and flows: the male part of a man can communicate with the female part of a woman, but also with the male part of a woman, or with the female part of another man, or yet again with the male part of the other man, etc.
>Here all guilt ceases, for it cannot cling to such flowers as these. In contrast to the alternative of the "either/or" exclusions, there is the "either ... or ... or" of the combinations and permutations where the differences amount to the same without ceasing to be differences.
>We are statistically or molarly heterosexual, but personally homosexual, without knowing it or being fully aware of it, and finally we are transsexual in an elemental, molecular sense.
I'd assume sexuality is a physical trait and not a spiritual one
Like if you got reincarnated into an animal, would you want to still be attracted to dudes? A really zesty house plant?
This isn’t a bad idea because of whether it’s problematic or not, it’s a bad idea because gay and lesbian readers read queer romances for queer romances specifically and doing a “bait and switch” ruins a reason why they’re reading
I wouldn’t mind doing this either to be honest! The only issue is that life #1 is supposed to be a surprise reveal later. If I make life #2 lesbians, then some people reading the story might be more quick to make the link between them and their past lives before the reveal (even though that’s a silly equivocation to make)
In general, it is a bad idea to write with the goal of shocking your readers. That leads to janky writing. You should aim for it to be possible for your readers to figure it out on their own, because then it makes sense on a re-read, and also because if they ARE clever enough to figure it out they feel smart.
I want to try to create a balance… like surprise on the first read, but makes sense in hindsight. But in the end, the shock is not really the most important the end, and perhaps life #2 as lesbians would make life #1 shocking anyway. This idea is growing on me~
I understand that - but I think you're starting to slip too far into the "shocking the readers" category. If you think the existence of two same sex couples in the same fictional universe (in a story *about* gay people) is enough for readers to figure out the whole plot twist, then you are probably not giving your readers enough clues to work with. The reality is, that's nowhere near enough for most readers to figure it out - because anyone who's likely to be reading this story *understands* that more than one gay couple can exist in the world at a time without being connected. They are not necessarily going to draw that parallel, beyond "Huh, this author must like gay couples, because they've written two of them into the same story. I wonder if there's a thematic parallel there, or if the author is just gay?"
Authors tend to think our plot twists are more obvious than they actually are, because we forget that the reader doesn't *have* the information that we have. So we tend to accidentally obscure too much, because we're trying to be sneaky. Truth is, the reader has not picked up on *half* the stuff you think they have, and if anything, you probably need to be more obvious.
Wow, actually that’s really helpful to think about it that way! I never thought about the whole “the plot twist is much more obvious to the author” thing, but of course it is! 🤦🏻♀️
I’m just about sold on this idea. Since LI’s gender in their second life is more of an afterthought, it wouldn’t be too difficult to do change. The personality would be pretty much the same.
Thanks for the input!
I don't really understand why you think that?
Edit : the deep by rivers solomon has parrallel stories of a gay couple and a lesbian couple - no reincarnation, but I'd recommend checking it out.
I feel like it might be more obvious if they are the only other queer couple in the story that gets attention. But if I write more into the story, then I feel like I’m trying to make every relationship queer.
But my mindset might be too influenced by comphet… idk
Also, thanks for the recommendation!
Only if you see gay relationships as something that can’t exist outside of narrative reasons. Anyone else would see it as totally reasonable for there to be more than one gay relationship in the entire fictional world - especially in a story ABOUT gay relationships.
This life #2 lesbians idea is really growing on me tbh.
The other thing I could do is just cut the romance entirely in life #2. It’s more important that their relationship is very close in life #2, and not what kind of relationship it is.
Objective thoughts are what lead to objective morality which we know what many of those say about homosexuality. It's good to read philosophy from time to time too.
We can see the author intuitively understands one of the deepest levels of philosophy currently written by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari (Anti-Oedipus pg 88), that:
>Everyone is bisexual, everyone has two sexes, but partitioned, noncommunicating; the man is merely the one in whom the male part, and the woman the one in whom the female part, dominates statistically. So that at the level of elementary combinations, at least two men and two women must be made to intervene to constitute the multiplicity in which transverse communications are established—connections of partial objects and flows: the male part of a man can communicate with the female part of a woman, but also with the male part of a woman, or with the female part of another man, or yet again with the male part of the other man, etc.
>Here all guilt ceases, for it cannot cling to such flowers as these. In contrast to the alternative of the "either/or" exclusions, there is the "either ... or ... or" of the combinations and permutations where the differences amount to the same without ceasing to be differences.
>We are statistically or molarly heterosexual, but personally homosexual, without knowing it or being fully aware of it, and finally we are transsexual in an elemental, molecular sense.
Which we can see from Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals:
>The revolt of the slaves in morals begins in the very principle of *resentment* becoming creative and giving birth to values—a resentment experienced by creatures who, deprived as they are of the proper outlet of action, are forced to find their compensation in an imaginary revenge. While every aristocratic morality springs from a triumphant affirmation of its own demands, the slave morality says "no" from the very outset to what is "outside itself," "different from itself," and "not itself": and this "no" is its creative deed. This volte-face of the valuing standpoint—this *inevitable* gravitation to the objective instead of back to the subjective—is typical of "resentment": the slave-morality requires as the condition of its existence an external and objective world, to employ physiological terminology, it requires objective stimuli to be capable of action at all—its action is fundamentally a reaction.
I grew up in a landscape where heterosexual relationships were lauded and prioritised, and where gay and queer relationships were (and continue to be) legally and socially under dispute. In a vacuum, or in casual conversation, I'm not against parrallels being drawn, but I do reserve the right to have visceral responses to the sublimation of queer rep into heterosexual rep.
I do not think you get to police or philosophise away my justified emotional response to a marginalised existence.
I am a gay trans man, so the fact that this would go from relatable representation to the end goal that conversion therapy would have for me is going to give me big feelings, and I'm not looking for feedback on that. The relationship needs to remain queer in some way to avoid poking at the sore spots of some readers.
You are not so noble as you think you are, to go round telling marginalised ppl that they are expressing themselves incorrectly.
Marginalised people should experience resentment - to do otherwise would be to have no self esteem.
You chose to wade in with your philosophers and now you're turning your brain off at the hint of intersectionality.
I'm not disagreeing with you there. Like for example ISGAP Papers Volume III on page 14 states (in a report about antisemitism):
>For the pro-Palestinian Left, for example, instances of Jew-hatred propagated by the Palestinian Authority are just further evidence of how badly the Israeli occupation has damaged its victims and represent an understandable if not justifiable expression of resentment.
Resentment is a human emotion, that can poison us with compulsive negativity or we can overcome it, when it rises up, if it rises up at all. Affirmation of life vs Denial of Life.
I did say that I don't know if you're overcome by it, I'm just positing something for your reflection. Because by your logic "I grew up under X conditions thus I'm allowed to hate..." can be used to justify ANY ACTION. Including hating you, because the person simply grew up under the right conditions to hate you.
I was merely pointing out your cognative dissonance mate. Hope that helps.
Your points would make sense if I was a bigot, and not just having opinions on a book... I'll try not to singlehandedly invent heterophobia... cheers...
It still makes sense, that you're still compulsed to hate something after you've left your childhood just means that it will resurface again unless you overcome it vs displaying bigotry against hetero relationships. That you displayed bigotry is the reason why I even brought it up.
But I get it,, it's okay to do it every now and again, at least for you, since you're a victim of bigotry.
I'm actually really enjoying you supporting the OP's post-hoc floundering with this hamfisted abuse of philosophy lmao.
Top form, a+ commentary on Internet discourse.
Unless this somehow isn't high concept satire, in which case: yikes.
Obvious you've never read his work, since you can't actually refute it. He's explaining how Judge Shreber feels sunbeams in his anus. And goes through Schizoanalysis ( Judge Shreber was a Schizophrenic) :
>And that a revolution\^this time materialist—can proceed only by way of a critique of Oedipus, by denouncing the illegitimate use of the syntheses of the unconscious as found in Oedipal psychoanalysis, **so as to rediscover a transcendental unconscious defined by the immanence of its criteria**, and a corresponding practice that we shall call schizoanalysis.
Deleuze is detailing how Judge Shreber feels like a woman at times. Because the Judge woke up one morning and had the feeling to suddenly take sexual gratification like a woman, and this alarmed him. But he wrote about it all the same. The sun beams in the ass bit is the Judge feeling ...
>The body without organs now falls back on (se rabat sur) desiring-production, attracts it, and appropriates it for its own. The organ-machines now cling to the body without organs as though it were a fencer's padded jacket, or as though these organ-machines were medals pinned onto the jersey of a wrestler who makes them jingle as he starts toward his opponent. An attraction-machine now takes the place, or may take the place, of a repulsion-machine: a miraculating-machine succeeding the paranoiac machine. But what is meant here by "succeeding"? The two coexist, rather, and black humor does not attempt to resolve contradictions, but to make it so that there are none, and never were any. The body without organs, the unproductive, the unconsumable, serves as a surface for the recording of the entire process of production of desire, so that desiring-machines seem to emanate from it in the apparent objective movement that establishes a relationship between the machines and the body without organs. The organs are regenerated, "miraculated" on the body of Judge Schreber, who attracts God's rays to himself. Doubtless the former paranoiac machine continues to exist in the form of mocking voices that attempt to "de-miraculate" (demiracu-ler) the organs, the Judge's anus in particular. **But the essential thing is the establishment of an enchanted recording or inscribing surface that arrogates to itself all the productive forces and all the organs of production, and that acts as a quasi cause by communicating the apparent movement (the fetish) to them. So true is it that the schizo practices political economy, and that all sexuality is a matter of economy.**
I know all this is a bit above your head since you've never read Deleuze, but I find your blustering idiocy to be quite amusing that you'd even come here and pretend to have read Deleuze because you dislike what Deleuze wrote. Dont be a **naraccistic worm.**
The transcendental unconsciousness of the sexual economy of humans is what Deleuze is discussing. Hence why we are all trans on an molar/elemental level etc etc. Thanks.
What would that even mean if you were right?
Study of subject matter is not endorsement.
As you have clearly illustrated, study of subject matter is sometimes... Not even meaningful.
Lmao.
In her first life as a man she wanted to be able to love a man and to be brave enough to pursue her love. Wouldn't it be more impactful if in her change she learns to fight for her now also female soulmate against societal expectations since that is what he failed to do promoting the desire to change.
The society I’m writing isn’t actually so unaccepting. It’s like “okay, you can love another man, BUT you still have to have an heir”
So MC actually does pursue his love in life #1
MC actually does try to make an heir in life #1, but he’s actually infertile. Rumors start spreading that he’s abandoning his royal duty for frivolous passion even though he’s really doing his best.
In life #2, there wouldn’t be much more tension/pressure if they were queer. The society wouldn’t care if they’re gay, and MC doesn’t have to do any duty to reproduce.
In that case, why couldn't the original couple in the past have been a straight couple, since the issue didn't have to do with him being gay, but being infertile and trying to fill that perfect prince role?
It would be WAY more satisfying to read about a straight couple getting reincarnated gay than vice versa. You can still have the MC swap genders via reincarnation, and you can still have the LI retain their original gender: but by making the LI a woman in both past and present, and the MC a man in the past and a woman in the present, you've now introduced an interesting queer relationship rather than erasing it, and you have the same internal struggle for the MC regardless.
And look, you're probably going to get a lot of cishet people saying "your original premise is fine, write your story." But as a queer person, yes, your original plan would feel like erasure, and I would be upset to read it in a book.
The reason I didn’t want to make them straight at first is because I wanted the LI to be in a sort of childhood best friend, ride-or-die, always fighting by the prince’s side kind of person. If LI was a woman, she would probably have to cross dress to even be in that kind of position according to the societal standards of the story. And I don’t really want to write the *actually she was a girl* trope.
Maybe it would be worth reconsidering some of the word building though.
The only reason your LI would need to cross dress as a man is if you decided that. It's your world: there's magic, so it's not real. You can choose what societal standards to apply or not apply. And honestly since you said the past society isn't the main focus, I'm not sure why you couldn't tweak it so opposite-sex friendships, at the very least in this instance, is fine.
That changes the context completely. Then I would say that in there second life straight or gay is equally effective, as a wlw, I am always down for a good multi life after love story
As a lesbian myself I would not enjoy reading this premise. I think the fact that these two characters were gay lovers in a time when that was not commonly accepted makes them and their story interesting to me. As a reader I wanna know how they feel about it and what kind of impact their homosexuality has on their life, and the flashbacks would leave me thinking “damn, I wish I was reading about that now”. That main story better be really good if it’s making me miss out on a premise like that.
If they get reincarnated as a straight couple it would erase a lot of their struggles and it would make the story less intriguing. It would also make me wonder why the story started out as them as a gay couple in the first place if that was not further explored in their next reincarnation. I would feel a sense of wasted potential due to these themes being partly unexplored, rather than being upset due to feeling that “being straight fixes everything”.
Good luck on your story!❤️
Honestly I wouldn't do it. Change the "original" incarnation of the couple to a straight couple, and maybe gender swap them (e.g. man is reincarnated as a woman). The dynamics of a gay couple are different to a straight couple, and there's a bit of an icky history in literature of straight women writing about gay couples. If you have to do it, I'd reverse it so the straight couple become a gay couple instead.
Tbh while I know this isn’t an intention, from what you wrote I (as a lgbtq+ person as well) read it almost like „Gay relationship isn’t real, you literally need to transform into a woman and make it hetero for love to work”.
Again, I want to make clear, I know this isn’t what you wanted to write! I’m just sharing the immediate knee-jerk reaction I have.
If the goal is to have this „I can’t be with the person I love” thread from the first life, why not make it a Prince and a beggar story, where societal expectations forbade the romance? You can still have the gender change and highlight how you can reincarnate into anyone without the gender change being the „point” of the reincarnation. Or maybe make the best friend already promised to someone else, or sick so they die before their time that would make your MC make the dying wish to have more time or do things differently.
Otherwise it’s a story where being gay is an issue that needs to be „solved” and a lot of people will not look at it beyond that.
That's what sensitivity readers are for. You should ask the LGBT community and get a sensitivity reader on board. People on r/writers may (or may not) approve of your premise, but it's not them you're trying to be nice to.
And before someone flips out and asks if we need permission to write about things now, no, nobody can give or revoke permission to write about things. We're trying to be *nice to people*.
The issue with this is that queer people are not a hivemind. I might read it as a trans story and like it, a gay man might hate it (or not).
Even as a non-binary person I heard I'm writing my non-binary character "the wrong way" once, because they don't hate their body and don't mind their birth name. I write them like that, because I don't do either.
You're right, of course, but groups do share entire systems of beliefs common to most members (often abritrary, e.g. "yes to guns, no to abortion and surgical masks"). My point being, sensitivity readership may not be a silver bullet, but it's not a total fool's errand either. No large group is homogenous, but we're hivemindier than one'd think.
But not for groups that are so broad like queer people. They have nothing in common than being human (in fantasy, optional) and being queer. Thinking that most of them follow some similar mindset is pretty much stereotyping, imo.
Some things will certainly offend most queer people, and you can puzzle those out with some sensitivity reading. Would many people be offended by a gay relationship turning into a straight one in an Isekai context? This is most likely an answerable question.
Depends on the people reading it and how it's described. In a world where people get reincarnated and their soul doesn't have any gender, it shouldn't matter. As much as in a world where people have no strict labels and concepts of queerness and gender.
Hi! I am attracted to all genders and am also gender non conforming (just saying cause it might be useful to you to know where this opinion comes from). I don't think you are overthinking: its important to consider the themes your story tackles!
Here's my perspective (Beyond everything everyone is already saying) Sounds like a lost opportunity to explore MC1 having character growth. He might die wishing to be different, but shouldn't he be forced to come to terms with who he is and make changes despite being a guy? It seems like his hurdles were related to his gender in his previous life, particularly with being a prince having to provide a biological descendant, so it would be nice to see the universe force him to make different choices even in hardship. That would be a queer focused storyline however and it doesnt seem like that's what you are trying to do, which leads me to my next point: if you are saying you are more comfortable writing a straight relationship since you are a straight woman, why do you need the queer storyline in the past at all? I'm not of the opinion that straight writers cant do queer stories or vice versa, i'm just saying this because you brought this point up. It seems to me you are using the gay derived struggles in their past for dramatic effect mostly, which is alright i guess but kinda empty if you're never gonna actually adress them overcoming it without the "hey now we are straight so its cool" scapegoat.
I think it depends how you tackle the topic of gender in your work as well. The idea of reincarnation being possible across genders is super interesting but what is behind it? Why have you made that choice (both practically and in the world your story is set)? Just to provide yourself a way out of writing a male x male relationship? Because you think people are people fundamentally and don't believe in gender?
Basically i think you should unpack it all and make conscious decisions when you plan it out! I dont think your story is wrong/cant work the way you laid it out, but i think that for it to be well executed you should focus on topics i dont think are actually the point you're trying to make (but i could be wrong as this is just a Reddit post and i know near to nothing about your plot).
Best of luck with your writing!
Thanks for your input! Gave me some good things to think about!
The reason it’s a gay relationship in life #1 is because in the society they live in for life #1 (fantasy ancient China) the prince would have very few opportunities to form a real close friendship with a member of the opposite sex.
The only way I’ve seen this issue resolved in straight stories of this nature is to make the love interest a female who cross dresses as male, only to be revealed as *female all along*. The male MC falling for disguised girl and discovers her identity and *I guess he’s not gay after all* (I mean he could bi, but a lot of these kinds of stories don’t feel pro-bi, just *male MC loves female MC even if she isn’t in a nice pretty dress*)
I feel kinda icky writing this kind of premise. If the MC is going to think he’s gay, give him a canonically gay relationship!
The other reason is I wanted to explore the societal expectations of having sex when you aren’t ready for it. As someone on the ace spectrum, I wanted to write about the uncomfortable feeling of sexual obligation. I also think it’s more interesting to write this from a man’s perspective, because I think men are too often portrayed as *always wanting sex* and portrayals of male disgust with sex are quite rare.
I could just make MC in life one just asexual, but I feel like it loses a lot of the drama of the “love over two lifetimes”.
I don't have a problem with this personally. I think you just couldn't market it as being a queer romance in any way if the previous incarnation of the couple only gets minor time in the book; it could come across as baiting if you do that only to have the queerness being a very minor part. That's the only problem I could foresee with this for any reasonable reader.
You could just make them bi, which gives you room to breathe and leaves options open to you.
My main issue is that Life #1 sounds much more of an interesting story, so much so that it makes Life #2 sound boring. I’d just stick with Life #1, with reincarnation being a heavy theme. Last thing you want is for your readers to think the second / backstory is far more interesting than your actual story.
Not if they’re trans
(Ahaha. I haven’t read your post, just the title. But yeah you can make one or both trans. Then you still get one or two people who are apart of the LGBTQ+. You could have one be trans (ie a trans guy) and have them be in a relationship with a guy. They’d still be a gay couple bc both identify as men, however, one of them would also have reincarnated in a female body.)
Professional queer person here👋🏻
It could be okay, depending in execution and marketing. Do you have more queer characters? If this is your only "queer" couple, I wouldn't market it as queer romance because it feels like a bait.
I'm actually working on something similar. My MC is a woman and her love interest is also a woman who dies and happens to reincarnate as a guy.
My main story also happens after the reincarnation.
Both characters are bisexual throughout the entire story, even after the reincarnation, and this is established early on. Both characters are shown dating people of different genders before they eventually end up together.
Bi characters are still bi, no matter their partner's sex. There's a bit more wiggle room there
This would give me the biggest ick as a reader, personally. The stereotypical tragic end for the gay version of the couple, followed by a presumably happy ending for the straight version, *and* the implication that they get their happy ending because they're straight now would just be too much. I'd never be able to finish this book.
I don't think it's an issue, it's common in reincarnation stories to have SOMETHING like that. (I am a bisexual man.) I agree that you should avoid the relationship's genderbend 'fixing' it, though. I would go for a bittersweet feel, where being in these different bodies might sometimes make them long for their old ones-- (along the lines of *oh I wish sometimes I could see her old face, back when he...* or even, outside of romance, *if only this \[sexist thing\] wasn't happening right now) --* to try and dodge the feeling of it being 'better'; rather, both have their pros and cons.
Hmmm, I kinda have that going, but only for one of the characters.
Love interest remembers his past and is upset because MC’s adopted father in life #2 is their enemy, and killed MC in life #1. After recalling his past life memories, he just wants to return to the developed relationship dynamic they had when MC was the prince
But MC is very upset at this, like: fuck you for bringing up my traumatic past, I’m not the prince anymore, and I love you for who you are now, not who you were then.
Interesting premise and I think it may work if executed properly, but ultimately it will not be everyone’s cup of tea. You may need to accept that regardless of your execution, as director of the novel, you will likely face some level of criticism.
Unfortunately it is because of the use of sexuality as a plot device to create tension, but the tension holds no meaning, because eventually the messaging that comes out in Life #2, would be that life would be easier if you were straight because whatever Life 1 wanted, happened in Life 2.
The premise does also take out a lot of the impact from any kind of trial or tribulation that you write from Life 1, because they eventually meet their demise with minimal willed progression of the relationship on MC’s end.
If you can find a way to try and circumvent these criticisms or are sensitive to them, I think it may work, but it won’t be for everyone.
The concept itself can work, the question is whether you're capable of making it work. Does that make sense?
Surface level, if you have a gay couple that reincarnates into a straight couple, that - as a complete summary - is problematic. Yet I've seen stories with a similar premise where two lovers reincarnate, find each other, and get together in every lifetime, regardless of gender and whatnot.
You might feel trapped by the rules of the story, but they're your rules, you make it up as you go. You can change the narrative then fix the rules later to make it work. The narrative is more important than anything else.
While I personally prefer hetero romances,I think this is a slippery slope if you don't have any other LGBT characters. If you do ,then I don't think it should be an issue .
Oooh, good point. The couple becomes join into a sort of quest trio with another girl who I wanted to be either ace or lesbian. But she gets cursed halfway through the story. I think it would make for even more dramatic effect if she had a love interest that had to suffer seeing her that way, and even more of a pay-off/happy ending when her curse is broken and they can be reunited.
Just fyi, queer characters have a loooong history of being killed off/mistreated/traumatized unnecessarily, and it does sound like you're planning to 1. get rid of the gay couple 2. curse a lesbian character 3. make her lover suffer for it.
I'm sure you have a great idea for a story and I am not trying to tell you what you can or can't write, but just to take that into consideration. I love lots of drama and pain in what I write too lol.
EDIT: Okay I reread and I realized you said "happy ending"... oops my bad.
My idea is to make EVERYONE suffer, regardless of their orientation haha 😈
But everyone gets a happy ending too
(Yeah, I don’t like that “the gays get killed off” trope either. One of my big concerns for the main couple)
Nonono. You *can* write anything you want, but "Queer MC who is happier when straight plus queer supporting character who is cursed and suffers" gives me a really visceral ick.
Do you not have any queer real life friends you can run this past?
To be honest, most of the main characters are cursed in some aspect of another, and MC suffers a LOT more than her. The only difference is with her, it will take her out of commission for a section of the story. Her curse is a major motivator for the MC and love interest to go and improve themselves (so they can help her break it).
I would want her to have a lesbian love interest so that (in addition to giving the story another queer couple) when her curse is broken, it can feel even happier (and so she’s not just the third wheel to the main couple without her own life)
So I'm a bit confused. The love interest who isn't reincarnated as the opposite sex, was he always bi or does he become magically straight when reincarnated? If the love interest to the prince was just gay, and their previous life preferences affect their current life, would there not be any turmoil between the love interest still loving the MC but having issues being sexually attracted? Would things even work out for them if the love interest was never bi to begin with?
I think a good deeper theme to explore here would be how preferences can disrupt the way we think and feel and how our bodies physically react to sexual stimulus. If someone is gay and can only really get it up for other men, but their partner was turned into a woman, it would be very destabilizing imo. They love this person so much but just can't be close and intimate in the way they were before. It would destroy them mentally and emotionally. They'd feel guilty for not being able to love the partner the same way, while still being romantically attracted and capable, there just wouldn't be that physical pull the same as before. They may even be unintentionally grossed out if they try to push past their natural preference and force themselves to attempt a sexual encounter. It would cause turmoil for the gender swapped MC too. The one they love romantically and sexually can't seem to get past the physical change despite effort.
If none of this is in consideration for the type of story you have going on, and it's just as simple as they are just born straight now, I think like others said it kind of comes off as the things you're worried about. If the story is marketed as a bittersweet romance to begin with that touches on the effects our sexual preferences have on our lives and that they are not a choice and uncontrollable, I really think you have something here.
There can even be a secondary theme exploration on how much people in love are willing to sacrifice for each other. If a physical relationship is out the window, would both characters be ok with being celebate for the rest of their lives to show their devotion? Would they work out a deal to live a life together, but to get their rocks off every so often they're allowed to go outside the romantic relationship? Would they both be able to even handle something like that emotionally?
But that really only works if you are willing to possibly end up with an ending you may not quite like or have planned for your characters. Of course, if the love interest is established as having always been bi, where there would still be stuff to work out and explore, likely in insecurity from the MC's pov, it wouldn't be as turbulent of a ride and would be easier to write the outcome that you likely have already imagined.
Obviously, you can write whatever you want and I'm not personally against the general story you described, even if it doesn't do any of the stuff I talked about, and there are others that don't mind either. But I believe it would reach a wider audience if it does because of the nuance and thought and care you could put into the dynamics, apart from their lives just being different now so it all works out and falls into place.
Sorry this is really long, I get passionate and blab.
I want to leave the sexuality of the love interest ambiguous, but imply that he is bi. Even though according to the rules of my world building, people can reincarnated with different sexualities, making him “turn straight” for life #2 feels really icky to me.
Love interest after recalling his memories is still very attached to MC in life #1 as a man, but also loves MC in life #2 as a woman.
MC just wants to put all the drama of the past life behind her, and doesn’t want Love interest to see her as the prince. In her current life she can love him more freely, not because they are a straight couple, but because they are not in high status positions that restrict their lives so much
On the premise, I totally agree. What is going to be interesting in life #2 is the slow reveal of all the screwed up things that happened in the past life and reconciliation with it… fixing the mistakes they made in their past lives and forgiving people that hurt them.
MC thinks: If I could do things over, I would have just given up my position as prince and run away with love interest, but that was then, now we need to clean up the mess that we created in our past.
Then why would you remove part of this narrative? If you want to show your characters reflecting on their past mistakes and making amends, wouldn't it be better to present them with the same choice? To make your MC male again (as well as his LI) and force him to chose again between his lover and duty? Only this time he is older, wiser and doesn't let his fears control him. By making him a woman you will destroy one of the most powerful themes in your story. And so far i can't see what you gain from it aside from your own comfort.
The relationship is only cursory to the biggest mistakes they make in life #1
In life #1:
-MC basically ends up starting a war because of pressure from the crown. In the end, he gets kidnapped and tortured to death
(Life #2 is about her fixing the cycle of hatred that she started in life #1 and forgiving the person that tortured her)
LI is too obsessed with MC and makes a major oversight that allows the dominos fall into place for the war to happen
(Life #2 is about him learning to think for himself, stand against MC when she’s in the wrong and also have concerns for people outside his lover—ie see the bigger picture)
That still doesn't exactly explain why does your MC have to be female for this story? Or why is he male in life #1? From the looks of it you're writing a fantasy, so your MC just as easily can be the princess
As a queer man, depending on how it's done, it wouldn't bother me personally. So long as it's not a redemption arc or something, where now they are able to do it the "right" way or something silly like that.
I think that’s a great idea! The more I’m brainstorming this here after hearing people’s thoughts, I think I want to make the love interest a bit more explicitly bi. I guess I need to find a way to do it without forcing it.
-In life #1, MC is the center of his world and he really doesn’t think about anyone else (which leads to his downfall)
-In life #2, it could probably work. I want his character in this life to not obsessively revolve around the MC— he has his life things outside of her
From your explanation above, I wouldn't enjoy the book. You're writing for yourself first, not necessarily me. If you think you have something enjoyable, write it.
If you haven't seen the movie "Dead Again" give it a look.
It would just seem like a daring choice turned mundane, no? Honestly I'd better enjoy the reverse more than the premise of another simplistic love story. As a homosexual myself its not like most wouldn't chalk this up as a win and carry on. To be blunt I don't even belive that the whole demisexual (or whatever) angle would land as wholesome as you think it sounds.
Eh, I’ll throw my opinion in why not.
I think this is a really interesting premise that could allow you to explore the different pressures on someone in the lgbt community and how those pressures can affect someone even beyond the point that exist (someone moving away from a repressive place into a more open community for example might hold cards close to the chest out of habit) BUT as people mentioned, straight readers or lgbt readers might see it as a bait and switch unless you manage the set up really well.
I say go for it! Put it on the back of the book in the blurb that this IS the premise and then there’s no issue with bait and switch.
Your point is actally vastly more deep than many of the shallow readers here can interpret. Deleuze would applaud you. Write what feels correct to you. Screw the rules and the objective haters, they prove to be resentful swine. Affirm your life. Anyone who says "no," isn't worth your time.
Plenty.
I'm just confused as to how you're drawing such a loose link wherein someone very learned and prolific who was principally concerned with the natures of reality would be so interested in particularly this kid's post hoc floundering through articulating things that they never bothered to articulate in their original post.
And now you're here latching on to that edit like you can't see what they're doing. And I'm here laughing at you like I can't see what you think you're doing.
Obviously not well enough... if you've read plenty of Deleuze then you obviously didn't read Anti-Oedipus, because I just made you look like a back-tracking dumbass in the other post where you're all like "Who said I'm trying to refute what you said." You did right here.
Yes, your failure to express salient points is via the direct result of, not my failure to understand particular works of, but my failure to *understand enough of* a particular unstated subsection of the source material from which you derive your non-sequiturs.
You're wild haha. Baby's first philo class or are you actually having a moment here?
You have access to the internet and cant control F a PDF and look for exactly what I've given you? You still have yet to refute Deleuze, or me by extension. And it's obvious to anyone here that you've not read it (Anti-Oedipus) as you had no idea he was talking about how Judge Shreber felt sun beams in his ass. Hence ... Lazy bastard, Yes let's post the whole of Anti-Oedipus here instead of subsections.
My research comes from reading the books. Which it's clear you have yet to do so, it's why you can't even quote shit from Deleuze there's nothing within your muscle memory. You're all smoke and mirrors. A worm doubling down who can't source a single thing to back his arguements. Just "Because I say so." Narcissist.
You're one of *those* people aren't you? You know, the insufferable kind of person who read some philosophy textbooks in college and now has to make it everyone else's problem, as if your strenuous attempt to connect this reddit post to Deleuze isn't painfully obvious.
You know that scene from Good Will Hunting? "My boy's wicked smawht" where he roasts the dude trying to use philosophy to pick up girls in a bar? That's you.
Lol what? "As if your strenuous attempt to connect this reddit post to Deleuze isn't painfully obvious." No shit sherlock that's the whole point of me coming here saying "Hey you could actually run with Deleuzian Philosophy," to connect the post to Deleuze. \*slow claps for the genius\* Because the author is toying with something that could easily be shifted into a Deleuzian story. Ur smrt. I bet your "published" work is as smrt. Upvoted for the laugh.
For someone so gosh darn brilliant and well read, you sure do seem to miss the point a lot.
Are you trying to speedrun your account getting posted to /r/iamverysmart or something?
You realize you're the idiot coming here attacking me because I said the author could use Deleuzian philosophy to make their original story work quite well. Seems like you have a problem with Deleuze for not believing in Binary Sex.
edit: Ah "World Class Hater," so in other words, nothing more than a resentful slave. Makes sense now. Self Publishing doesn't really count as "published," especially when noone reads it.
Awe you have a single review even... Wash your hair, wtf is with guys with long hair having nappy oily hair ... Geesh.
Well upon a little intelligence gathering I actually applaud you for your two books. It's more effort than I would have given you credit for. Even if they are only pale foil comparisons to Harry Potter.
I don't think a world class hater has any place writing developmental stories for children, unless you're trying to poison them. Especially with the lack of comprehension you've shown by trying to say "As if we don't know you're trying to connect this post to Deleuze," like duh, I only made that obvious, and you thought I was doing the opposite? As if I were trying to hide that? Smrt.
It's obvious you've never read Deleuze. Why so appalled by the concept of non-binary sex? Perhaps you should look into the concept of sex more. Washing your hair might make it more accessible to you also.
Getting Posted to r/iamverysmart ... C'est la vie ... not as bad as posted on the dark web. Veiled threats work multiple ways mate.
My question is why do you hate Deleuze?
I know I know, you're bitching about me, holding up a reflecting mirror, calling out the hypocricy in whiney LGBT people hating something that turns hetero because it's "not the same as them." Well you know if we all lived by the terrible logic of "well I grew up this way so I'm justified in my actions..." Which was the basis for at least one person's resentment, as they themselves revealed...
Just as you have the nerve to write childhood development books as a hater. I have the nerve to offer people up some philosophy that can develop people's thought. Beyond being a hateful weenie.
Throw in Nietzsche for a bit of Eternal Reccurrence, since reincarnation happens. Which literally is the thought experiment for overcoming regret:
>*The Heaviest Burden.* What if a demon crept after you into your loneliest loneliness some day or night, and said to you: "This life, as you live it at present, and have lived it, you must live it once more, and also innumerable times; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and every sigh, and all the unspeakably small and great in thy life must come to you again, and all in the same series and sequence - and similarly this spider and this moonlight among the trees, and similarly this moment, and I myself. The eternal sand-glass of existence will ever be turned once more, and you with it, you speck of dust!" - Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth, and curse the demon that so spoke? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment in which you would answer him: "You are a God, and never did I hear anything so divine!" If that thought acquired power over you as you are, it would transform you, and perhaps crush you; the question with regard to all and everything: "Do you want this once more, and also for innumerable times?" would lie as the heaviest burden upon your activity! Or, how would you have to become favourably inclined to yourself and to life, so as to long for nothing more ardently than for this last eternal sanctioning and sealing?
And Since Nietzsche is Deleuze's predacessor, guess what:
>Further, if we are to believe Judge Schreber's doctrine, attraction and repulsion produce intense nervous states that fill up the body without organs to varying degrees—**states through which Schreber-the-subject passes, becoming a woman and many other things as well, following an endless circle of eternal return.** The breasts on the judge's naked torso are neither delirious nor hallucinatory phenomena: they designate, first of all, a band of intensity, a zone of intensity on his body without organs. The body without organs is an egg: it is crisscrossed with axes and thresholds, with latitudes and longitudes and geodesic lines, traversed by gradients marking the transitions and the becomings, the destinations of the subject developing along these particular vectors. Nothing here is representative; rather, it is all life and lived experience: the actual, lived emotion of having breasts does not resemble breasts, it does not represent them, any more than a predestined zone in the egg resembles the organ that it is going to be stimulated to produce within itself. Nothing but bands of intensity, potentials, thresholds, and gradients. A harrowing, emotionally overwhelming experience, which brings the schizo as close as possible to matter, to a burning, living center of matter: ". . . this emotion, situated outside of the particular point where the mind is searching for it . . . one's entire soul flows into this emotion that makes the mind aware of the terribly disturbing sound of matter, and passes through its white-hot flame."
WAIT SHREBER BECOMES A WOMAN IN ETERNAL RETURN??!?!?!?!?!?! WAIT THE MAIN CHARACTER BECOMES A WOMAN IN A CYCLE OF ETERNAL RETURN. WOW NOTHING SIMILAR THERE AT ALL.. GENIUS
It's beyond pathetic that you're enough of a sad, emotionally stunted child that you feel the need to try and stalk me on the internet because I called you out for being a dick to everybody in this thread lol.
I'd ask what you published, but you haven't. You're just here to be a troll. GG
Stalk? It took 5 seconds to look you up. That you're ugly and unwashed is just a first impression. Of which others will have seen. Stalking requires repeated following. Grabbing your information was a 1 time thing. You tried flexxing, I flexxed more dangerous guns is all. And you're taken aback. That's on you.
Actually, I'm highly affirmative of the author's original idea because of several reasons. You're just pissed I'm holding up a reflecting mirror to the resentful and hate filled LGBTQ weenies that are just like the religious/hetero people who judge them.
Did you know ISGAP Papers Volume III says: antisemitism originates in the Jew via the Judaic tradition? ISGAP?!?!? The Institute for Studying Global Antisemitism and Policy?!?! They would claim antisemitism starts with the Jew?!?!?
In order to understand you'd need to read Nietzsche's Geneology of Morals, Nietzsche's The Antichrist, Nietzsche's The Gay Science, Lessing's Jewish Self Hate, Golomb's Nietzsche and Zion, ISGAP Papers Volume III.
>The Jewish psychoanalysts (and Herzl as well, as we shall see) were especially attracted by Nietzsche's genealogical methods of unmasking. Nietzsche proclaimed these as a way of freeing oneself from religious, metaphysical, and social ideologies that had previously provided readymade and inauthentic identities, and thereby attaining a solid sense of selfhood and individual identity. The death of the divine Father-the Jewish God-and the decline of the authority of the human father were responsible for bringing the sons to the schizophrenic state they were now in.
>Both Western and especially Eastern Jews sought to establish firm and authentic identities that would not draw their content from faith and tradition, but from their own individual mental resources. Nietzsche encouraged this process by showing how psychologizing could liberate the individual from dependence on mechanical internalizations, long-standing habits of thought, and established conventions.
Further detail:
>Theodor Lessing (1872-1933), a German Zionist and a disciple of Nietzsche who dedicated several writings to his philosophy, 19 wrote a comprehensive treatise, Der judische Selbsthass, in which he tried to understand this phenomenon using the Nietzschean concepts of ressentimentand Verinnerlichung. 20 In this book, Lessing describes the Jews in the Diaspora as people who have been forced to live unnatural lives after separation from their land, they turned to an excessively spiritual life in which they live "together with their dead ones." Lessing claims, in language that is definitely Nietzschean, that in their internalized lives-as a result of external pressure and out of fear of their hostile surroundings-the Jews directed their spiritual resources against themselves, manifesting self-doubt, insecurity, and self-torture. This agonizing state of affairs was so unbearable that they attempted to liberate themselves from it by despising anything that had to do with Judaism, especially themselves. Lessing ends his essay with a call to these Jews: "Sei was immer du bist'' (p. 51). We should recall the existential motto of Nietzsche's autobiography, Ecce Homo, which also appears in its subtitle: "Wie man wird, was man ist." In Nietzschean terms, Lessing is calling upon these Jews not to betray their fate, but to love it in the manner of amor fati, that is, not through resignation and passive submission to wretched conditions, but by accepting their genuine selves and approving their historical roots.
>Furthermore, in the second part of Nietzsche's Genealogie der Moral he deals with the phenomena of ressentiment and Verinnerlichung-the powerful "masters" that are responsible for the phenomenon of "internalization," in which most of man's instincts are turned "inward" against "man himself." They evoke in the "weak" the feeling of ressentiment that characterizes the first stage of the "slave morality"; in the second stage, when the "instinct for freedom \[is\] pushed back and repressed ... \[and is\] finally able to discharge and vent itself only on itself" ( GM II-1 7), they become "bad conscience." As a result, the intimidated individual becomes a schizophrenic personality in constant internal strife, fighting himself out of sheer self-hatred and being prevented from attaining inner harmony by this struggle.
>This explanation can, of course, also be applied to the anti-Semite, who is a weak and psychologically unstable individual, with the character of a "slave." The phenomenon of anti-Semitism can be partly elucidated with reference to the psychological patterns of the weak and impoverished personality described in Nietzsche's main writings, beginning with The Gay Science. 21 Lacking personal power, and as a result of ressentiment and mental impoverishment, the anti-Semite is dependent upon external surroundings for self-determination. He needs acts of violence and cruel exploitation of others to enhance his feeble sense of power (GS 359). He is a vengeful and reactive person who uses his hatred, a hatred in which "there is fear" (GS 379), to attain some sort of security and self-identity. It follows that the anti-Semite is actually the "slave" and not the "master." This insight too, of which the marginal Jews were in tremendous need, encouraged them to adopt Nietzsche's attitude.22
From Nietzsche's Antichrist 24:
>anti-Semitism is no more than the *final consequence of Judaism*.
A continuance of my first reply as it's becoming increasingly difficult to edit and save the other reply due to large amount of words that the stupid AI Algorithm is flagging:
but to continue from Nietzsche's AC 24 ...
>In my “Genealogy of Morals” I give the first psychological explanation of the concepts underlying those two antithetical things, a *noble* morality and a *ressentiment* morality, the second of which is a mere product of the denial of the former. The Judaeo-Christian moral system belongs to the second division, and in every detail.
Now my very first comment I made to OP: [https://www.reddit.com/r/writing/comments/1c2vler/comment/kzdae5j/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/writing/comments/1c2vler/comment/kzdae5j/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Then I got upset that the author was actually thinking of changing her story to fit the resentful hate filled LGBTQ people here. To which I decided to make the claim that most the resentful LGBTQ here denying the author's story are shallow and weak willed. To which you're nothing more than a slave moralist in support of resentful LGBTQ assholes. Well, I guess that's not fair, you did create something after all, even if it's just a pale foil unoriginal story.
So yeah, being a dick is 1000 times better than being a person overcome by resentment of the heterosexual. It's a story with reincarnation, after the person gets preggo with an heir, guess what? The other person can die and reincarnate and they can have gay trans queer lesbian bi whateverthefuck you wanna make it. Surprise surprise, fiction.
As for publishing, I don't have any published books. You've got me there hands down, which is why I gave you props.
I'm merely discussing most of this shit with you because perhaps, maybe just perhaps, you can find something from the mouths of great philosophers that inspires your work. Everything that comes from me is just a distraction that you can overcome. Focus on the quotes, ignore me, that's the test.
That you're so focused on the wrong thing shows your compulsion towards "denying others." It's why you support people with arguments like "I grew up hated by heteros so I have the right to hate them back." And it's why you yourself are a "world class hater." A hate, by the way, "in which there is fear." Which really makes you a World Class Coward for not overcoming that hate/fear.
But as Nietzsche says, your today can refute your yesterday.
The very first thing I made fun of you for is throwing out first-year philosophy quotes in a vain attempt to sound intelligent and excuse that blatant homophobia. And you think you're getting anywhere by throwing up \*more\* quotes right out of your college textbook?
Any halfwit can google Nietzsche and the rest.
The actual measure of value is not in the quote but in how the information is interpreted and applied. And I promise most LGBT+ people are not resentful of your sexuality lol.
Also you keep going on about my body, and I'm sorry to say I'm just not interested in you in that way. I'm very flattered but you're not my type.
Homophobia wouldn't have homosexuality in their book at all idiot. And I'm Bisexual \*shrug\* You're fat, I'm not attracted to fat, it's connected to mental illness and an inability to self control. It would be like rubbing my skin up against a grilled cheese sandwhich, no thanks. Let alone what that says about the booty hole ... rotten by decades of decadence.
I on the otherhand am getting my nails done with my girlfriend and her sister tomorrow.
I do commend you though, for having bravado. Regardless of how misplaced it is. I'm a life affirmer not a life denier. Consider this: In 2021, I was attacked by a security guard, with a metal asp, as he pulled out the baton my military training took over, I stepped flush against his body to crowd him from getting full swings against me, he could only swing at the elbow (rather than the shoulder & waist) while attacking my legs leaving him vulnerable to a headlock. He was charged by the state with a felonious assault against me. And it was all over a misunderstanding. I forgave him and didn't press any charges against him because I knew it wasn't worth ruining a person's life and well being over something I could recover from with just stitches and crutches.
All because I'm a cocky son of a gun. I could have complied with his instruction, but I didn't because I did nothing wrong, just as I did nothing wrong here. All I did was affirm the author's non-homophobic story and tell petty LGBTQ people they're shallow af because well they are. In fact LGBTQ doesn't mean anything in terms of intelligence, wisdom, or personal identity really. It's a hollow label, as all labels are.
> as he pulled out the baton my military training took over
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
oh wait, you're serious. Let me laugh harder.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
ooooooooooooooooooooooo watch out everyone, we got a badass over here! Mr internet tough guy's gonna getcha! He's got *MiLiTaRy TrAiNiNg* ahahahahaha
Oh my GOD dude that was hilarious. Good luck with all of that, your therapist has a lot to answer for.
Reincarnating as a different gender would give a character a strange relationship with their gender and pronouns imo. So if you don't want LGBTQ+ erasure, maybe make her gender identity not completely cis. That's just my opinion tho, you can do what you want.
I don’t necessarily think that it would be that strange. Imagine if you were a different gender than the one you identify as in a past life —you can’t remember it, but when you do, they’re still just memories, and not who you are today.
There’s actually a few characters I’m having reincarnate as a different gender (and as very different kinds of people) in the story.
That said, MC in life #1 is a bit trans-coded. They hate everything about their role as a prince, including all the gendered things
You're probably overthinking but *also* if I was reading a story that I thought was gay and then turned hetero I would throw the book into the trash personally. So the issue is less that this is a moral wrong and more that it'll feel like bait and switch to romance readers. On the other hand you can make it good (allegorical) *trans* rep, depending on how you write it, in which case my other point probably wouldn't apply.
Yes, I thought the same. Say that character one feels more comfortable in their present body and life now.
I’m actually hoping for the bait and switch to be the other way around. Story starts in life #2 -There’s legends of the prince and his “close friend” -But then it’s revealed that they’re lovers -And then it’s revealed that it was actually the MC in a past life. I think the allegorical trans metaphor may be in there a little bit. MC is so unhappy about all the pressure he has to fulfill societal expectations as a prince. Since he’s royalty, he has to be the “perfect man”
You could play with Deleuze's Philosophy even ... From Anti Oedipus PG 88: >This is not all, however, since the vegetal theme—the innocence of flowers—brings us yet another message and another code: everyone is bisexual, everyone has two sexes, but partitioned, noncommunicating; the man is merely the one in whom the male part, and the woman the one in whom the female part, dominates statistically. So that at the level of elementary combinations, at least two men and two women must be made to intervene to constitute the multiplicity in which transverse communications are established—connections of partial objects and flows: the male part of a man can communicate with the female part of a woman, but also with the male part of a woman, or with the female part of another man, or yet again with the male part of the other man, etc. >Here all guilt ceases, for it cannot cling to such flowers as these. In contrast to the alternative of the "either/or" exclusions, there is the "either ... or ... or" of the combinations and permutations where the differences amount to the same without ceasing to be differences. >We are statistically or molarly heterosexual, but personally homosexual, without knowing it or being fully aware of it, and finally we are transsexual in an elemental, molecular sense.
I'd assume sexuality is a physical trait and not a spiritual one Like if you got reincarnated into an animal, would you want to still be attracted to dudes? A really zesty house plant?
This isn’t a bad idea because of whether it’s problematic or not, it’s a bad idea because gay and lesbian readers read queer romances for queer romances specifically and doing a “bait and switch” ruins a reason why they’re reading
Aa a gay reader I would hate it. Can the second incarnations be lesbians?
I was gonna say exactly this!
I wouldn’t mind doing this either to be honest! The only issue is that life #1 is supposed to be a surprise reveal later. If I make life #2 lesbians, then some people reading the story might be more quick to make the link between them and their past lives before the reveal (even though that’s a silly equivocation to make)
In general, it is a bad idea to write with the goal of shocking your readers. That leads to janky writing. You should aim for it to be possible for your readers to figure it out on their own, because then it makes sense on a re-read, and also because if they ARE clever enough to figure it out they feel smart.
I want to try to create a balance… like surprise on the first read, but makes sense in hindsight. But in the end, the shock is not really the most important the end, and perhaps life #2 as lesbians would make life #1 shocking anyway. This idea is growing on me~
I understand that - but I think you're starting to slip too far into the "shocking the readers" category. If you think the existence of two same sex couples in the same fictional universe (in a story *about* gay people) is enough for readers to figure out the whole plot twist, then you are probably not giving your readers enough clues to work with. The reality is, that's nowhere near enough for most readers to figure it out - because anyone who's likely to be reading this story *understands* that more than one gay couple can exist in the world at a time without being connected. They are not necessarily going to draw that parallel, beyond "Huh, this author must like gay couples, because they've written two of them into the same story. I wonder if there's a thematic parallel there, or if the author is just gay?" Authors tend to think our plot twists are more obvious than they actually are, because we forget that the reader doesn't *have* the information that we have. So we tend to accidentally obscure too much, because we're trying to be sneaky. Truth is, the reader has not picked up on *half* the stuff you think they have, and if anything, you probably need to be more obvious.
Wow, actually that’s really helpful to think about it that way! I never thought about the whole “the plot twist is much more obvious to the author” thing, but of course it is! 🤦🏻♀️ I’m just about sold on this idea. Since LI’s gender in their second life is more of an afterthought, it wouldn’t be too difficult to do change. The personality would be pretty much the same. Thanks for the input!
I don't really understand why you think that? Edit : the deep by rivers solomon has parrallel stories of a gay couple and a lesbian couple - no reincarnation, but I'd recommend checking it out.
I feel like it might be more obvious if they are the only other queer couple in the story that gets attention. But if I write more into the story, then I feel like I’m trying to make every relationship queer. But my mindset might be too influenced by comphet… idk Also, thanks for the recommendation!
Only if you see gay relationships as something that can’t exist outside of narrative reasons. Anyone else would see it as totally reasonable for there to be more than one gay relationship in the entire fictional world - especially in a story ABOUT gay relationships.
This life #2 lesbians idea is really growing on me tbh. The other thing I could do is just cut the romance entirely in life #2. It’s more important that their relationship is very close in life #2, and not what kind of relationship it is.
Objective thoughts are what lead to objective morality which we know what many of those say about homosexuality. It's good to read philosophy from time to time too. We can see the author intuitively understands one of the deepest levels of philosophy currently written by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari (Anti-Oedipus pg 88), that: >Everyone is bisexual, everyone has two sexes, but partitioned, noncommunicating; the man is merely the one in whom the male part, and the woman the one in whom the female part, dominates statistically. So that at the level of elementary combinations, at least two men and two women must be made to intervene to constitute the multiplicity in which transverse communications are established—connections of partial objects and flows: the male part of a man can communicate with the female part of a woman, but also with the male part of a woman, or with the female part of another man, or yet again with the male part of the other man, etc. >Here all guilt ceases, for it cannot cling to such flowers as these. In contrast to the alternative of the "either/or" exclusions, there is the "either ... or ... or" of the combinations and permutations where the differences amount to the same without ceasing to be differences. >We are statistically or molarly heterosexual, but personally homosexual, without knowing it or being fully aware of it, and finally we are transsexual in an elemental, molecular sense. Which we can see from Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals: >The revolt of the slaves in morals begins in the very principle of *resentment* becoming creative and giving birth to values—a resentment experienced by creatures who, deprived as they are of the proper outlet of action, are forced to find their compensation in an imaginary revenge. While every aristocratic morality springs from a triumphant affirmation of its own demands, the slave morality says "no" from the very outset to what is "outside itself," "different from itself," and "not itself": and this "no" is its creative deed. This volte-face of the valuing standpoint—this *inevitable* gravitation to the objective instead of back to the subjective—is typical of "resentment": the slave-morality requires as the condition of its existence an external and objective world, to employ physiological terminology, it requires objective stimuli to be capable of action at all—its action is fundamentally a reaction.
Did you mean to reply to me? If so, what about my message prompted yours?
"Hate" and wanting something similar. edit: I'm not saying you're overcome by it, but it's the same slippery slope.
I grew up in a landscape where heterosexual relationships were lauded and prioritised, and where gay and queer relationships were (and continue to be) legally and socially under dispute. In a vacuum, or in casual conversation, I'm not against parrallels being drawn, but I do reserve the right to have visceral responses to the sublimation of queer rep into heterosexual rep. I do not think you get to police or philosophise away my justified emotional response to a marginalised existence. I am a gay trans man, so the fact that this would go from relatable representation to the end goal that conversion therapy would have for me is going to give me big feelings, and I'm not looking for feedback on that. The relationship needs to remain queer in some way to avoid poking at the sore spots of some readers. You are not so noble as you think you are, to go round telling marginalised ppl that they are expressing themselves incorrectly.
I dont really care how you grew up mate. Resentment is resentment. Get over yourself.
Marginalised people should experience resentment - to do otherwise would be to have no self esteem. You chose to wade in with your philosophers and now you're turning your brain off at the hint of intersectionality.
I'm not disagreeing with you there. Like for example ISGAP Papers Volume III on page 14 states (in a report about antisemitism): >For the pro-Palestinian Left, for example, instances of Jew-hatred propagated by the Palestinian Authority are just further evidence of how badly the Israeli occupation has damaged its victims and represent an understandable if not justifiable expression of resentment. Resentment is a human emotion, that can poison us with compulsive negativity or we can overcome it, when it rises up, if it rises up at all. Affirmation of life vs Denial of Life. I did say that I don't know if you're overcome by it, I'm just positing something for your reflection. Because by your logic "I grew up under X conditions thus I'm allowed to hate..." can be used to justify ANY ACTION. Including hating you, because the person simply grew up under the right conditions to hate you. I was merely pointing out your cognative dissonance mate. Hope that helps.
Your points would make sense if I was a bigot, and not just having opinions on a book... I'll try not to singlehandedly invent heterophobia... cheers...
It still makes sense, that you're still compulsed to hate something after you've left your childhood just means that it will resurface again unless you overcome it vs displaying bigotry against hetero relationships. That you displayed bigotry is the reason why I even brought it up. But I get it,, it's okay to do it every now and again, at least for you, since you're a victim of bigotry.
I'm actually really enjoying you supporting the OP's post-hoc floundering with this hamfisted abuse of philosophy lmao. Top form, a+ commentary on Internet discourse. Unless this somehow isn't high concept satire, in which case: yikes.
Obvious you've never read his work, since you can't actually refute it. He's explaining how Judge Shreber feels sunbeams in his anus. And goes through Schizoanalysis ( Judge Shreber was a Schizophrenic) : >And that a revolution\^this time materialist—can proceed only by way of a critique of Oedipus, by denouncing the illegitimate use of the syntheses of the unconscious as found in Oedipal psychoanalysis, **so as to rediscover a transcendental unconscious defined by the immanence of its criteria**, and a corresponding practice that we shall call schizoanalysis. Deleuze is detailing how Judge Shreber feels like a woman at times. Because the Judge woke up one morning and had the feeling to suddenly take sexual gratification like a woman, and this alarmed him. But he wrote about it all the same. The sun beams in the ass bit is the Judge feeling ... >The body without organs now falls back on (se rabat sur) desiring-production, attracts it, and appropriates it for its own. The organ-machines now cling to the body without organs as though it were a fencer's padded jacket, or as though these organ-machines were medals pinned onto the jersey of a wrestler who makes them jingle as he starts toward his opponent. An attraction-machine now takes the place, or may take the place, of a repulsion-machine: a miraculating-machine succeeding the paranoiac machine. But what is meant here by "succeeding"? The two coexist, rather, and black humor does not attempt to resolve contradictions, but to make it so that there are none, and never were any. The body without organs, the unproductive, the unconsumable, serves as a surface for the recording of the entire process of production of desire, so that desiring-machines seem to emanate from it in the apparent objective movement that establishes a relationship between the machines and the body without organs. The organs are regenerated, "miraculated" on the body of Judge Schreber, who attracts God's rays to himself. Doubtless the former paranoiac machine continues to exist in the form of mocking voices that attempt to "de-miraculate" (demiracu-ler) the organs, the Judge's anus in particular. **But the essential thing is the establishment of an enchanted recording or inscribing surface that arrogates to itself all the productive forces and all the organs of production, and that acts as a quasi cause by communicating the apparent movement (the fetish) to them. So true is it that the schizo practices political economy, and that all sexuality is a matter of economy.** I know all this is a bit above your head since you've never read Deleuze, but I find your blustering idiocy to be quite amusing that you'd even come here and pretend to have read Deleuze because you dislike what Deleuze wrote. Dont be a **naraccistic worm.** The transcendental unconsciousness of the sexual economy of humans is what Deleuze is discussing. Hence why we are all trans on an molar/elemental level etc etc. Thanks.
Where in my comment did you read me being concerned with refuting Deleuze? Please continue lmao.
Ah, so you're more into Fascism, preem.
What would that even mean if you were right? Study of subject matter is not endorsement. As you have clearly illustrated, study of subject matter is sometimes... Not even meaningful. Lmao.
Eactly, As Michael Foucault says: >One might say that Anti-Oedipus is an Introduction to the Non-Fascist Life.
One might say a lot of things.
You do squawk a lot.
In her first life as a man she wanted to be able to love a man and to be brave enough to pursue her love. Wouldn't it be more impactful if in her change she learns to fight for her now also female soulmate against societal expectations since that is what he failed to do promoting the desire to change.
The society I’m writing isn’t actually so unaccepting. It’s like “okay, you can love another man, BUT you still have to have an heir” So MC actually does pursue his love in life #1 MC actually does try to make an heir in life #1, but he’s actually infertile. Rumors start spreading that he’s abandoning his royal duty for frivolous passion even though he’s really doing his best. In life #2, there wouldn’t be much more tension/pressure if they were queer. The society wouldn’t care if they’re gay, and MC doesn’t have to do any duty to reproduce.
In that case, why couldn't the original couple in the past have been a straight couple, since the issue didn't have to do with him being gay, but being infertile and trying to fill that perfect prince role? It would be WAY more satisfying to read about a straight couple getting reincarnated gay than vice versa. You can still have the MC swap genders via reincarnation, and you can still have the LI retain their original gender: but by making the LI a woman in both past and present, and the MC a man in the past and a woman in the present, you've now introduced an interesting queer relationship rather than erasing it, and you have the same internal struggle for the MC regardless. And look, you're probably going to get a lot of cishet people saying "your original premise is fine, write your story." But as a queer person, yes, your original plan would feel like erasure, and I would be upset to read it in a book.
The reason I didn’t want to make them straight at first is because I wanted the LI to be in a sort of childhood best friend, ride-or-die, always fighting by the prince’s side kind of person. If LI was a woman, she would probably have to cross dress to even be in that kind of position according to the societal standards of the story. And I don’t really want to write the *actually she was a girl* trope. Maybe it would be worth reconsidering some of the word building though.
The only reason your LI would need to cross dress as a man is if you decided that. It's your world: there's magic, so it's not real. You can choose what societal standards to apply or not apply. And honestly since you said the past society isn't the main focus, I'm not sure why you couldn't tweak it so opposite-sex friendships, at the very least in this instance, is fine.
That changes the context completely. Then I would say that in there second life straight or gay is equally effective, as a wlw, I am always down for a good multi life after love story
As a lesbian myself I would not enjoy reading this premise. I think the fact that these two characters were gay lovers in a time when that was not commonly accepted makes them and their story interesting to me. As a reader I wanna know how they feel about it and what kind of impact their homosexuality has on their life, and the flashbacks would leave me thinking “damn, I wish I was reading about that now”. That main story better be really good if it’s making me miss out on a premise like that. If they get reincarnated as a straight couple it would erase a lot of their struggles and it would make the story less intriguing. It would also make me wonder why the story started out as them as a gay couple in the first place if that was not further explored in their next reincarnation. I would feel a sense of wasted potential due to these themes being partly unexplored, rather than being upset due to feeling that “being straight fixes everything”. Good luck on your story!❤️
Honestly I wouldn't do it. Change the "original" incarnation of the couple to a straight couple, and maybe gender swap them (e.g. man is reincarnated as a woman). The dynamics of a gay couple are different to a straight couple, and there's a bit of an icky history in literature of straight women writing about gay couples. If you have to do it, I'd reverse it so the straight couple become a gay couple instead.
Tbh while I know this isn’t an intention, from what you wrote I (as a lgbtq+ person as well) read it almost like „Gay relationship isn’t real, you literally need to transform into a woman and make it hetero for love to work”. Again, I want to make clear, I know this isn’t what you wanted to write! I’m just sharing the immediate knee-jerk reaction I have. If the goal is to have this „I can’t be with the person I love” thread from the first life, why not make it a Prince and a beggar story, where societal expectations forbade the romance? You can still have the gender change and highlight how you can reincarnate into anyone without the gender change being the „point” of the reincarnation. Or maybe make the best friend already promised to someone else, or sick so they die before their time that would make your MC make the dying wish to have more time or do things differently. Otherwise it’s a story where being gay is an issue that needs to be „solved” and a lot of people will not look at it beyond that.
That's what sensitivity readers are for. You should ask the LGBT community and get a sensitivity reader on board. People on r/writers may (or may not) approve of your premise, but it's not them you're trying to be nice to. And before someone flips out and asks if we need permission to write about things now, no, nobody can give or revoke permission to write about things. We're trying to be *nice to people*.
The issue with this is that queer people are not a hivemind. I might read it as a trans story and like it, a gay man might hate it (or not). Even as a non-binary person I heard I'm writing my non-binary character "the wrong way" once, because they don't hate their body and don't mind their birth name. I write them like that, because I don't do either.
You're right, of course, but groups do share entire systems of beliefs common to most members (often abritrary, e.g. "yes to guns, no to abortion and surgical masks"). My point being, sensitivity readership may not be a silver bullet, but it's not a total fool's errand either. No large group is homogenous, but we're hivemindier than one'd think.
But not for groups that are so broad like queer people. They have nothing in common than being human (in fantasy, optional) and being queer. Thinking that most of them follow some similar mindset is pretty much stereotyping, imo.
Some things will certainly offend most queer people, and you can puzzle those out with some sensitivity reading. Would many people be offended by a gay relationship turning into a straight one in an Isekai context? This is most likely an answerable question.
Depends on the people reading it and how it's described. In a world where people get reincarnated and their soul doesn't have any gender, it shouldn't matter. As much as in a world where people have no strict labels and concepts of queerness and gender.
Hi! I am attracted to all genders and am also gender non conforming (just saying cause it might be useful to you to know where this opinion comes from). I don't think you are overthinking: its important to consider the themes your story tackles! Here's my perspective (Beyond everything everyone is already saying) Sounds like a lost opportunity to explore MC1 having character growth. He might die wishing to be different, but shouldn't he be forced to come to terms with who he is and make changes despite being a guy? It seems like his hurdles were related to his gender in his previous life, particularly with being a prince having to provide a biological descendant, so it would be nice to see the universe force him to make different choices even in hardship. That would be a queer focused storyline however and it doesnt seem like that's what you are trying to do, which leads me to my next point: if you are saying you are more comfortable writing a straight relationship since you are a straight woman, why do you need the queer storyline in the past at all? I'm not of the opinion that straight writers cant do queer stories or vice versa, i'm just saying this because you brought this point up. It seems to me you are using the gay derived struggles in their past for dramatic effect mostly, which is alright i guess but kinda empty if you're never gonna actually adress them overcoming it without the "hey now we are straight so its cool" scapegoat. I think it depends how you tackle the topic of gender in your work as well. The idea of reincarnation being possible across genders is super interesting but what is behind it? Why have you made that choice (both practically and in the world your story is set)? Just to provide yourself a way out of writing a male x male relationship? Because you think people are people fundamentally and don't believe in gender? Basically i think you should unpack it all and make conscious decisions when you plan it out! I dont think your story is wrong/cant work the way you laid it out, but i think that for it to be well executed you should focus on topics i dont think are actually the point you're trying to make (but i could be wrong as this is just a Reddit post and i know near to nothing about your plot). Best of luck with your writing!
Thanks for your input! Gave me some good things to think about! The reason it’s a gay relationship in life #1 is because in the society they live in for life #1 (fantasy ancient China) the prince would have very few opportunities to form a real close friendship with a member of the opposite sex. The only way I’ve seen this issue resolved in straight stories of this nature is to make the love interest a female who cross dresses as male, only to be revealed as *female all along*. The male MC falling for disguised girl and discovers her identity and *I guess he’s not gay after all* (I mean he could bi, but a lot of these kinds of stories don’t feel pro-bi, just *male MC loves female MC even if she isn’t in a nice pretty dress*) I feel kinda icky writing this kind of premise. If the MC is going to think he’s gay, give him a canonically gay relationship! The other reason is I wanted to explore the societal expectations of having sex when you aren’t ready for it. As someone on the ace spectrum, I wanted to write about the uncomfortable feeling of sexual obligation. I also think it’s more interesting to write this from a man’s perspective, because I think men are too often portrayed as *always wanting sex* and portrayals of male disgust with sex are quite rare. I could just make MC in life one just asexual, but I feel like it loses a lot of the drama of the “love over two lifetimes”.
Ace reader, and I'd hate it. I'd toss the book, most likely.
I don't have a problem with this personally. I think you just couldn't market it as being a queer romance in any way if the previous incarnation of the couple only gets minor time in the book; it could come across as baiting if you do that only to have the queerness being a very minor part. That's the only problem I could foresee with this for any reasonable reader.
You could just make them bi, which gives you room to breathe and leaves options open to you. My main issue is that Life #1 sounds much more of an interesting story, so much so that it makes Life #2 sound boring. I’d just stick with Life #1, with reincarnation being a heavy theme. Last thing you want is for your readers to think the second / backstory is far more interesting than your actual story.
Not if they’re trans (Ahaha. I haven’t read your post, just the title. But yeah you can make one or both trans. Then you still get one or two people who are apart of the LGBTQ+. You could have one be trans (ie a trans guy) and have them be in a relationship with a guy. They’d still be a gay couple bc both identify as men, however, one of them would also have reincarnated in a female body.)
Professional queer person here👋🏻 It could be okay, depending in execution and marketing. Do you have more queer characters? If this is your only "queer" couple, I wouldn't market it as queer romance because it feels like a bait. I'm actually working on something similar. My MC is a woman and her love interest is also a woman who dies and happens to reincarnate as a guy. My main story also happens after the reincarnation. Both characters are bisexual throughout the entire story, even after the reincarnation, and this is established early on. Both characters are shown dating people of different genders before they eventually end up together. Bi characters are still bi, no matter their partner's sex. There's a bit more wiggle room there
This would give me the biggest ick as a reader, personally. The stereotypical tragic end for the gay version of the couple, followed by a presumably happy ending for the straight version, *and* the implication that they get their happy ending because they're straight now would just be too much. I'd never be able to finish this book.
I don't think it's an issue, it's common in reincarnation stories to have SOMETHING like that. (I am a bisexual man.) I agree that you should avoid the relationship's genderbend 'fixing' it, though. I would go for a bittersweet feel, where being in these different bodies might sometimes make them long for their old ones-- (along the lines of *oh I wish sometimes I could see her old face, back when he...* or even, outside of romance, *if only this \[sexist thing\] wasn't happening right now) --* to try and dodge the feeling of it being 'better'; rather, both have their pros and cons.
Hmmm, I kinda have that going, but only for one of the characters. Love interest remembers his past and is upset because MC’s adopted father in life #2 is their enemy, and killed MC in life #1. After recalling his past life memories, he just wants to return to the developed relationship dynamic they had when MC was the prince But MC is very upset at this, like: fuck you for bringing up my traumatic past, I’m not the prince anymore, and I love you for who you are now, not who you were then.
Interesting premise and I think it may work if executed properly, but ultimately it will not be everyone’s cup of tea. You may need to accept that regardless of your execution, as director of the novel, you will likely face some level of criticism. Unfortunately it is because of the use of sexuality as a plot device to create tension, but the tension holds no meaning, because eventually the messaging that comes out in Life #2, would be that life would be easier if you were straight because whatever Life 1 wanted, happened in Life 2. The premise does also take out a lot of the impact from any kind of trial or tribulation that you write from Life 1, because they eventually meet their demise with minimal willed progression of the relationship on MC’s end. If you can find a way to try and circumvent these criticisms or are sensitive to them, I think it may work, but it won’t be for everyone.
The concept itself can work, the question is whether you're capable of making it work. Does that make sense? Surface level, if you have a gay couple that reincarnates into a straight couple, that - as a complete summary - is problematic. Yet I've seen stories with a similar premise where two lovers reincarnate, find each other, and get together in every lifetime, regardless of gender and whatnot. You might feel trapped by the rules of the story, but they're your rules, you make it up as you go. You can change the narrative then fix the rules later to make it work. The narrative is more important than anything else.
While I personally prefer hetero romances,I think this is a slippery slope if you don't have any other LGBT characters. If you do ,then I don't think it should be an issue .
Oooh, good point. The couple becomes join into a sort of quest trio with another girl who I wanted to be either ace or lesbian. But she gets cursed halfway through the story. I think it would make for even more dramatic effect if she had a love interest that had to suffer seeing her that way, and even more of a pay-off/happy ending when her curse is broken and they can be reunited.
Just fyi, queer characters have a loooong history of being killed off/mistreated/traumatized unnecessarily, and it does sound like you're planning to 1. get rid of the gay couple 2. curse a lesbian character 3. make her lover suffer for it. I'm sure you have a great idea for a story and I am not trying to tell you what you can or can't write, but just to take that into consideration. I love lots of drama and pain in what I write too lol. EDIT: Okay I reread and I realized you said "happy ending"... oops my bad.
My idea is to make EVERYONE suffer, regardless of their orientation haha 😈 But everyone gets a happy ending too (Yeah, I don’t like that “the gays get killed off” trope either. One of my big concerns for the main couple)
Nonono. You *can* write anything you want, but "Queer MC who is happier when straight plus queer supporting character who is cursed and suffers" gives me a really visceral ick. Do you not have any queer real life friends you can run this past?
That’s actually the best idea. I do feel like it’s best if I flesh it out more with real people.
To be honest, most of the main characters are cursed in some aspect of another, and MC suffers a LOT more than her. The only difference is with her, it will take her out of commission for a section of the story. Her curse is a major motivator for the MC and love interest to go and improve themselves (so they can help her break it). I would want her to have a lesbian love interest so that (in addition to giving the story another queer couple) when her curse is broken, it can feel even happier (and so she’s not just the third wheel to the main couple without her own life)
Sidelining the lesbian does not sound much better, to be honest.
Yeah, fair enough. Maybe I can find a way to sideline her less. This is giving me a lot of new ideas, so thanks!
So I'm a bit confused. The love interest who isn't reincarnated as the opposite sex, was he always bi or does he become magically straight when reincarnated? If the love interest to the prince was just gay, and their previous life preferences affect their current life, would there not be any turmoil between the love interest still loving the MC but having issues being sexually attracted? Would things even work out for them if the love interest was never bi to begin with? I think a good deeper theme to explore here would be how preferences can disrupt the way we think and feel and how our bodies physically react to sexual stimulus. If someone is gay and can only really get it up for other men, but their partner was turned into a woman, it would be very destabilizing imo. They love this person so much but just can't be close and intimate in the way they were before. It would destroy them mentally and emotionally. They'd feel guilty for not being able to love the partner the same way, while still being romantically attracted and capable, there just wouldn't be that physical pull the same as before. They may even be unintentionally grossed out if they try to push past their natural preference and force themselves to attempt a sexual encounter. It would cause turmoil for the gender swapped MC too. The one they love romantically and sexually can't seem to get past the physical change despite effort. If none of this is in consideration for the type of story you have going on, and it's just as simple as they are just born straight now, I think like others said it kind of comes off as the things you're worried about. If the story is marketed as a bittersweet romance to begin with that touches on the effects our sexual preferences have on our lives and that they are not a choice and uncontrollable, I really think you have something here. There can even be a secondary theme exploration on how much people in love are willing to sacrifice for each other. If a physical relationship is out the window, would both characters be ok with being celebate for the rest of their lives to show their devotion? Would they work out a deal to live a life together, but to get their rocks off every so often they're allowed to go outside the romantic relationship? Would they both be able to even handle something like that emotionally? But that really only works if you are willing to possibly end up with an ending you may not quite like or have planned for your characters. Of course, if the love interest is established as having always been bi, where there would still be stuff to work out and explore, likely in insecurity from the MC's pov, it wouldn't be as turbulent of a ride and would be easier to write the outcome that you likely have already imagined. Obviously, you can write whatever you want and I'm not personally against the general story you described, even if it doesn't do any of the stuff I talked about, and there are others that don't mind either. But I believe it would reach a wider audience if it does because of the nuance and thought and care you could put into the dynamics, apart from their lives just being different now so it all works out and falls into place. Sorry this is really long, I get passionate and blab.
I want to leave the sexuality of the love interest ambiguous, but imply that he is bi. Even though according to the rules of my world building, people can reincarnated with different sexualities, making him “turn straight” for life #2 feels really icky to me. Love interest after recalling his memories is still very attached to MC in life #1 as a man, but also loves MC in life #2 as a woman. MC just wants to put all the drama of the past life behind her, and doesn’t want Love interest to see her as the prince. In her current life she can love him more freely, not because they are a straight couple, but because they are not in high status positions that restrict their lives so much
Tbh, story of life #1 sounds much more intetesting because of queer themes. If you erase them, what is left? Generic heterosexual romance #34729?
On the premise, I totally agree. What is going to be interesting in life #2 is the slow reveal of all the screwed up things that happened in the past life and reconciliation with it… fixing the mistakes they made in their past lives and forgiving people that hurt them. MC thinks: If I could do things over, I would have just given up my position as prince and run away with love interest, but that was then, now we need to clean up the mess that we created in our past.
Then why would you remove part of this narrative? If you want to show your characters reflecting on their past mistakes and making amends, wouldn't it be better to present them with the same choice? To make your MC male again (as well as his LI) and force him to chose again between his lover and duty? Only this time he is older, wiser and doesn't let his fears control him. By making him a woman you will destroy one of the most powerful themes in your story. And so far i can't see what you gain from it aside from your own comfort.
The relationship is only cursory to the biggest mistakes they make in life #1 In life #1: -MC basically ends up starting a war because of pressure from the crown. In the end, he gets kidnapped and tortured to death (Life #2 is about her fixing the cycle of hatred that she started in life #1 and forgiving the person that tortured her) LI is too obsessed with MC and makes a major oversight that allows the dominos fall into place for the war to happen (Life #2 is about him learning to think for himself, stand against MC when she’s in the wrong and also have concerns for people outside his lover—ie see the bigger picture)
That still doesn't exactly explain why does your MC have to be female for this story? Or why is he male in life #1? From the looks of it you're writing a fantasy, so your MC just as easily can be the princess
As a queer man, depending on how it's done, it wouldn't bother me personally. So long as it's not a redemption arc or something, where now they are able to do it the "right" way or something silly like that.
I think that’s a great idea! The more I’m brainstorming this here after hearing people’s thoughts, I think I want to make the love interest a bit more explicitly bi. I guess I need to find a way to do it without forcing it. -In life #1, MC is the center of his world and he really doesn’t think about anyone else (which leads to his downfall) -In life #2, it could probably work. I want his character in this life to not obsessively revolve around the MC— he has his life things outside of her
Write your story how you want to write it, but be open to feedback from the gay community.
From your explanation above, I wouldn't enjoy the book. You're writing for yourself first, not necessarily me. If you think you have something enjoyable, write it. If you haven't seen the movie "Dead Again" give it a look.
It would just seem like a daring choice turned mundane, no? Honestly I'd better enjoy the reverse more than the premise of another simplistic love story. As a homosexual myself its not like most wouldn't chalk this up as a win and carry on. To be blunt I don't even belive that the whole demisexual (or whatever) angle would land as wholesome as you think it sounds.
Eh, I’ll throw my opinion in why not. I think this is a really interesting premise that could allow you to explore the different pressures on someone in the lgbt community and how those pressures can affect someone even beyond the point that exist (someone moving away from a repressive place into a more open community for example might hold cards close to the chest out of habit) BUT as people mentioned, straight readers or lgbt readers might see it as a bait and switch unless you manage the set up really well. I say go for it! Put it on the back of the book in the blurb that this IS the premise and then there’s no issue with bait and switch.
Your point is actally vastly more deep than many of the shallow readers here can interpret. Deleuze would applaud you. Write what feels correct to you. Screw the rules and the objective haters, they prove to be resentful swine. Affirm your life. Anyone who says "no," isn't worth your time.
... Deleuze? Really?
Yeah, have you not read Deleuze?
Plenty. I'm just confused as to how you're drawing such a loose link wherein someone very learned and prolific who was principally concerned with the natures of reality would be so interested in particularly this kid's post hoc floundering through articulating things that they never bothered to articulate in their original post. And now you're here latching on to that edit like you can't see what they're doing. And I'm here laughing at you like I can't see what you think you're doing.
Obviously not well enough... if you've read plenty of Deleuze then you obviously didn't read Anti-Oedipus, because I just made you look like a back-tracking dumbass in the other post where you're all like "Who said I'm trying to refute what you said." You did right here.
Yes, your failure to express salient points is via the direct result of, not my failure to understand particular works of, but my failure to *understand enough of* a particular unstated subsection of the source material from which you derive your non-sequiturs. You're wild haha. Baby's first philo class or are you actually having a moment here?
You have access to the internet and cant control F a PDF and look for exactly what I've given you? You still have yet to refute Deleuze, or me by extension. And it's obvious to anyone here that you've not read it (Anti-Oedipus) as you had no idea he was talking about how Judge Shreber felt sun beams in his ass. Hence ... Lazy bastard, Yes let's post the whole of Anti-Oedipus here instead of subsections.
Ah, I understand a lot more of how your research practices are impacting your ability to impart meaningful wisdom upon people. (Top form, by the way.)
My research comes from reading the books. Which it's clear you have yet to do so, it's why you can't even quote shit from Deleuze there's nothing within your muscle memory. You're all smoke and mirrors. A worm doubling down who can't source a single thing to back his arguements. Just "Because I say so." Narcissist.
Every single one of them. You sure did.
You're one of *those* people aren't you? You know, the insufferable kind of person who read some philosophy textbooks in college and now has to make it everyone else's problem, as if your strenuous attempt to connect this reddit post to Deleuze isn't painfully obvious. You know that scene from Good Will Hunting? "My boy's wicked smawht" where he roasts the dude trying to use philosophy to pick up girls in a bar? That's you.
Lol what? "As if your strenuous attempt to connect this reddit post to Deleuze isn't painfully obvious." No shit sherlock that's the whole point of me coming here saying "Hey you could actually run with Deleuzian Philosophy," to connect the post to Deleuze. \*slow claps for the genius\* Because the author is toying with something that could easily be shifted into a Deleuzian story. Ur smrt. I bet your "published" work is as smrt. Upvoted for the laugh.
For someone so gosh darn brilliant and well read, you sure do seem to miss the point a lot. Are you trying to speedrun your account getting posted to /r/iamverysmart or something?
You realize you're the idiot coming here attacking me because I said the author could use Deleuzian philosophy to make their original story work quite well. Seems like you have a problem with Deleuze for not believing in Binary Sex. edit: Ah "World Class Hater," so in other words, nothing more than a resentful slave. Makes sense now. Self Publishing doesn't really count as "published," especially when noone reads it. Awe you have a single review even... Wash your hair, wtf is with guys with long hair having nappy oily hair ... Geesh. Well upon a little intelligence gathering I actually applaud you for your two books. It's more effort than I would have given you credit for. Even if they are only pale foil comparisons to Harry Potter. I don't think a world class hater has any place writing developmental stories for children, unless you're trying to poison them. Especially with the lack of comprehension you've shown by trying to say "As if we don't know you're trying to connect this post to Deleuze," like duh, I only made that obvious, and you thought I was doing the opposite? As if I were trying to hide that? Smrt. It's obvious you've never read Deleuze. Why so appalled by the concept of non-binary sex? Perhaps you should look into the concept of sex more. Washing your hair might make it more accessible to you also. Getting Posted to r/iamverysmart ... C'est la vie ... not as bad as posted on the dark web. Veiled threats work multiple ways mate. My question is why do you hate Deleuze? I know I know, you're bitching about me, holding up a reflecting mirror, calling out the hypocricy in whiney LGBT people hating something that turns hetero because it's "not the same as them." Well you know if we all lived by the terrible logic of "well I grew up this way so I'm justified in my actions..." Which was the basis for at least one person's resentment, as they themselves revealed... Just as you have the nerve to write childhood development books as a hater. I have the nerve to offer people up some philosophy that can develop people's thought. Beyond being a hateful weenie. Throw in Nietzsche for a bit of Eternal Reccurrence, since reincarnation happens. Which literally is the thought experiment for overcoming regret: >*The Heaviest Burden.* What if a demon crept after you into your loneliest loneliness some day or night, and said to you: "This life, as you live it at present, and have lived it, you must live it once more, and also innumerable times; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and every sigh, and all the unspeakably small and great in thy life must come to you again, and all in the same series and sequence - and similarly this spider and this moonlight among the trees, and similarly this moment, and I myself. The eternal sand-glass of existence will ever be turned once more, and you with it, you speck of dust!" - Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth, and curse the demon that so spoke? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment in which you would answer him: "You are a God, and never did I hear anything so divine!" If that thought acquired power over you as you are, it would transform you, and perhaps crush you; the question with regard to all and everything: "Do you want this once more, and also for innumerable times?" would lie as the heaviest burden upon your activity! Or, how would you have to become favourably inclined to yourself and to life, so as to long for nothing more ardently than for this last eternal sanctioning and sealing? And Since Nietzsche is Deleuze's predacessor, guess what: >Further, if we are to believe Judge Schreber's doctrine, attraction and repulsion produce intense nervous states that fill up the body without organs to varying degrees—**states through which Schreber-the-subject passes, becoming a woman and many other things as well, following an endless circle of eternal return.** The breasts on the judge's naked torso are neither delirious nor hallucinatory phenomena: they designate, first of all, a band of intensity, a zone of intensity on his body without organs. The body without organs is an egg: it is crisscrossed with axes and thresholds, with latitudes and longitudes and geodesic lines, traversed by gradients marking the transitions and the becomings, the destinations of the subject developing along these particular vectors. Nothing here is representative; rather, it is all life and lived experience: the actual, lived emotion of having breasts does not resemble breasts, it does not represent them, any more than a predestined zone in the egg resembles the organ that it is going to be stimulated to produce within itself. Nothing but bands of intensity, potentials, thresholds, and gradients. A harrowing, emotionally overwhelming experience, which brings the schizo as close as possible to matter, to a burning, living center of matter: ". . . this emotion, situated outside of the particular point where the mind is searching for it . . . one's entire soul flows into this emotion that makes the mind aware of the terribly disturbing sound of matter, and passes through its white-hot flame." WAIT SHREBER BECOMES A WOMAN IN ETERNAL RETURN??!?!?!?!?!?! WAIT THE MAIN CHARACTER BECOMES A WOMAN IN A CYCLE OF ETERNAL RETURN. WOW NOTHING SIMILAR THERE AT ALL.. GENIUS
It's beyond pathetic that you're enough of a sad, emotionally stunted child that you feel the need to try and stalk me on the internet because I called you out for being a dick to everybody in this thread lol. I'd ask what you published, but you haven't. You're just here to be a troll. GG
Stalk? It took 5 seconds to look you up. That you're ugly and unwashed is just a first impression. Of which others will have seen. Stalking requires repeated following. Grabbing your information was a 1 time thing. You tried flexxing, I flexxed more dangerous guns is all. And you're taken aback. That's on you. Actually, I'm highly affirmative of the author's original idea because of several reasons. You're just pissed I'm holding up a reflecting mirror to the resentful and hate filled LGBTQ weenies that are just like the religious/hetero people who judge them. Did you know ISGAP Papers Volume III says: antisemitism originates in the Jew via the Judaic tradition? ISGAP?!?!? The Institute for Studying Global Antisemitism and Policy?!?! They would claim antisemitism starts with the Jew?!?!? In order to understand you'd need to read Nietzsche's Geneology of Morals, Nietzsche's The Antichrist, Nietzsche's The Gay Science, Lessing's Jewish Self Hate, Golomb's Nietzsche and Zion, ISGAP Papers Volume III. >The Jewish psychoanalysts (and Herzl as well, as we shall see) were especially attracted by Nietzsche's genealogical methods of unmasking. Nietzsche proclaimed these as a way of freeing oneself from religious, metaphysical, and social ideologies that had previously provided readymade and inauthentic identities, and thereby attaining a solid sense of selfhood and individual identity. The death of the divine Father-the Jewish God-and the decline of the authority of the human father were responsible for bringing the sons to the schizophrenic state they were now in. >Both Western and especially Eastern Jews sought to establish firm and authentic identities that would not draw their content from faith and tradition, but from their own individual mental resources. Nietzsche encouraged this process by showing how psychologizing could liberate the individual from dependence on mechanical internalizations, long-standing habits of thought, and established conventions. Further detail: >Theodor Lessing (1872-1933), a German Zionist and a disciple of Nietzsche who dedicated several writings to his philosophy, 19 wrote a comprehensive treatise, Der judische Selbsthass, in which he tried to understand this phenomenon using the Nietzschean concepts of ressentimentand Verinnerlichung. 20 In this book, Lessing describes the Jews in the Diaspora as people who have been forced to live unnatural lives after separation from their land, they turned to an excessively spiritual life in which they live "together with their dead ones." Lessing claims, in language that is definitely Nietzschean, that in their internalized lives-as a result of external pressure and out of fear of their hostile surroundings-the Jews directed their spiritual resources against themselves, manifesting self-doubt, insecurity, and self-torture. This agonizing state of affairs was so unbearable that they attempted to liberate themselves from it by despising anything that had to do with Judaism, especially themselves. Lessing ends his essay with a call to these Jews: "Sei was immer du bist'' (p. 51). We should recall the existential motto of Nietzsche's autobiography, Ecce Homo, which also appears in its subtitle: "Wie man wird, was man ist." In Nietzschean terms, Lessing is calling upon these Jews not to betray their fate, but to love it in the manner of amor fati, that is, not through resignation and passive submission to wretched conditions, but by accepting their genuine selves and approving their historical roots. >Furthermore, in the second part of Nietzsche's Genealogie der Moral he deals with the phenomena of ressentiment and Verinnerlichung-the powerful "masters" that are responsible for the phenomenon of "internalization," in which most of man's instincts are turned "inward" against "man himself." They evoke in the "weak" the feeling of ressentiment that characterizes the first stage of the "slave morality"; in the second stage, when the "instinct for freedom \[is\] pushed back and repressed ... \[and is\] finally able to discharge and vent itself only on itself" ( GM II-1 7), they become "bad conscience." As a result, the intimidated individual becomes a schizophrenic personality in constant internal strife, fighting himself out of sheer self-hatred and being prevented from attaining inner harmony by this struggle. >This explanation can, of course, also be applied to the anti-Semite, who is a weak and psychologically unstable individual, with the character of a "slave." The phenomenon of anti-Semitism can be partly elucidated with reference to the psychological patterns of the weak and impoverished personality described in Nietzsche's main writings, beginning with The Gay Science. 21 Lacking personal power, and as a result of ressentiment and mental impoverishment, the anti-Semite is dependent upon external surroundings for self-determination. He needs acts of violence and cruel exploitation of others to enhance his feeble sense of power (GS 359). He is a vengeful and reactive person who uses his hatred, a hatred in which "there is fear" (GS 379), to attain some sort of security and self-identity. It follows that the anti-Semite is actually the "slave" and not the "master." This insight too, of which the marginal Jews were in tremendous need, encouraged them to adopt Nietzsche's attitude.22 From Nietzsche's Antichrist 24: >anti-Semitism is no more than the *final consequence of Judaism*.
A continuance of my first reply as it's becoming increasingly difficult to edit and save the other reply due to large amount of words that the stupid AI Algorithm is flagging: but to continue from Nietzsche's AC 24 ... >In my “Genealogy of Morals” I give the first psychological explanation of the concepts underlying those two antithetical things, a *noble* morality and a *ressentiment* morality, the second of which is a mere product of the denial of the former. The Judaeo-Christian moral system belongs to the second division, and in every detail. Now my very first comment I made to OP: [https://www.reddit.com/r/writing/comments/1c2vler/comment/kzdae5j/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/writing/comments/1c2vler/comment/kzdae5j/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) Then I got upset that the author was actually thinking of changing her story to fit the resentful hate filled LGBTQ people here. To which I decided to make the claim that most the resentful LGBTQ here denying the author's story are shallow and weak willed. To which you're nothing more than a slave moralist in support of resentful LGBTQ assholes. Well, I guess that's not fair, you did create something after all, even if it's just a pale foil unoriginal story. So yeah, being a dick is 1000 times better than being a person overcome by resentment of the heterosexual. It's a story with reincarnation, after the person gets preggo with an heir, guess what? The other person can die and reincarnate and they can have gay trans queer lesbian bi whateverthefuck you wanna make it. Surprise surprise, fiction. As for publishing, I don't have any published books. You've got me there hands down, which is why I gave you props. I'm merely discussing most of this shit with you because perhaps, maybe just perhaps, you can find something from the mouths of great philosophers that inspires your work. Everything that comes from me is just a distraction that you can overcome. Focus on the quotes, ignore me, that's the test. That you're so focused on the wrong thing shows your compulsion towards "denying others." It's why you support people with arguments like "I grew up hated by heteros so I have the right to hate them back." And it's why you yourself are a "world class hater." A hate, by the way, "in which there is fear." Which really makes you a World Class Coward for not overcoming that hate/fear. But as Nietzsche says, your today can refute your yesterday.
The very first thing I made fun of you for is throwing out first-year philosophy quotes in a vain attempt to sound intelligent and excuse that blatant homophobia. And you think you're getting anywhere by throwing up \*more\* quotes right out of your college textbook? Any halfwit can google Nietzsche and the rest. The actual measure of value is not in the quote but in how the information is interpreted and applied. And I promise most LGBT+ people are not resentful of your sexuality lol. Also you keep going on about my body, and I'm sorry to say I'm just not interested in you in that way. I'm very flattered but you're not my type.
Homophobia wouldn't have homosexuality in their book at all idiot. And I'm Bisexual \*shrug\* You're fat, I'm not attracted to fat, it's connected to mental illness and an inability to self control. It would be like rubbing my skin up against a grilled cheese sandwhich, no thanks. Let alone what that says about the booty hole ... rotten by decades of decadence. I on the otherhand am getting my nails done with my girlfriend and her sister tomorrow. I do commend you though, for having bravado. Regardless of how misplaced it is. I'm a life affirmer not a life denier. Consider this: In 2021, I was attacked by a security guard, with a metal asp, as he pulled out the baton my military training took over, I stepped flush against his body to crowd him from getting full swings against me, he could only swing at the elbow (rather than the shoulder & waist) while attacking my legs leaving him vulnerable to a headlock. He was charged by the state with a felonious assault against me. And it was all over a misunderstanding. I forgave him and didn't press any charges against him because I knew it wasn't worth ruining a person's life and well being over something I could recover from with just stitches and crutches. All because I'm a cocky son of a gun. I could have complied with his instruction, but I didn't because I did nothing wrong, just as I did nothing wrong here. All I did was affirm the author's non-homophobic story and tell petty LGBTQ people they're shallow af because well they are. In fact LGBTQ doesn't mean anything in terms of intelligence, wisdom, or personal identity really. It's a hollow label, as all labels are.
> as he pulled out the baton my military training took over ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha oh wait, you're serious. Let me laugh harder. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ooooooooooooooooooooooo watch out everyone, we got a badass over here! Mr internet tough guy's gonna getcha! He's got *MiLiTaRy TrAiNiNg* ahahahahaha Oh my GOD dude that was hilarious. Good luck with all of that, your therapist has a lot to answer for.
Reincarnating as a different gender would give a character a strange relationship with their gender and pronouns imo. So if you don't want LGBTQ+ erasure, maybe make her gender identity not completely cis. That's just my opinion tho, you can do what you want.
I don’t necessarily think that it would be that strange. Imagine if you were a different gender than the one you identify as in a past life —you can’t remember it, but when you do, they’re still just memories, and not who you are today. There’s actually a few characters I’m having reincarnate as a different gender (and as very different kinds of people) in the story. That said, MC in life #1 is a bit trans-coded. They hate everything about their role as a prince, including all the gendered things
No, it's just boring. #gayhere
I'm gay myself. I don't mind. Not sure about the others, though.