Likewise. Yes, what we’ve been saying are opinions – but so is what you are saying. You haven’t given us anything that could be considered a fact and in fact haven’t even attempted to refute some of the arguments we’ve raised. Though I have admit we have also not refuted all your arguments, though partly that is because sometimes I’m not sure of the relevance.

As to us not having facts, I’m currently working my way through the last 4 series of Who and the last 3 series of Torchwood – in order to see whether my current beliefs concerning the portrayal of lgbt couples (and queer characters more generally) vs heterosexual couples are supported. So far they are, but it’s taking time and I don’t want to draw any conclusions until I’m done. But yep – it’s taking time.

*sighs* I’m sorry if this sounds annoyed, but what’s frustrating me is that I feel the way the original question was framed is very limiting. A few people issued homophobic insults against RTD, but that’s not necessarily the main issue for me. For example, it seems to me that for you Ianto’s death could only be homophobic if the creators intended it as a judgement on his sexuality. Fine – that’s your opinion.

But for me, the problems with Ianto’s death and the portrayal of queer characters more generally is not limited to whether it was intended as a homophobic statement. I’m more concerned about heteronormativity in the show. But because the original question was specifically concerning these homophobic accusations I feel the debate is stalling. Is the show homophobic – no, most likely not, for starters it’s at least given us queer characters – does that mean the show is 100% successful on it’s portrayal of queer characters – no. Should we be able to discuss those problems – yes.

One last response. You’ve come up with absolutely no facts only unsupported and simplistic assertions.

The core issue: killing LGBT characters does not make you homophobic. You haven’t said any more than it does and that’s both simplistic and arrant nonsense.

My previous points on this have been relevant and do address the core issue. I didn’t make that last post because your assertions scared me off but because you are quite clearly not amenable to reason or argument.

===1===

This is a comment I left on James Moran’s blog about this:

———————————–

“Of all the people to survive, he’s not the one you would have chosen, is he? But if you could choose, Doctor, if you decide who lives and who dies that would make you a monster.” – Mr Copper, Voyage of the Damned.

Captain Jack is neither evil nor dead. Ianto is not dead because he was in a gay relationship. The universe does not sit in moral judgement of people, bad things happen to good people and vice versa. If Captain Jack had had a girlfriend she would have died in the same way as Ianto did. There was a storytelling reason for doing it – you may not like it, but that’s the only reason.

Also, to simply make a character simply evil is bad drama – regardless of their sexuality. Bad drama in the service of homophobia is even worse, but that doesn’t mean that LGBT characters can’t have moral complexity or failings. Making a character simply good is equally bad drama, regardless of a the worthiness of the cause it is apparently supporting. Moving away from dramatic truth and towards propaganda always damages the cause you’re trying to advance.

If, as some of the more conspiracy-oriented postings here and elsewhere have suggested, the idea was to “de-gay” the show for BBC1, then Ianto would have been written out on Day One (or even before), not placed in the emotional centre of the story. Just look at Russell T Davies’ history in mainstream TV (which includes introducing Captain Jack on BBC1 in a family slot) to see what arrant nonsense this is.

As has already been said, drama tends to be about crisis, so happy relationships and people are few and far between regardless of sexuality. Also people tend to die, especially in thrillers (see also Spooks).

Off the top of my head, though, here are three happy, not-dead, not-evil, not-hetrosexual couples: the Cassini “sisters” in Gridlock, the private detectives in Jekyll and Maxxie and James in Skins. Also, I’d say that Ian Gallagher is one of the more well-adjusted (and non-evil, non-dead) characters in Shameless – not currently in a relationship, but he is only twenty.

Last of all, the success of Doctor Who and Torchwood has brought a number of happy, successful gay men (and their stable relationships) into the spotlght: including John Barrowman, Russell T Davies and Mark Gatiss.

This whole dead/evil gay thing is overly simplistic and only applies (if at all) to bad, propagandist drama which is mainly, thankfully, in the past (I’d accept that The Celluloid Closet has some valid points about this). You can’t just trot out the trope every time an LGBT character dies, that’s just a lazy knee-jerk reaction. If you’re trying to make a point about the portrayal of LGBT characters in drama you need a much more thoughtful anaylsis, not just “thou shalt not kill the gays”.

You also have to be honest about your personal attachments to a character and your feelings about their death and what extent they may be leading you to an erroneous conclusion about the cultural impact of that death. I think some comments are confusing this and, in the emotion of the moment, are unwittingly accusing the writers reinforcing homophobia – not understanding how offensive such a simplistic conclusion is.

None of this is to belittle how hurt some people are feeling at the moment. I just think you should be a bit more thoughtful in your critical analysis – and maybe the best way to start would be to give it some time so that you can detach the analysis from your emotional response. Especially if you’re planning to comment here, on the blog of someone who is closely involved and who cannot help but take ill-thought out remarks personally.

—————————–

Plus, from an earlier comment:

——————————
Ianto didn’t die because he was gay, he died because shit happens – and it happens tenfold if you’re a member of Torchwood. The fate of characters isn’t a moral punishment – there’s no deity of fiction handing out lessons.

The line: “The good ended happily, and the bad unhappily. That is what Fiction means.” from The Importance of Being Earnest is a piss-take of just that kind of thinking.
——————————–

===2===

In Torchwood fictional universe terms, Ianto dies because he’s in a building where a deadly virus is released. He goes to that building partly because he’s a member of the team and partly because he encourages Jack to make a stand, wanting to believe that he can be a better man than he was in 1965. That’s an entirely believable thing for a lover to do, regardless of the genders or sexuality involved. There’s nothing to suggest that we’re being shown a universe where LGBT people take unnecessary risks as a result of their sexuality.

Everyone in the building dies, so there’s no hint that different sexualities are affected differently by the virus. The virus is released by the 456 in response to Jack’s confronting them, there’s no sense that the event was caused by fate or God or some other mysterious force as a moral punishment for Ianto’s sexuality. So, in terms of the fictional universe, Ianto clearly didn’t die as a result of not being heterosexual.

In terms of what the writers were intending, we’re quickly into the realms of speculation. However, it seems to me that story is about making a stand or compromising. Jack compromised in the past and now he makes a stand – and loses the closest thing to him. Then, in the end, he compromises once more, at great personal cost. The death of Ianto seems to me to be an integral part of the this story, which Jack is in the centre of, having to make the choices. Gwen and Rhys are peripheral to this which is why they survive, and Frobisher is a parallel version, which is why he and his family die. There are plausible storytelling reasons why Ianto dies when he does – the alternative explanation being that Russell T Davies chose to make the show more hetero-normative. Which seems more likely to you? In short then, it seems unlikely that the writers killed Ianto because he was gay.

So all we’re left with is the apparent unintentional effect of the death of Ianto on the audience. Here we’re even further into the realms of speculation. My guess is that audiences in general don’t see tragedies as demeaning to their central characters or assume that death is punishment for some moral transgression. The “fridge the queer” trope strikes me as a valid starting point for criticism when a character is introduced simply to explore a “gay storyline” and then removed once that storyline is over – ie they only exist in terms of their sexuality. I don’t see this as the case in Children of Earth, even if you take it in isolation from the rest of Torchwood (and I disagree with Nat’s assessment here) as Ianto is a key member of the cast and his relationship with Jack is more of a love story than an exploration of issues around his sexuality – although there is a bit of this in the conversation he has with his sister. So, honestly, I can’t see any viewer drawing the conclusion that Ianto’s sexuality got him killed or that all non-heterosexuals are doomed to unhappiness from watching Torchwood.

In terms of how much positive attention Torchwood gives to non-heterosexuals, if the series ends here then I’d say that it has done a lot better than most TV shows. If the series continues and becomes dominated by heterosexual relationships then the death of Ianto will look like a turning point and it will be plausible to say that he was, in effect, “fridged” (regardless of the intentions of the authors). However, that hasn’t happened yet – and I don’t think that it will.

In terms of happiness in the Whoniverse, there’s a reason why the lesbian couple in Gridlock are minor characters – it’s because happy couples are quite dull. Most of the time, we don’t know much about the sexuality of the characters anyway, it’s not made an issue. On the whole Doctor Who and Torchwood are about having adventures in time and space, not settling down in a relationship (or even using sexuality of any sort as the main aspect of a story) and so we simply don’t know about the love lives of most of the people we meet. In post-2005 Who we have the guiding hand of Russell T Davies, who is far more interested in misery and suffering than happiness anyway, for all characters, regardless of sexuality. In 1963-89 Who we’re talking about a different television age – and basically LGBT characters are invisible. In new-Who terms though, I think you’d be hard-pressed to find the idea that non-heterosexual behaviour causes unhappiness or that people are being punished for their sexuality.

As for Jack’s suffering, some of it is inevitable because he is immortal. Most of it in Children of Earth results from the hard choices he has to make, which are part of the central theme of the story. In many ways he is similar to the Doctor in this respect. I honestly think it is reaching to try and connect his suffering to his sexuality.

===3===

As I’ve just said in reply to Hope, I think the reason why Gwen doesn’t suffer as much is because the story isn’t really about her. The main theme is making a stand or compromising in the face of a huge threat. The main subjects of the this theme are Jack and Frobisher. This puts Jack and Ianto’s relationship right at the centre of things.

Gwen’s story is a peripheral one that sheds some light on things – and she is linked in by being pregnant when the story is about children. Mainly though, she is just doing a lot of the heavy lifting of the plot. Her most relevant dramatic moment is when she doesn’t want to have the baby and just the way she expresses this is sufficient. Her dying or losing the baby or Rhys dying doesn’t really add anything to the central theme of the story.

Honestly, this persistent idea that what happens to character reflects the validity of the their sexual choices is striking me as more and more nonsensical. Also the idea that all characters have to suffer equally to make this good drama is absurd.

As for Jack and Ianto, I thought it was a proper, reciprocal relationship – especially in Children of Earth. I believed in it and didn’t need to see more (especially since Torchwood is mainly about the adventures). I felt Jack’s pain when he died. So, it worked for me.

At the risk of going on to long but to refute the allegation of being tangental here are the relevant posts one more time:

For another perspective though, here’s an article I just read:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/24/757421/-Yearning-for-Ianto:-TorchwoodRedefining-Sci-Fi,-Gothic-Horror-and-Gay-Romance