Metaphor, HIV & AIDS

[gardentuber]

I've just finished reading yet another story in which a character becomes HIV+, contracts AIDS and then dies. It's never the protagonist, it's always a supporting character. The supporting character's HIV status and AIDS diagnosis is always a comment on his promiscuous sexual behavior. Usually, it's also a situation in which the character has wronged the (good) protagonist and then gets his just desserts. The message is that AIDS is appropriate retribution for a character's selfish and immoral behavior.

 

I'm really fed up with this trope. I wouldn't be surprised it this were coming from a right wing, fundamentalist religious organization, but coming from gay authors writing for a gay audience... it appears to be an example of deeply seated fear and self-hatred.

 

In some ways it's understandable. After all, we're all terrified of sero-conversion. Being a member of the community that has been on the forefront of the epidemic, most of us have personally observed the ravages of AIDS. We experience well founded, visceral fear when the subject arises. It's too close, too familiar. The more we can distance ourselves from HIV, the more we can see it as someone else's problem. The more it is seen as a problem for "the other guy", the "bad guy" -- certainly not something that would effect a "good guy" like ourselves -- the less we have to worry. Well hogwash!!!

 

I'm tired of reading this hateful drivel. Nobody wants to be HIV+. However, it's not cosmic retribution for having too much sex or too casual sex. HIV is a virus for heaven's sake. Just a virus. It's transmission is mostly a matter of dumb luck unless a person is celibate. I suspect there's not a single reader of this forum who's not taken unnecessary risks at least once in his life. HIV/AIDS should not be a plot mechanism for differentiating good characters from bad characters.

 

As unwelcome as sero-converting is, it's not a tragedy. It's not a death sentence. Most HIV+ people are surviving for decades now that the pharmacology has become so sophisticated.

 

Howsabout dispensing with melodramatic plots in which AIDS is synonymous with badness and tragedy? Howsabout acknowledging that there are good, responsible, kind HIV+ members of this community? Howsabout dispensing with denial? Howsabout showing consideration for the HIV+ readers in this community? Howsabout including and welcoming HIV+ members of this community and not alienating them with cheap plot devices?

 

Howsabout gay authors vowing to present HIV in a more compassionate way starting now?

[kitten]

I've just finished reading yet another story in which a character becomes HIV+, contracts AIDS and then dies. It's never the protagonist, it's always a supporting character.

 

First of all, I support your main point and I don't wish to trivialise it, but perhaps the expression of the point is a little extreme in places. For example, in my experience there are very few stories in which the protagonist dies of anything. Killing off the protagonist is not something that authors do very often, not least because it's usually very unpopular with readers.

 

The supporting character's HIV status and AIDS diagnosis is always a comment on his promiscuous sexual behavior. Usually, it's also a situation in which the character has wronged the (good) protagonist and then gets his just desserts. The message is that AIDS is appropriate retribution for a character's selfish and immoral behavior.

 

Again, the word 'always' is a little extreme, at least in my experience. I've read lots of stories which treat a character's HIV status and AIDS diagnosis very symapthetically and with compassion. (Please don't ask me to name examples - I have a memory like a seive and rarely remember the titles of any story I've read more than a few hours ago!). The sort of story you describe seems like the melodramatic rubbish that is common in gay fiction (and indeed in most fiction) on the net, and so it is the type of story that I would probably have stopped reading long before the situation you describe.

 

Nobody wants to be HIV+. However, it's not cosmic retribution for having too much sex or too casual sex. HIV is a virus for heaven's sake. Just a virus. It's transmission is mostly a matter of dumb luck unless a person is celibate. I suspect there's not a single reader of this forum who's not taken unnecessary risks at least once in his life. HIV/AIDS should not be a plot mechanism for differentiating good characters from bad characters.

 

I agree with that, though I must add that I've never read any quality stories which use that plot mechanism.

 

As unwelcome as sero-converting is, it's not a tragedy. It's not a death sentence. Most HIV+ people are surviving for decades now that the pharmacology has become so sophisticated.

 

While it may not always be a tragedy, it is still a very serious disease, and in most countries it is indeed still a death sentence. Most of the HIV+people in the world do not have access to, and/or cannot afford the pharmacology. Even in the wealthy developed countries not everyone has health insurance and not everyone can afford the drugs. Also, there are strains of HIV which have developed resistance to some drugs. HIV/AIDS is no more of a retribution or punishment than cancer or any other serious disease, but it is not a trivial ailment.

 

Howsabout dispensing with melodramatic plots in which AIDS is synonymous with badness and tragedy? Howsabout acknowledging that there are good, responsible, kind HIV+ members of this community? Howsabout dispensing with denial? Howsabout showing consideration for the HIV+ readers in this community? Howsabout including and welcoming HIV+ members of this community and not alienating them with cheap plot devices?

 

Howsabout gay authors vowing to present HIV in a more compassionate way starting now?

 

Are you referring to stories here on GA? While I've read only a tiny proportion of stories here, my limited reading experience is that none of the stories here fit the description you give. That makes me wonder if your exhortations would be better directed elsewhere.

 

As I mentioned above, the plot mechanisms you describe are indicative of stories that are very poor quality, not only in the treatment of HIV/AIDS but also in the general standard of writing. A huge proportion of fiction (gay or straight) on the net is melodrama, and most of it is very low quality melodrama at that, regardless of the way the story treats HIV/AIDS. Perhaps if you were a little more discriminating about the quality of stories you start to read, you'd never even reach the parts that irk you so much.

 

Kit

[corvus]

I've actually not read a single story on GA where a character has AIDS, I think. And in fact, the only work I've read that I remember well and made a strong impact on me had the main protagonist as its HIV+ character; and he was neither promiscuous nor "deserving." So, in short, whereas I can *imagine* the kinds of stories and soap operas you're talking about, gardentuber, I've actually never read any myself.

[Graeme]

I read this, and then mentally reviewed my own stories. I think I might get a bare passing grade from gardentuber.

 

I have one novel and three short stories (from memory) that deal with AIDS. The novel, New Brother only deals with in passing, but it has one supporting character giving a very passionate speech that counters the idea that AIDS is retribution. The spin off short story, Street Life, is here at GA and, I think (hope) it deals with the subject sensitively. However, it's set back in the 80s, so AIDS was more of a death sentence then than it is now. My short story Ten Years was written to for a Valentine's Day story collection... enough said

 

The last short short, Bad News is the sort of story that gardentuber is complaining about, but I don't apologise for that. The story is as much a warning to myself as preaching about the dangers of casual sex.

 

An excellent story that treats this subject sensitively is CRVBoy's Stigmatized. I read it years ago, but it was the story that immediately sprang to mind when I read this thread. I can thoroughly recommend it.

 

Getting back to the general topic, I think you need to distinguish between modern and historical stories. SonoLuminus's Scenes from Hugo from the 2007 Summer anthology is an example of a historical short story set against the era when AIDS cast a spectre across gay society. The mood it portrayed is what gardentuber is commenting on, but in that particular case it's complete appropriate because people were dying.

 

Even with modern stories you need to look at the context. Tiffani Chin's Good Intentions, My Friend from the 2009 Spring anthology deals with this subject, too, but it looks at the psychological impact, not the biological one. AIDS is still a frightening thing for a lot of people and this short story shows that. That's realism.

 

After giving it a lot of thought, I think I have to disagree with gardentuber on one point:

The message is that AIDS is appropriate retribution for a character's selfish and immoral behavior.

I think the message is that AIDS is a probable consequence if you behave in risky activities, just like being crippled is a probable consequence if you consistently drive at excessive speeds.

 

I agree that HIV is just a virus (technically, a retrovirus), and it is not a retribution. But it is also a logical consequence of certain activities and that's realistic. Having a character who regularly gets involved in high risk behaviour contract HIV is not unreasonable. Having them die of AIDS shortly afterwards is definitely unrealistic, but getting the disease is not.

[KJames]

I read this, and then mentally reviewed my own stories. I think I might get a bare passing grade from gardentuber.

 

I have one novel and three short stories (from memory) that deal with AIDS. The novel, New Brother only deals with in passing, but it has one supporting character giving a very passionate speech that counters the idea that AIDS is retribution. The spin off short story, Street Life, is here at GA and, I think (hope) it deals with the subject sensitively. However, it's set back in the 80s, so AIDS was more of a death sentence then than it is now. My short story Ten Years was written to for a Valentine's Day story collection... enough said

 

The last short short, Bad News is the sort of story that gardentuber is complaining about, but I don't apologise for that. The story is as much a warning to myself as preaching about the dangers of casual sex.

 

An excellent story that treats this subject sensitively is CRVBoy's Stigmatized. I read it years ago, but it was the story that immediately sprang to mind when I read this thread. I can thoroughly recommend it.

 

Getting back to the general topic, I think you need to distinguish between modern and historical stories. SonoLuminus's Scenes from Hugo from the 2007 Summer anthology is an example of a historical short story set against the era when AIDS cast a spectre across gay society. The mood it portrayed is what gardentuber is commenting on, but in that particular case it's complete appropriate because people were dying.

 

Even with modern stories you need to look at the context. Tiffani Chin's Good Intentions, My Friend from the 2009 Spring anthology deals with this subject, too, but it looks at the psychological impact, not the biological one. AIDS is still a frightening thing for a lot of people and this short story shows that. That's realism.

 

After giving it a lot of thought, I think I have to disagree with gardentuber on one point:

 

I think the message is that AIDS is a probable consequence if you behave in risky activities, just like being crippled is a probable consequence if you consistently drive at excessive speeds.

 

I agree that HIV is just a virus (technically, a retrovirus), and it is not a retribution. But it is also a logical consequence of certain activities and that's realistic. Having a character who regularly gets involved in high risk behaviour contract HIV is not unreasonable. Having them die of AIDS shortly afterwards is definitely unrealistic, but getting the disease is not.

 

I've been reading a lot of the stories here, and I think gardentuber is probably referring to Mark Arbour's Man in Motion, in which the protagonists have at least three family members and three friends contract HIV and 5 died of AIDS (very quickly) and one of the currently surviving characters, that the protagonists rescued, is HIV+, but is so far, not suffering with any AIDS related maladies. The reason for his own HIV+ status is extremely promiscuous sex, and his drug use habits are heretofore unknown, although they have been reasonably alluded to.

 

I don't mind the plot of his story, the telling has been great, but I am disappointed that the one "rescue" had contracted HIV... I have to temper my own likes and dislikes, however, with the fact that an author may write fiction woven into the reality that is our world as it is or was. Mark's weaving of Man in Motion into the 1980's--while slapping us in the face with the reality of that one thing we don't want to admit exists--is at the very least, believable despite the fictions created.

 

Gardentuber, I also do not like to be reminded of the reality of the existence of HIV, that's why I try to enjoy the stories for the love expressed in them. But I've been living with it for 19 years, and it's a fact and I've got to live with twice a day for the rest of my life, just like 60 million other people dealing with it for the rest of their lives, and like those 20 million people did who aren't here anymore: It's here, but it can't change who I am.

[B1ue]

For a comparison, think of how authors treat the idea of AIDS versus how they treat rape. Perhaps the demonification of those that contract HIV is along similar lines, that people want to believe "if I don't do this, I won't get it; AIDS only happens to people who do this; he got it because he's a slut and worthless," because then it means it won't happen to them. Blaming the victim is something rape survivor advocates have been dealing with for quite some time.

 

Now, let's address the elephant in the room. Man in Motion deals with AIDS as its overarching metaphor and a plot point in several circumstances. All the characters who contract AIDS are, at one time or another, villains in one way or another. They also seem to succumb quite quickly to rider illnesses. You also have a point, not one you actually made I don't think, but its there, that the protagonist engages in behaviors that are just as risky as the people he hates, but seems immune.

 

So far.

 

Remember, its a metaphor. Its something external that, beyond just being lonely, underscores why trying to have promiscuity and a relationship at the same time doesn't work. In earlier stories, jealous exes literally tried to kill the protagonists when someone strayed. Actually, we have that in MiM too, but I digress, AIDS is still doing most of the work.

[kitten]

I agree that HIV is just a virus (technically, a retrovirus), and it is not a retribution. But it is also a logical consequence of certain activities and that's realistic. Having a character who regularly gets involved in high risk behaviour contract HIV is not unreasonable. Having them die of AIDS shortly afterwards is definitely unrealistic, but getting the disease is not.

 

Yes, but do you have the same attitude to other high risk behaviours, such as smoking and heavy alcohol use? Virtually all long term smokers will have a serious smoking-related disease and around 50% will die from such a disease. A large proportion of long-term heavy drinkers will have serious health problems, and a significant percentage will die as a result.

 

I'm not saying that this applies to you personally, but many people (not just authors) link the risk of HIV/AIDS to promiscuous sex and they usually disapprove of promiscuous sex. Many people (including authors) give the impression that they have the unspoken and often subcounscious attitude of "it's a consequence of risky behaviour" with HIV but they almost never seem to have that attitude with smoking or drinking alcohol.

 

The high risk behaviour for HIV/AIDS is not promiscuous sex but it is unprotected sex. It is possible to become HIV positive by having unsafe sex with just one person. Has anyone got a smoking-related disease or an alcohol-related disease just from just one cigarette or one glass of wine? It is possible to have lots of promiscuous sex relatively safely (e.g. with proper use of condoms), but there is no such thing as lots of 'protected' cigarettes or alcohol.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that if authors who use such plot lines are simply being realistic and/or 'not unreasonable' about high-risk behaviour and HIV, why are there no similar plot lines about other high-risk activites?

 

Kit

[Graeme]

Yes, but do you have the same attitude to other high risk behaviours, such as smoking and heavy alcohol use? Virtually all long term smokers will have a serious smoking-related disease and around 50% will die from such a disease. A large proportion of long-term heavy drinkers will have serious health problems, and a significant percentage will die as a result.

A good point. I have to say that, with one exception, my stories are very unrealistic. I have, from memory, only written one short story which contained one character who smoked. I have two short stories with characters who drank to excess -- and in both cases it was as a response to the death of a child. My approach to these subjects has been to not include them in my stories. I certainly haven't explored the long term ramifications of these activities.

 

However, there's one essential difference. With HIV, you can learn fairly early on about the consequences of unprotected sex. With drinking and smoking it is usually decades later that you learn whether you have suffered the consequences. As an author, if I were to include such a character, it would be only showing the final result and not the activity that produced it, unless I was writing a story that spanned decades. With HIV, you can have unprotected sex one night and find out in a relatively short space of time if you've caught the virus.

 

The high risk behaviour for HIV/AIDS is not promiscuous sex but it is unprotected sex. It is possible to become HIV positive by having unsafe sex with just one person. Has anyone got a smoking-related disease or an alcohol-related disease just from just one cigarette or one glass of wine? It is possible to have lots of promiscuous sex relatively safely (e.g. with proper use of condoms), but there is no such thing as lots of 'protected' cigarettes or alcohol.

I was careful in my earlier post to refer to 'risky behaviour' without defining it. You are absolutely correct in that the high risk behaviour is generally unprotected sex, not promiscuous sex. Sharing needles is another high risk behaviour, which is why I didn't define things precisely. There is a broad range of activities that are risky.

 

But, as I said above, from an author's point of view, you have to look at both the activity, and when the results of that activity come into play. With HIV, there can be a short period of time between the two (with a longer period before they develop AIDS), while with smoking and drinking it is a much, much longer period (excluding, of course, high risk behaviour while drunk, such as driving, where the consequences can appear almost immediately).

 

 

The point I'm trying to make is that if authors who use such plot lines are simply being realistic and/or 'not unreasonable' about high-risk behaviour and HIV, why are there no similar plot lines about other high-risk activites?

I hope I've answered that question, but just to summarise: it's because of the time interval between the high-risk behaviour and the consequences becoming apparent. Most stories don't span the decades required for long term liver damage, lung cancer or associated respiratory illnesses to appear.

[gardentuber]

It's great to read people's thinking on this subject.

 

In my original post, I didn't self-identify as HIV+, but I should have. I am a very private person and feel that my medical condition is salient only to someone with whom I am intimate. In this discussion, though, my diagnosis informs my thinking and opinions on the subject. I received my diagnosis around 20 years ago. I lost my life partner to AIDS in 1995. I am not naive regarding the horrors of the condition.

 

Kit posted:

 

First of all, I support your main point and I don't wish to trivialise it, but perhaps the expression of the point is a little extreme in places. For example, in my experience there are very few stories in which the protagonist dies of anything. Killing off the protagonist is not something that authors do very often, not least because it's usually very unpopular with readers.

 

Well, yes, I was on a rant (and probably still am). While I don't interpret my post as extreme, I admit it is provocative. Mea culpa. There is another aspect to Kit's comment, however. It's the concept that an author giving a character HIV is tantamount to killing him. Currently, in most western industrialized nations, contracting HIV is not a death sentence any more than having diabetes is a death sentence. It's not great. It's not sweetness and light, but it is survivable in the long term.

 

Again from Kit's post:

 

Please don't ask me to name examples - I have a memory like a seive and rarely remember the titles of any story I've read more than a few hours ago!. The sort of story you describe seems like the melodramatic rubbish that is common in gay fiction (and indeed in most fiction) on the net, and so it is the type of story that I would probably have stopped reading long before the situation you describe.

 

My memory is just as moth eaten. Remembering all the stories in which I've encountered the HIV=bad trope would be impossible. I read stories on a number of websites, so have trouble recollecting which story derives from which site. I've not yet begun to read any of Mark Arbour's opus, so that's not the source of my rant. I chose to locate my rant/conciousness raising exercise on the Gay Author's forum because GA is a collection of careful and considered authors and I trust my concerns will get an honest analysis here. The two most recent stories in which I encountered the plot device were (otherwise) very engaging and entertaining, definitely not rubbish. And both were located on other websites. The most recent was a Horatio Nimier story, the previous was a Nick Archer story. As I just stated, I have great respect for both author's story telling and language crafting abilities. I've encountered similar stories on the Forbidden Fruit website, another site of usually good story telling. In another insectivorous allusion, I didn't intend to kick the beehive here at GA but simply stir up some discussion on this subject.

 

Graeme stated:

 

I think the message is that AIDS is a probable consequence if you behave in risky activities, just like being crippled is a probable consequence if you consistently drive at excessive speeds.

 

I take issue with this statement. Let me address this from the driving metaphor (it's less emotionally charged). I'd state: "...being crippled is a possible consequence of consistently driving at excessive speeds". Then again, a pedestrian can be run down while in a crosswalk, crossing with the traffic light as happened to a good friend of mine. All activities carry some risk. Sometimes a "low risk" activity simply doesn't pan out.

 

For some of us, contracting HIV occurred before the retrovirus (not a virus; cheers, Graeme) was even identified. In the early 80's, risky sex was defined completely differently than it is now. For others it's the result of a broken condom (yeah, that's happened to me too). Back in the day, I enjoyed a sedate sex life, much more restrained than many of my contemporaries, nevertheless, while some thoroughly promiscuous fellows didn't contract HIV, some of us serial monogamists did. I'm not meaning to bellyache; I'm just trying to make a point using my life experience as an example. That, and to point out that "shit happens"... that "bad" things happen to people in any number of unpredictable ways... that placing a value judgement on a person because something "bad" happened to them is beside the point... and that doing so is just another version of the "blame the victim" mentality that another poster commented on (in relation to rape victims). I'll admit that this line of reasoning is opinionated and that it is judgmental in its own fashion. After reading other people's posts, I know that I'm not unique in my thoughts even if I'm a bit strident in expressing them.

 

Oh, and speaking of opinions... I really (really, really, really) like Graeme's stories. Just wanted to put that out here since I'm quoting from his post (and disagreeing with him as well!).

 

Let me see if I can come at this from a different angle. Vito Russo wrote the book, "The Celluloid Closet", which describes the portrayal of homosexuality in Hollywood. He pointed out that for the longest time, if a homosexual was represented in a popular movie, he/she would probably get knocked off before the movie ended. We all know that homosexuals die but we also know that something's fishy if the majority of homosexual characters in movies are dead by the time the movie ends. Of course, there are many alternate plot lines to killing off the homosexual, but in Hollywood's reductive reasoning, "bad" things (death) happen to "bad" people (homosexuals). To emphasize that homosexuals are bad, well, they had to be killed.

 

Now, I'm not Vito Russo and I've not done an exhaustive analysis of web based, gay erotic fiction. Still, my (unscientific) analysis is that the majority of HIV+ characters in web based, gay erotic fiction 1) have been disloyal to their partner (the protagonist) 2) the disloyalty is evidenced by their promiscuity, 3) they then contract HIV which develops into AIDS and then die, while 4) their wronged partner goes on to form a long lasting, monogamous relationship with his soul mate (happy ending!). There are so many other possible plot lines (how about the plot line in which the HIV- guy dumps his committed partner after 5 years because he's, all of a sudden, frightened of sero-conversion? Yeah, I'm bellyaching. Yeah, it's happened to me... twice). To use the "Celluloid Closet" test, if the majority of HIV+ characters are unsympathetic and are then killed off by the end of the story, well, something's fishy.

 

Enough, I do believe the horse is well and truly dead. I'll stop beating it now.

[kitten]

I hope I've answered that question, but just to summarise: it's because of the time interval between the high-risk behaviour and the consequences becoming apparent. Most stories don't span the decades required for long term liver damage, lung cancer or associated respiratory illnesses to appear.

 

Mmmm...

I'm not sure that argument really holds.

The story itself doesn't need to span decades to show the consequences of behaviour that began decades previously. For example, in a story covering just one day in the life of a protagonist there could be the death of his father, who drank himself to death over several years, or about the chronic lung disease of his mother who had been a heavy smoker. Furthermore, serious liver damage can be caused by binge drinking in just a very short time - there are teenagers here in the UK who have been diagnosed with alcohol-related cirrhosis and other serious liver problems caused by binge-drinking.

 

Also, many people don't get tested regularly for HIV and it doesn't alway progress to AIDS, so if someone like that tests positive now it may be that the risky behaviour took place many years ago. Thus I could write a story about a protagonist's reaction to finding out he is HIV+ and that he got it via unsafe sex even though he'd been celibate for a decade.

 

Therefore I'm not convinced by the argument that interval between risky behaviour and consequences can explain the different treatment of HIV status and the results of other risky behaviours such as smoking and drinking.

 

Kit

[kitten]

The two most recent stories in which I encountered the plot device were (otherwise) very engaging and entertaining, definitely not rubbish.

 

Melodramatic plot devices can be very engaging and entertaining. Melodramatic stories can be very well written, though the vast majority of net stories are badly written and they are either porn or melodrama, or a combination of both. Melodrama (like porn) is probably so common in net stories because it is popular. I'm not sure if melodrama is so popular because people have an inherent taste for it or because they have been brought up with a constant diet of it on TV and and in movies.

 

Overall, I'm not fond of melodrama, even when it is well-written, so I don't often read such stories. This isn't directly relevant to the HIV topic, but it probably explains why I have rarely seen the HIV=bad plotline in the stories I read. One also has to wonder if HIV=bad plotline in a story wouldn't be sufficient to make an otherwise 'good' melodrama into a 'bad' melodrama.

 

Kit

[Graeme]

Graeme stated:

 

I think the message is that AIDS is a probable consequence if you behave in risky activities, just like being crippled is a probable consequence if you consistently drive at excessive speeds.

 

I take issue with this statement. Let me address this from the driving metaphor (it's less emotionally charged). I'd state: "...being crippled is a possible consequence of consistently driving at excessive speeds". Then again, a pedestrian can be run down while in a crosswalk, crossing with the traffic light as happened to a good friend of mine. All activities carry some risk. Sometimes a "low risk" activity simply doesn't pan out.

I can accept that. I was tossing up between possible and probable when I wrote it and went with probable, but I think you're correct.

 

The key, to me, is that in most stories where I've seen this topic raised, the author has linked the behaviour with a possible result. I don't have a problem with that. There's nothing wrong, per se, with promiscuity, even if it's not for everyone. Everyone is entitled to put their own life at risk if they want by doing high risk activities they enjoy -- consider all the mountain climbers, base jumpers, the people who try to row across the Tasman sea, etc. It's their life. If some people, as a result, suffer, then that's part of the risk. There are also many stories out there where characters have lots of sex and don't become HIV+, so it's not like all stories have their characters catching AIDS.

 

I'm just trying to make a point using my life experience as an example. That, and to point out that "shit happens"... that "bad" things happen to people in any number of unpredictable ways... that placing a value judgement on a person because something "bad" happened to them is beside the point... and that doing so is just another version of the "blame the victim" mentality that another poster commented on (in relation to rape victims).

I want to say that I'm 100% with you here. Having HIV is not something that warrants a value judgement. There are many ways it can be acquired, not just unsafe sex. Even in a monogamous relationship, you can get HIV. To reinforce this, I'll do something I don't normally do here, and quote from one of my stories (New Brother):

[kitten]

Let's be honest -- how many teenagers and young adults today are not aware of a link between HIV and sex? If you have a story that involves sex, the subject of HIV is a natural one to include if the author so wishes.

<snip>

Those teenagers and young adults are probably also aware of the link between drinking/smoking and long term health issues, but they are exactly that -- long term. An author can certainly give them examples if they want, but they are extraneous to the teenagers/young adults themselves because for those people the issues are a long way away.

 

Yes, now I see your point of view. Judging from their general risk-taking behaviour, many teens & young adults are probably not really able to relate to long-term risk. However, it seems that here in the UK they also don't understand that repeated binge-drinking can cause serious liver disease in less than about 5 years. Less than five years is (at least in my view!) quite a short-term risk.

 

Perhaps one reason that I didn't initially quite see your point of view is that my writing isn't directed towards teens and young adults as an intended readership. In fact, it's not aimed at any particular group or class of readers.

 

This probably sounds pretentious, but it isn't intended to imply that I'm a great writer or that young people are any less important as a redership - Yes, my earlier stories would be easily accessible to teens and young adults, but I think that few young people (say under 21) would have the life experience to be able to really relate to most of my writing over the last 2-3 years. They would be able to understand it on an intellectual level but the chances are that it wouldn't have much personal significance for them. Certainly, five years ago I wouldn't have had the ability to write or the interest to read some of the stories I've been writing recently!

 

Finally, to gardentuber and to everyone who has contributed to this this thread - thank you! This discussion has helped me to think about a few things that previously I'd more--or-less just taken for granted.

 

Kit

[Graeme]

Perhaps one reason that I didn't initially quite see your point of view is that my writing isn't directed towards teens and young adults as an intended readership. In fact, it's not aimed at any particular group or class of readers.

My writing isn't directed to those audiences, either, but my characters have been largely in that group. Certainly, that's true for all of my novels to date.

 

Finally, to gardentuber and to everyone who has contributed to this this thread - thank you! This discussion has helped me to think about a few things that previously I'd more--or-less just taken for granted.

I'd also like to add my thanks. It has made me think about things, too. I'll sheepishly admit that in one short story I needed a character to have an illness with certain characteristics, and I had initially used HIV. My beta readers pointed out that I was continuing the stereotyped link between gays and HIV. I realised they were right and changed it to cancer, instead. In other words, if someone hadn't pointed it out before the story was posted, I'd have repeated the stereotyping that gardentuber was objecting to. I've tried to be better since then, but Kit's comments have opened my eyes to how I'm still keeping a very narrow focus in my stories.

[gardentuber]

Graeme, Kit et al,

 

Thanks for exploring this with me. It's been helpful to read reader's and writer's thoughts on the subject and to see where my concerns may be parochial and where they are global.

 

Tks all!!

[JamesSavik]

I have tried to address this thread several times but its difficult.

 

HIV/AIDS has killed a lot of people around me- among those were my best friend and the love of my life.

 

I don't know how to say this other than being very blunt about it.

 

In the mid eighties when science finally got a bead on the cause of AIDS, I saw several different very irresponsible types of responses.

 

Denial- it's not here/it only happens to old people/its only in New York & 'Frisco

Ignorance- I don't want to know/don't want to change the channel from MTV

Idiocy- If we're all going to die, I'm going to get all I can while I can

Panic- *marries the ugliest cow available, joins 1st Baptist church, only tricks on the weekends with choirboys or at deer camp*

 

When I raised the issue of monogamy with guy I would have happily spent the rest of my life with, it broke us up- and he was dead in less than a decade.

 

My best friend I met in a 12th step program back in the early eighties. He got sick and was dead six weeks later. It sucked because he had gotten clean and turned his life around just in time to die.

 

My education was in the sciences. I knew we were in real trouble. I followed the science behind AIDS/HIV for years and I watched a lot of people take a lot of stupid chances for all sorts of bad reasons. I also saw a lot of people change their behavior and survive.

 

The point of all this I guess is to say that not all AIDS victims were saints nor were they sinners. They were just people making human mistakes; responding, or not responding, to a nebulous threat.

 

What we've got to get past is denial: HIV's most deadly ally. HIV is everywhere. It afflicts people of all ages. You can get it with ONE mistake.