Coming from someone who HAS read the book, most of these comments seem pretty far off-base. The book has little to do with homosexuality at all–there are a few offhanded comments that are basically just to shape the characters. But I don’t think its unnecessary at all. Each “homophobic” comment adds more psychological depth to each character, and ultimately makes them more interesting, which I think is what Madison was trying to do.

The way I interpreted it, the brother’s ex-girlfriend called him a fag in an endearing way, not a bitter way–she was jealous that he wasn’t into her, because she was obviously still loved him. Criticize all you want about how “fag” can’t be a term of endearment, but I think its closer to that than a homophobic slur. As for the bathroom makeout, I don’t think that Val was “reassuring herself” that it was not a lesbo thing, she was merely stating it. It didn’t seem to me that it was necessarily negative. I think that just because Bennett didn’t say it in some ultra-pc gushy way, everyone interpreted it as homophobic, but to me Val was just being a normal person who wasn’t overly sensitizing homosexuality. In doing this, he’s making homosexuality NORMAL, which is progressive, not homophobic.

It seems to me like Madison is simply writing a book written for the people of his generation. I think Madison’s use of language shows that he is actually much more progressive and open about homosexuality than anyone else who has read/reviewed this book, because he’s using the language not as slurs but actually twisting the slurs to have a different, less negative meaning.

And come on. Really? Please don’t compare Madison’s use of language to the Hangover. He’s not using it to be funny or to gain popularity from 20 year old frat-boy tools. If you can’t figure that out, you need to become a more savvy reader. This book is extremely well written and clever, and the exact opposite of homophobic.

I stated that I felt the book would have been better either without the expressed homophobia, or if it had been handled in a different way. I did not say the book (or the author) were homophobic.

People who read reviews of children’s and young adult literature do so for a number of reasons: to sell them in a bookstore, put them on the shelves at a library, and to make recommendations to young people about what new books might be good reads. In the case of books which address LGBT issues, it is important that the reviewer discuss how those issues are handled, particularly if a young LGBTQQ person is likely to read the book.

I think Madison has written a very intriguing psychological novel, and I still think that the homophobic remarks expressed by the characters were unnecessary to the plot, and detract from an otherwise fascinating book. I can’t wholeheartedly recommend this book to an LGBTQQ teen. Other teens are likely to find it quite interesting; my blog, however, aims to recommend (or not), books specifically for an LGBTQQ youth audience.

From what I can garner of the description, it is not meant to be homophobic. The characters are meant to overcome their issues and even reflect real-life experiences that some people may have.

I should probably have my gay card revoked for not already knowing this, but can you tell me the authors names? I know I’ve heard of “The World of Henry Orient” before, but I can’t think where.

And I will try to find “The Blonde of the Joke”, although, is Madison an American author? Here in Blighty, unless someone has quite substantial fame, foreign “niche” writers don’t get published. You can’t find the works of Brent Hartinger for love nor money out here.

Write if you do read the book– I’ll be very interested to know if you’re as disappointed as I was. I’m not opposed to characters being morally ambiguous, and I don’t think works for kids need to be lesson driven. One of the reasons I like the works of Edward Bloor is that he doesn’t whitewash bigotry or treat complex issues simplistically. I did not find depth or psychologically interesting people in The Blonde of the Joke. Instead, I found a writer who seemed not to know why he was telling this particular story or why I should be interested in these awful, shallow people. “The World of Henry Orient” offered a much more insightful, complex treatment of similar issues fifty years ago. “The Year of Ice” is an infinitely superior modern novel about a somewhat homophobic gay kid that I also like a lot.

Who is to say that he isn’t doing some good? Being the main character and being the hero do not neccesarily go hand in hand. The fact that homophobia exists in his works does not mean he condones it. If everyone in his novels got along just dandy and there was no conflict, not only would it not bear any resemblance to reality, it would also be bloody boring.

I really need to find a copy of this book, I very much dislike discussing works that I am not familiar with, but it seems to me that a story about a young woman who lashes out and is unpleasant as a result of her own conflicted feelings about herself is perfectly true to life. Teenagers do that sort of thing all the time. I should know, I still am one, despite the rapid approach of my 20th.

My apologies for this slightly rambling post, but I do feel quite strongly about this sort of issue, with people infighting and branding our allies as traitors.

So, your argument is that people shouldn’t write tragedies anymore because there’s enough sorrow in the world already?

And they’ll do it without having read the work they’re defending.”

I would hope everyone would defend Madison’s and everyone else’s right to create works of whatever stripe regardless of what treatment that fiction is or isn’t supposedly advocating toward anyone, and would defend it vigorously. The alternative is a country in which acceptable subject matter is determined by force of law. We already had that in the US, from inception until 1957 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roth_v._United_States) and gay publications were among those deemed automatically unacceptable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One,_Inc._v._Olesen). Obviously I am not a fan of creative works that demean LGBT people but given the choice of freedom or restriction, I’ll choose the former every time.

Dunno.

“The book is homophobic because Madison offers no characters who are positive about homosexuality– they all act like it’s a sleazy disease.”

_________________________________________________________________________________

I don’t know what planet Landon is living on, because 99% of heterosexuals DO act like homosexuality is a ‘sleazy disease.’ And they have no remorse about the despicable ways that they treat gay people.

Perhaps this author was reflecting a societal truth in his art?

Just a thought.

Of course, people will continue to defend Madison’s right to create fiction that is hostile to decent treatment for gay teens.

And they’ll do it without having read the work they’re defending.

I don’t think anyone who read and didn’t write the book is going to leap to the author’s defense (and there will be comprehension test for anyone who claims to have, so don’t bother).

It’s not good. It is anti-gay.

Rad the book before you defend it, please.

It’s a nasty piece of shit.