The subject of heterosexual women writing gay romance for other straight women has come up in multiple ways across multiple forums. I'm not entirely comfortable with women using male pseuds when writing gay romance, mostly because I tend to believe they're only doing it because they think it will boost sales. How true that is- the reason or the sales boost- I'm not sure. I will say that I adore books by authors like Jet Mykles and JL Langley, two straight female authors who write some smokin hot m/m stories. I would prefer that everyone be themselves and let the readers decide what it is they want to buy without the authors having to resort to subterfuge.
Despite this, I'm still more than a little disappointed that the Lambda Literary Foundation has changed their guidelines to exclude the het authors in the crowd from being nominated for an award. I'm even more perturbed when the explanation for the new policy includes inanities such as:
We also took into consideration the despair of our own writers when a heterosexual writer, who has written a fine book about us, wins a Lambda Award, when one or more of our own LGBT writers may have as a Finalist a book that may be the only chance in a career at a Lambda Literary Award.
We take the nomination of any book at face value: if the book is nominated as LGBT, then the author is self-identifying as part of our LGBT family of writers, and that is all that is required
So....because actual gay authors aren't writing the books that are wildly popular, LLF is going to re-draw the playing field to give the rest of the class a chance to win what has now become a meaningless award?
The post goes on to mention how difficult it is for LGBT authors to get published or have a real presence in the publishing world. I get that, really I do. I empathize. It pisses me off to no end that RWA and RITA refuse to recognize LGBT books in their awards programs, and that judges won't even read a m/m story. Because of this, I have chosen to not associate with those entities: I don't go to nationals, and I don't comment on blogs mentioning the various awards.
But, LLF, reverse discrimination is not the way to go here. You cannot make an argument for inclusion and then proceed to have a retaliatory exclusionary award to make your happy little group feel better about themselves.
I support the authors who have chosen to not submit their book(s) for a Lammie this year 100%.
Page Summary
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
wedschilde : (no subject) [+18] - erastes : (no subject) [+4]
- (Anonymous) : (no subject) [+15]
- dubious_virtue : Meh. [+8]
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/openid-profile.gif)
jenthegingerkid.blogspot.com : (no subject) [+1] - (Anonymous) : (no subject) [+1]
Comments
:::chews::::
:::breathes:::
fucking uppity... :::mumbles::: damn them to hell. :::grumbles:::
i don't care what sex or what the author sticks up where with whom so long as the book is good.
what
what
To me, it's a case of simple maths. From what I see, there are more heterosexual authors than LGBT authors in m/m romance. With that in mind, what message would it send to young generation or socially alienated ppl if there's a huge number of non-LGBT entrants?
Let's put this way: if a male romance author wins the RWA award in three or four successive years, how will it affect the romance reading community and authors? Let's face it, we KNOW it'll affect self-esteem or a sense of well-being among many authors and reader, especially when we all are aware how hard to get the mainstream media and society to take romance novels written by women seriously.
If Mary Balogh or Catherine Anderson were to submit their novels, Silent Melody or Annie's Song, to a literary contest for deaf authors, I'd be seriously unhappy. I can't deny this. I won't be happy. I know how their presence may affect young deaf people and socially alienated deaf people. I don't want them to think, "They are hearing and I'm not, and yet they won these awards, which means I can't do well even in this contest, so why bother? Deaf authors aren't just good enough."
It's not just about the quality of writing. It's a lot more to it than that. It serves more than one purpose: literary merit, a sense of affirmative action, and a sense of defining self within the context of that.
Obviously, not all deaf people feel - I hate this word but I can't think of a better one - insecure or uncertain about their place in the mainstream society, but there IS a number of them that still question their "right" to be whatever they want - all because of a constant stream of discrimination (outright and subtle) they have to deal with in their everyday lives. It's a daily battle out there, every day, so it would be nice to have something recognised by your peers that understand where you're coming from with what you've written. It would be a good step for one to thrive harder to make an impact in the mainstream society.
I'm not articulating this well. I just feel it's important to let some breathe in their spaces for different reasons, right or wrong, and let's focus on mainstream organisations - such as the RWA which is apparently open to all but really, aren't - to get it right. When they get it right, we can then say, "Nah nah, Lambda, your guidelines aren't justified, not any more." :D
Maili (mcvane)
Similarly, I'd like to see people who do great things for the deaf community be recognized for what they do without having their contributions ignored or dismissed simply because they themselves were not deaf. Doesn't really make good sense to me.
One of my main pet peeves are people who demand to be treated equally while simultaneously singling themselves out for special treatment. grrrrrr.
Edited at 2009-09-26 06:41 pm (UTC)
That is so not what's happening here; this whole entry along with your attitude is just disingenuous posturing.
"Similarly, I'd like to see people who do great things for the deaf community be recognized for what they do without having their contributions ignored or dismissed simply because they themselves were not deaf. Doesn't really make good sense to me."
Ouch. It's my fault for bringing the deaf aspect up because that's *not* a good suggestion.
There is a long, long history of the society and hearing-led deaf organisations rewarding and awarding non-deaf people for their contributions to the deaf community, such as novels, films, technology, medical "cures", etc., in spite of the fact many grassroots d/Deaf people widely condemn those contributions.
Whenever deaf people try to explain why, they get slapped on their wrists for not showing enough appreciation to non-deaf people who "advocated" on their behalf. They are constantly told they were lucky to have these people as their "advocates", even though it's the "advocates" that did more damages than the advocates may have realised.
The deaf community is still trying to repair 500 years' worth of "good-will contributions" made by non-deaf people. Because of this, there is a strong streak of resentment, anger and suspicion among deaf people towards non-deaf people as a whole.
Too many times the deaf community have been used by people for the feel-good or financial factor, as in "Look at me! I'm helping these poor, poor deaf people by showing what it's like to be deaf in my book/film! I know all I need to know about what it's like to be deaf. You want an expert's view? Sure, call my agent to set it up with a nice fee, thanks. Oh, and don't forget to buy my book/film!"
This is why the Deaf community don't welcome nor appreciate that kind of suggestions, not at the moment. :P
But in one fell swoop, they've just made their award less prestigious and much less relevant to the big picture of "gay fiction." Much like the RWA's insistence that only traditionally published romances...no, wait, only traditionally published romances that have print runs over X amount...no, that's not right...only traditionally published romances whose publishers pay advances...scratch that...all romances, except those whose pubs don't offer advances are forced to wait that extra-special two weeks to enter and might end up squeezed out due to filled slots...
ANYWAY. RWA has made its award less prestigious and less relevant because instead of making it first about the quality of the book, it's first about the business model of the publisher, and THEN about the quality of the book. Which means it's not "the best of the best," but "the best of those-we-deem-fit-to-enter." And that's fine. Their award, their business.
Shame, though. Truly, would you rather win "Best in Gay Fiction" or "Best in Gay Fiction Written By People Who Are Just Like Us?"
On the bright side, maybe next year they'll add a category for breeders.
Breeder catagory? Yeah, no. That's almost as bad as the LGBT chapter for the RWA. But then again,as a black woman, maybe I'm just a little sensitive to the whole issue of segregation. Makes my spine itch every time, in any form, against any person.
Clearly, you know NOTHING about the power dynamics of discrimin--
But then again,as a black woman, maybe I'm just a little sensitive to the whole issue of segregation.
Oh...uhhhhh... Never mind. ;)
Edited at 2009-09-26 10:59 pm (UTC)
i'm sorry. we just can't.... :::sniffs:::: had i only known! you should have told me sooner! i would have denied you that ... um.... wait... :::checks skin::: never mind. darkish as well. forget the irrational indignation. i was confused.
:::grins:::: okay. i'm still pissed off. can't you tell?
i personally would rather win best in gay fiction written by someone who experimented with pretty boys and found them nicely shaped....
i'm all muttery. and NO i'm not drunk commenting. i haven't even started drinking.
After posting this, you should have noticed what you were doing.
Reverse discrimination. Do you know what kind language you are using?
It doesn't seems so. How disappointing.