Writerly Ways

[cornerofmadness]

It has been a terrible several weeks in the writing universe, especially if you're a romance writer (which oddly I don't consider myself in spite of the fact that ALL my novels published are romance sort of. I consider them urban fantasy with romance subplots but whatever) and most assuredly if you are PoC and/or LGBT.

While I've never had an interest in being part of the RWA (in my 20s I wanted to be in the SFWA but they have a record of being just as exclusive) since I am romance adjacent I've had this all over my twitter feeds and facebook. If you're not familiar with what's going on you can check out this link here.

In a nutshell, there's rampant racism and prejudice against LGBT in the romance writers of America (and gasp, so much of it wrapped up in Christian faith, giving Christians yet another black eye).

Then my twitter feed is blowing up about some con (which I've already forgotten) that invited Orson Scott Card and a good chunk of the Latinx authors backing out of the con as a result. On the other hand some other authors are staying not because they support Card (who is a racist homophobe as well) but to be there to oppose him so his voice isn't the only one that's heard. And a few weeks before all this we had J.K. Rowling doubling down on being a TERF. Sigh.

So that's what's been on my mind. What, as an author (or a reader) do we do in the face of all of this? Can we - or should we - separate out good art from a shitty creator?

Today I came across a post by silveradept here. with one way of handling this topic that I thought was good.

As for me, I can separate it out easier in a case of old authors writing decades ago when the whole world was less accepting. It's hard to look at them with the standards of today. On the other hand I DO struggle to separate the art from the artist these days. I've stopped watching Mel Gibson movies. I never liked Card much anyhow. I don't know that I'll be paying for anything by Rowling.

I had kept out of the RWA thing other than to forward a few other twitter comments but then it started with the 'if you aren't speaking out then you're a racist too' comments. Sigh. No, I'm not but I can also see the if you remain silent you're part of the problem side of things. I do however prefer it when people don't start screaming believe and say what I do or you obviously are my enemy thing. So I forwarded more stuff. ah well.

I guess from here on out I need to be louder in some places. And tomorrow everything starts at fandomtrumpshate if you want to be loud too in opposing hate. I DO think I'll be offering my services again in either Buffyverse and Prodigal Son. If you want to write/draw/etc and be bid on, join us. if you just want to bid on us, that'll be so helpful too. Let's go be the change we want in this world.

On to the links

From Betty
Getting the Most out of a Blog Tour

How Facing Your Space Could Improve Your Writing

Three Things to Remember When Revising from a Critique

Sell Your Book Through All Retailers… Not Just Bookstores

Art Is Therapeutic, Not Therapy

Six Military Blunders in Speculative Fiction

Five Common Masquerade Explanations and Why They’re Bad

What’s Your Advice for Writing Mom Protagonists?

From around the web

Writer Beware (to help keep you away from bad publishers/agents)

How to Spot Self-Publishing Scams

Don’t Get Caught Up In The “Cult of the First Sentence”

AUTHORS INTERVIEWING THEIR CHARACTERS

The Stories That Make Us: Finding Your Voice by Virginia Kantra

Getting to Know my Characters

I Write Crime Fiction to Tell the Truth

World Building Primer

5 Common Story Openings to Avoid—If You Can Help It

Comments

[duskpeterson]

The difficult thing, I think, is that creators' art tend to reflect what they are. Usually not in any obvious way. (Though, whoa, "Murder at the ABA" was a difficult reread; it's Isaac Asimov self-inserting himself into a novel about a literary convention, in which the narrator envies Asimov's "flirting" with his fans, then goes on to do some "flirting" himself. Distressing to think I swallowed all this when I first read the book as a teen.) So when reading a book by an author who may have views I strongly disagree with, I find myself asking, "Does the writing show the author struggling to come to terms with the issue? Are they complascent? Are they completely blind? Are they outright bigoted? Do they avoid the topic? Are they simply uncertain?" Whether I'll read more books by that author depends on the answers to such questions.

[cornerofmadness]

You have a very good point. I never cared much for Asimov but also I think reading this 30 years ago when I did read his stuff I wouldn't have thought anything about the flirting because I would have expected it then in a way I would not today.

Sort of the same with Rowling. The original series is what? 25 years old now? I wouldn't expect gay/trans in a kids book back then. I can't imagine it getting published (it's hard enough today to get that done) and it's definitely not diverse but 25 years ago I wonder if I would have thought anything of it. Now going forward with her TERF attitude and some of the other comments about race that say she either doesn't get it or doesn't care, those stop me from wanting anything new from her but doesn't diminish my enjoyment of the original stories

[duskpeterson]

"Sort of the same with Rowling. The original series is what? 25 years old now? I wouldn't expect gay/trans in a kids book back then. I can't imagine it getting published (it's hard enough today to get that done)"

I honestly hadn't given this matter any thought till now. I tend to accept writers' universes as they're given to me. But now that I have . . . No, I'm afraid that just won't wash.

For one thing, British boarding school stories - including ones aimed at kids! - have a long history of including same-sex love (platonic or sexual) between the students. Ms. Rowling couldn't have failed to know that.

Secondly, the first LGBT teen book was published in 1969, while the first LGBT children's book came out in 1981. During the period that Ms. Rowling was writing Harry Potter (1990-2006), two hundred young adult novels were published with LGBT content. It's not as though anyone British who was her age could have missed knowing that there were books for young readers that included LGBT content; the topic of LGBT books for kids and teens was extensively discussed in the British press during the 1980s debate over Section 28.

(Or Ms. Rowling could have simply picked up a book on British juvenile literature. That's how I learned of the existence of LGBT YA books, when I was browsing through the Oxford Central Library as a teen in 1980.)

Thirdly, Ms. Rowling decided at some point that one of her main characters was gay. So she can hardly be thought to have overlooked the possibility of including gay content in her novels.

Fourthly, and most importantly, during the period that Harry Potter was being published, Ms. Rowling became the best-selling children's author of all time. She might have felt understandably hesitant about rocking the boat when she started the series, but by the end of the series, she had the power to include characters who were known to the readers as LGBT if she wanted to. She simply didn't want to.

That was her privilege, and I normally don't fault authors for failing to include content that may be of interest to their readers. But in this case, Ms. Rowling playing tease after the fact - "Well, of course Dumbledore is gay!" - is more than a little irritating. It's like she wants to hide her cake and eat it too.

"25 years ago I wonder if I would have thought anything of it"

I probably wouldn't have, because I had low expectations of diversity in literature back then. :/

[cornerofmadness]

THat's not quite my point. I didn't mean that she wouldn't know. I meant publishing companies would not have published a book with gay kids back then. Hell they about lost their minds in 2013 when Rick Riordan made Nico gay, some 20 years later. It was about then that Rowling started teasing with Dumbledore.

I'll be honest I'm stunned that there were that many LGBT stories published back then. I tried publishing gay content in the 90s and was told in no uncertain terms by publishing house and agents alike that not only would they not publish it that I would be blackballed. I remember the threats of blackballing Mercedes Lackey when Vanyel was written as gay.

However, there is a huge difference in the UK and the USA on this matter which could be why I'm unaware of so many books published then. I'm rather glad to hear that there WAS that number of books and I'm wondering if any of it was American (because we are certainly assholes about it to this day. My own book was challenged here at MY library and it's not YA and this was 2017 because it was gay).

That Rowling purposefully didn't include gay kids really isn't in doubt to me. I believe she had no intention of it. Though if she had they would have had a hell of a lot easier time banning the books and movies here (granted every last one of her books were banned in the states at one point or the other)

[duskpeterson]

"I tried publishing gay content in the 90s and was told in no uncertain terms by publishing house and agents alike that not only would they not publish it that I would be blackballed."

How awful! You obviously know more on this topic than I do. Though I'm honestly puzzled by that response because (points to 200 titles). And that doesn't even count the titles in the 1970s and 1980s.

"I'm rather glad to hear that there WAS that number of books and I'm wondering if any of it was American"

(/Shuffles feet.) I must confess that they were all American, or American editions of foreign books, which rather undercuts the argument I was making concerning Harry Potter. I couldn't find a bibliography of British titles. (The bibliography I was working from, by the way, was Christine Jenkins's "Young Adult Fiction with Gay/Lesbian Content, 1969-2009: a chronological bibliography" - no longer online, alas, though it looks as though the bibliography may be incorporated into this book.) In fact, as I read further, I see that Section 28 had a devastating effect on LGBT publishing for young readers; UK publishers weren't willing to bring out titles they couldn't sell to schools (because of Section 28), so, while American publishers were continuing to take occasional chances on LGBT titles for young readers, the UK simply halted that type of publishing for a generation. Tragic. It seems I was extremely lucky to have been a teen visiting Britain in the late 1970s / early 1980s, rather than later on.

(This is the book I found at Oxford Central Library, by the way, though the original edition had a less sexy cover than the Alyson edition pictured there. The book was by David Rees - who won a Carnegie Medal for another novel - and it was an amazing novel. The teen gay characters got to have sex with each other.)

So perhaps Ms. Rowling did have a practical reason for not including LGBT students in the earliest novel of the series, though she had no excuse for not doing so later on, when she could write the rules. In fact, she could have helped to break down the walls.

"My own book was challenged here at MY library and it's not YA and this was 2017 because it was gay"

Jeez louise. You have certainly been through a lot. My sympathies!

My own tale is one of self-censorship: I didn't think it was possible to include major queer plotlines in genre fiction, because I'd never encountered such a thing (except in Mary Renault, and I thought she was the exception that proved the rule). The slash fiction community was what opened my eyes to the fact there was actually an audience out there for such stories. The slashers pointed out to me the pro SFF stories that included queer characters, but I figured there was probably a limited professional market for queer SFF in the 00s, and I doubt I was wrong. When SFF magazines started actively recruiting stories about marginalized characters a few years ago, my jaw dropped.

[cornerofmadness]

They didn't even try to hide it back then. I'm never sure how old people are here or what they're familiar with but back in the pre-internet days once a year they had this big old book of markets and agents that came out once a year and they would put it right in there, NO gay content. I'm SO glad it's swung the other direction finally.

Hmm I am seriously surprised by that number but hey, I'm rather glad to be wrong about that. However, when I think about it MOST of my life I've lived in conservative areas and that might be why I never knew about all of these books. They probably didn't penetrate our libraries (no pun intended).

I DID notice that until last year Barnes and Nobles did not carry a single gay manga. This Christmas I noticed a few on the shelves and I had to think THAT was on purpose.

ANd you're right, Rowling SHOULD have made Dumbledore gay if that was really her intent and she sure as shit backed away from it in the last Fantastic beast movie when it would have made sense to have it in there.

THe whole Sad Puppy thing proves there is plenty of anti-women, anti-gay people in SFF which is sad BUT I think in the main, much of the fan base has become more accepting (but not as much as you'd want if you look at both the Star Wars and Star Trek forums. Sigh)

[duskpeterson]

"back in the pre-internet days once a year they had this big old book of markets and agents that came out once a year"

Writer's Market or Literary Marketplace? I was born in 1963. :)

"However, when I think about it MOST of my life I've lived in conservative areas and that might be why I never knew about all of these books."

That could well make the difference! Even the perspective of the librarians can make a difference. My current county tilts toward conservative, but you'd never guess that from the number of LGBTQ books for young readers in the public library system. My county held its first ever Pride Festival last summer, and the librarians were there at a booth, handing out LGBTQ reading lists for adults, for teens, and for kids.

"I DID notice that until last year Barnes and Nobles did not carry a single gay manga."

Borders used to carry gay manga, though not many.

"THe whole Sad Puppy thing proves there is plenty of anti-women, anti-gay people in SFF"

For "SFF" you could substitute pretty much any institution in our society, alas. Even mainly women communities can be anti-gay, while mainly gay communities can be anti-women. But lots of American SFF magazines have pro-diversity statements now, which I find highly encouraging.

[cornerofmadness]

That's the one. Ah, 4 years ahead of me so then at least I know we've lived through mostly the same things.

Yeah Borders had some June manga but B&N had zero until just recently. Booksamillion carries the gay titles (and not shrink wrapped to save the innocent or whatever the hell that was about)

Pittsburgh and most of OHio is conservative but getting better. Columbus was always progressive. Athens which is close to me (Ohio Uni is there) is liberal. Where I am, not at all. My library probably has very few gay books. I wonder about my own university (I haven't looked)

That is also true and yes definitely I'm seeing most of publishing trying to be more inclusive. The exceptions I see most is cozy mysteries (white christian female for the most part, probably one of the reasons it's the least interesting of all mysteries to me)

[enemytosleep]

It's been probably 5 years or so now since I've become greatly uncomfortable with JKR, but people in my life know it's a nerdy fantasy series (on account of hoe huge it is) and that I'm a fantasy nerd, so it's been so "fun" to continue to receive HP themed gifts and either say nothing because there is no benefit to that discussion with that person (like clients) or I haven't had the energy to engage that person in such a talk (like my mother). Yay problematic celebrities! Social media certainly has made showing a celeb's true colors a lot easies.

[cornerofmadness]

I haven't been aware of her quite so long (maybe, then again maybe it has been, it's at least 3 years). I actually don't have much Harry Potter stuff outside of the movies. But yeah it would be nice that the creators of the stuff I love don't turn out to be bad people. Or at least if it is an honest mistake, just admit that you're clueless and try to make amends.

But for most of them it's not a mistake and they're not sorry