I was reading the comment section over at LA Weekly which I probably should not have since it made me go off…
First let me just say the article itself was working an angle I find insulting and overly generalized in many respects.
At first glance, the reading seems fairly conventional — except for the fact that James Buchanan is not a man, she is a heterosexual mother of two, whose husband watches her read from the back of the room. She uses the pen name “James Buchanan” because in the niche of the gay-romance novel, publishers see male writers as more authentic and, more importantly, so do readers.
Actually James Buchanan sees herself differently than purely heterosexual and I know this because she has stated it to me as much and she seems fairly open to discuss it but the article simply wants to present this topic of M/M Romance in a specific way. Those crazy “Straight” women reading their Romance.
Which leads us to the other oddity on display at the Hustler store this night. The audience of some 20 is mostly female. In fact, most readers of gay-romance novels are — like most readers of straight-romance novels — women who devour 300-page stories of men falling in and out of love with each other, all the while having abundant, glorious and oh-so-graphic sex.
I was told there were 20 people at that reading actually and half were men and most of those GAY men. The thing is this article from the very beginning is framed into a “segregationist” literary view point about M/M Romance that comes up explicitly in the comment section…
However, their writings are much different from those of gay male novelists, like Andrew Holleran, Edmund White or Christopher Isherwood, who discuss the experience of being a gay male, which I don’t think anyone other than a gay male can truly capture. In general, therefore, I prefer my gay male fiction written by gay men out of sheer authenticity—just like a black woman, I imagine, would not find a novel about the black female experience to ring very true if it were written by a white male. Having said this, I know that the genre under discussion is a slightly different beast: one that does not claim to be gay literary fiction but is designed to arouse, titillate and show that men, too, can be sexually submissive and emotionally vulnerable—traits which, I have no doubt, are very appealing to heterosexual females. And since you are the primary target audience of this wing of the genre, then I could not be happier for you. But I am sorry to say that even for the purpose of titillation, I, a gay male, would not find gay male sexuality written by a woman to be wholly convincing. Assuredly, a very personally perspective, and not one that I can ascribe to gay male readers in general, but the fact that some of the authors mentioned in the article prefer to use male pseudonyms would add some credence to my point.
Well Andrew Holleran, Edmund White or Christopher Isherwood are most certainly “different” but “authentic”? TO ME? They are all white gay men who write about white gay men living an entitled white gay male existence with their entitled white gay male contemporaries. Not a single one of these guys ever wrote a “working class” white character of any real literary value that I could relate to, which was a life I experienced as a military brat that had very little money, and so even though I admittedly did read their books because they were what was available to me I don’t remember them with any real fondness. They were talking about an existence that I could see through a window at “certain” bars with a “certain” crowd but I found lacking of any real substance unless I was looking for a sugar daddy who hated women, loved little dogs and wanted to go to the opera all the time and get sucked off in the bathroom. (See, I can be be nasty and tell it like it is too!) If I wanted fantasy and fiction I was far more attracted to Porn. Writers such as Larry Townsend or John Preston who were damn honest about what went on and enticed me far more with stories of the forbidden hyper-masculine sex in those dirty hustler ridden Leather Bars.
You see, notice a theme here “those” writers get looked down on too just like Romance does by such luminary groups as the Lambda Literary Foundation. Please repeat after me Separate Is Not Equal!
So that’s my point really. In my opinion BEWARE of the whole “Authenticity” argument and the call for “Segregating” gay writers from those non-homosexual types. The whole Romance debate comes into this too in a chauvinistic way because in their mind it’s as bad as Porn (It has explicit sex.) I generally find what they are really hiding in their argument is not “safe spaces” but it is that “white” “intellectual” “wealthy” “men” should be kept sacred and pristine from the common unwashed multiracial multigender masses as they have proved again and again when you ask them questions about what they see as “appropriate” Gay Literature and despite their protests this is not about discussing homosexuals living openly because these people actually try to define “homosexuality” without the “sex” and how’s that for puritanical sexual paranoia of the first order.
I have said it before and will state it again…
Now the mental midgets of literary intelligentsia might not appreciate the fact that The Leatherman’s Handbook exists or that it was written by a gay man or that it is sexual in it’s subject matter but I bet ten to one odds that it has been sold to more gay men, has been read by more gay men, has influenced more gay men than any number of Gay Lit golden boys combined in a snobby Gay Lit sandwich with a fucking pickle on the side.
The early writers to me who did the honest exploring of “Gay Culture” “Gay Men” “Gay Feelings” were the same people looked down on today by the “Lambda Foundation” crowd for writing “Pulp” “Porn” or “Erotica’ who got published by “those” magazines like Drummer and who were exploring common homo”sex”uality and hyper-masculinity found in the back rooms of seedy Gay Bars. Not some twisted intellectual country club of “sexually hung up rich white men” who of course got published first and were promoted first by New York as acceptable.
Oh and last but not least to that troll David Ehrenstein fuck right off you condescending chauvinistic elitist prick.
Tags: Gay Romance, Wank
Alex Beecroft wrote,
I guess what I find saddest is that this kind of attitude has the potential to divide all of us who should be allies. Setting gay men against straight women, and making the lesbians, bisexual men and women, trans people and people of various kinds of gender queerness sit up and go “but where are we in this genre then?!” It’s not a good thing. It’s not as though even straight women have never experienced oppression, even though it comes in a different form, and the brilliant thing about the gay romance genre is that at its best we’re all in this together. We’ve got a lot more than half of the human race in our camp. If we could only stop dividing ourselves into small groups and fighting each other, we might actually be able to do something about changing society for the better for us all.
Link | December 19th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
TeddyPig wrote,
This has been going for a while now in Gay Bars even Alex. There is this underlying contempt between genders that is there and simply over looked most of the time.
But… You see these divides come up in these discussions. People seem to want to extol the virtues of their particular sexual turn-ons through segregating literature. They mix their sexual hangups into literary value in these discussions which is not surprising but unfortunately very obvious.
Instead of celebrating freedom and they seem to want to curtail that freedom for others in order to elevate their own recognition. When it comes down to it there are a crap load of bad writers out there trying to heckle their way in.
Link | December 19th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
K. Z. Snow wrote,
So much for the state of journalism today, huh?
Everything Alex said was spot on. I’ve noticed the media fostering divisiveness more and more, in every aspect of contemporary life. Seems the human poplulation of this planet is being encouraged to form special-interest groups and cultivate an “us against them” mentality. This article (and some of the comments it generated) was just another example of life on the carving board.
Teddypig, you need to stop mincing words and tell us what you really think. ;-)
(You rock, baby.)
Link | December 19th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Ally Blue wrote,
Mr. Pig, I heart you like whoa. Have I told you this lately? Cuz, yeah.
I don’t think my new boyfriend David is too happy with me today. Oh well.
Link | December 19th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Tina wrote,
You said mucho shit here today that I really wanted to blog about but…
I linked to this article because it showcased fen [female fans] in a better light then an article posted recently at another newspaper featuring fen of m/m graphic novels. ‘m/m literature’ and its female readers tend to get more serious articles than m/m graphic novels and its female fandom – but I said only this, and didn’t elaborate on what irked me about the LA Times piece.
Generalizations such as these are the fruit of the fear-tree, and sadly I’ve seen them before in yaoi and m/m graphic novels. Fans, pundits, and publishers of m/m graphic novels have always tried to distinguish ‘their female readership’ by alienating ‘gay male readers’; it took me a long time to understand why, but now I know why. By eliminating gay males from the audience equation, fen avoid all the knee-jerk criticism that gay men deal with everyday, while at the same time dodge the usual misogynistic attitudes women still deal with over their own sexual boundaries, everyday.
By distancing themselves from the ‘gay male’ market, they avert opinions that lead to words like ‘boycott’ or being called ‘pedophiles’ or ‘perverts’. There’s almost a weird need by some media types [those who're also fans] and some publishers – to bring these differences to the forefront with things like ‘FOR WOMEN BY WOMEN’ and ‘M/M’ not because they fear gay men will be critical…oh no…It’s because there’s a fear the hatred that ‘every-man’ has for ‘gay men’. It’s what I call poser syndrome – those who want the allure and mystic of being ‘the other’, but don’t want to deal with any of the cultural trappings that ‘being the other’ actually entails. :/
As women, we’re so fucking used to being told how we should be turned on, what we should look like and do in order to be turned on, –shit, even what we should find sexy and why…m/m pretty much stymies most critics – they can’t hate it outright because most of it is too unrealistic to be called ‘true gay’; and they can’t delve into it without considering the female psyche…and let’s face it—no man wants to delve into a woman’s mind Teddy, that’s too much work. 0_0
In summary? I think articles like this drive a wedge between allies who truly enjoy writing and reading homoerotic material and don’t mind sharing the stall with a male audience and other male creators. These exclusionary attitudes merely fuel the ignorant myths that women romanticize everything and gay men are incapable of appreciating anything romantic.
Link | December 19th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Emmy wrote,
I was interviewed for the article and specifically told Gendy that I was bisexual, but somehow all of us became strictly heterosexual women. When I asked James on Facebook about being a ‘heterosexual mother of two’, which I knew was *wrong*, he said:
Shari Smith McDermott
Awesome, James. But you’re so not a heterosexual woman…
Thu at 4:57pm
Mina Frost
what Shari said. why that journalist chick have to harsh my fantasies? geez.
Thu at 5:25pm
James Buchanan
because the words genderqueer and bisexual frighten most people.
Thu at 5:28pm
Mina Frost
….so you went in the closet on a gay article? irony, let me show you it. :P
Thu at 5:36pm ·
James Buchanan
I was pretty damn up front about it. I kinda got shoved into the closet
Thu at 5:39pm
Link | December 19th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Emilie wrote,
Well, describing James Buchanan (http://eroticjames.livejournal.com) as heterosexual was definitely an error. It did seem to be part of that slant of not saying that there are plenty of LGBT authors and readers in the genre.
I’m aware of the people who write literary fiction. I don’t want to be redirected towards reading literary fiction. I like to read non-fiction about GLBT history and culture, and romance by authors of any gender who can write a good male viewpoint, at least in my opinion. Sometimes I just want to read for entertainment. I want to read about likeable protagonists, and know they’ll have a happy ending sooner or later.
Why do people say that women and gay men can’t understand each other? That’s putting down so many friendships and alliances. You can just look at all the people here who enjoy recommending good books to each other.
Link | December 19th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Alex Beecroft wrote,
On the one hand you can kind of understand it, because “GBLTQ people and some straight women write GBLTQ romance” doesn’t exactly sound like much in the way of news. “Weird sexual antics of women” on the other hand, supported by a sexual study because clearly it’s far too weird to believe without scientific evidence, is news, in the sense of being exactly the sort of sex and scandal article that gets the uninformed to read papers.
On the other hand it’s also a thorough example of the way women’s concerns are patronised and treated as bizarre and sexually titillating, while GBLTQ people are simply made to look as though they don’t exist at all. I would guess that it’s less threatening to mainstream society to think that they can treat this as one more strange but ultimately unimportant girlie thing, than it is if they think there’s a literature out there that has the potential to unite the GBLT community and half the straight community together. If they can’t ignore the genre any more – which it’s beginning to look as if they can’t – then they can explain it away as ‘porn for women’, very amusing and no real threat to the status quo.
Link | December 19th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
TeddyPig wrote,
Yeah I agree, now gay people are missing from articles about Gay Romance.
Link | December 19th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
kirsten saell wrote,
Categorizing m/m as porn for straight women puts it on the same level as lesbo porn for straight men–a phenomenon that may be irksome to some, but is essentially unthreatening because the “gayness” of it is less than genuine.
It’s not really gay. It’s gay-lite. Nope, not scary at all.
And yeah, acknowledging that many female m/m authors are lesbian, bisexual, genderqueer, etc…well, that makes the issue about queerness *eek!* instead of staying safely on the chosen topic: straights and what they like. You think Girls Gone Wild would be tolerated the way it is if it featured actual lesbians doing things to each other for the enjoyment of lesbians? OMG, the horror! The fact that the response of most lesbians to GGW is indifference at best, umbrage at worst, well, that just makes it even more okay, right? We’re safe! It isn’t really gay. Whew!
Link | December 19th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
James Buchanan wrote,
Yeah, my freind Mike who was there called me and said, “I’m not sure how to break it to Danny (his friend who was also there) that we’re straight now.”
Link | December 19th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Tracey wrote,
What I want to know is why the sexuality of the writer matters. The only thing I care about in any genre is whether or not the author is telling a good story. And by “good,” again, I mean the same thing in any genre–a compelling and well-told story with a solid plot and believable characterization (believable within the context of the story’s world, at any rate).
And I certainly don’t know why it matters that women, of whatever sexuality, are writing about men. Men have written about women for thousands of years; Edgar-award winner Lawrence Block makes no bones about the fact that he started out writing lesbian novels in the 1950s and 1960s. I’ve never seen any reporter be shocked by the revelation that a man was writing about gay women; they only seem to be surprised that women would be interested in stories involving gay men. (I would say gay or bisexual, but reporters never seem to admit that bisexuals exist.)
Odd, I must say.
Link | December 19th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Chris wrote,
I kept having flashbacks to that blog post by Victor J. Banis about the little lost Lammies while I read the comments at the LAWeekly…
TP, I think you were pretty restrained, considering the provocation. :)
Alex, your comments (both here and there) were absolutely perfect.
James, when I read the article’s reason for your pen name, I realized that things were being presented in a certain way, since their reason bore no resemblance to what I’d previously read at your webpage.
Link | December 19th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
James Buchanan wrote,
I need to clean that page up a bit. I think half the links are dead and there’s a couple I should add. But yeah, 3hours of interveiw ends up as five seconds of “sound bite.”
Link | December 19th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Ally Blue wrote,
Alex, thanks for your comment on the LA Weekly thread! I think I’m done over there. Poor David is too in love with his own bitterness and victimhood to even TRY to have a real, productive conversation about anything. I tried, but yeah. He’s not having it. I can’t even work up any anger over anything he’s said, honestly. I feel sorry for him.
As far as the article, oh yeah, it’s WAY slanted. Which is too bad, because they featured some terrific authors and had a few good things to say in there among the not-so-great things. And overall it’s good exposure for the genre.
One thing that struck me — and Emmyjag said the SAME THING in her blog, too! — was about the sex study on male vs female arousal. If I was sitting there with basically a big old glass dildo in my personal area, I’d be turned on by the goddamn Weather Channel, never mind actual porn. So I have to wonder how accurate those results were o_O
Link | December 19th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Emmy wrote,
The dude is a gay black Jew. Apparently, that’s free license to be a bitter troll. Especially when you write op-ed pieces titled “Obama the Magic Negro”, which then get turned into catchy little tunes for the Republican Christmas CD.
What. A. Fucktard.
Link | December 19th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Emmy wrote,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ehrenstein
Link | December 19th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
TeddyPig wrote,
You know that makes HUGE sense to me. He obviously has severe mommy issues from growing up and never got over them. Probably has a crappy “holy roller” “Christian” family background that would make your hair stand on end.
That’s still no excuse to act like a juvenile asshole to women. Calling them names and going on about stealing his entitled recognition as a gay writer. But it sure does explain a lot to me with my background. Seen it before, bought the t-shirt, I have sad family tales and lot’s of abuse to go around too bro, and sorry it was old and tired back then and it’s still old and tired now. Go talk it out in private.
The man needs to get some professional counseling and get over acting out the constant victim. He’s a big boy now and he is in charge of what he does.
Link | December 20th, 2009 at 12:25 am
Alex Beecroft wrote,
Thanks, KZ and Chris :) And Ally, I thought your response to his comment about aesthetic mediocrity was really classy and funny. I typed up a couple of responses that went more like “how dare you accuse Ally of aesthetic mediocrity when I bet you’ve never even opened one of her books!” But then I thought that his answers were not the answers of someone it was worth having a conversation with, so I decided to ignore him completely and just make the point I wanted to make. You were so restrained! What he said to you was beyond the pail and I really admire the way you reacted.
Link | December 20th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Ally Blue wrote,
Thank you, Alex :) Yeah I figured out (eventually, LOL) that he was just going to keep on slinging as many insults as humanly possible and not bother listening, or even pretending to have a productive conversation. Best to just let those types get on with their frothing at the mouth and confuse ‘em with niceness. They never seem to know what to do with it. LOL.
I thought you made your points clearly, concisely and calmly, and they were very good ones that he should have listened to. He really could have learned something from this if he’d opened his mind. It wouldn’t mean he had to suddenly enjoy a new genre as a reader, but learning something about the world and the people with whom you share it is never a bad thing. It’s his loss that he let that opportunity pass.
Link | December 20th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
TeddyPig wrote,
You guys put more effort into it than I did.
You know he would never in a million years say that shit in public to your face. As far as I am concerned he really is just another troll.
Link | December 20th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Alex Beecroft wrote,
I think you’re right – I don’t think it’s worth engaging him any more. On the other hand someone called TJ has made a very nice response on the literary fiction side of things which I can only admire. I don’t care very much about literary fiction because IMO it’s too boring – there aren’t enough explosions or swordfights – but it’s nice to see someone take him on at his own game.
Link | December 20th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
TeddyPig wrote,
Right but for someone who “supposedly” read all that and “supposedly” studied or analyzed personally all that literary fiction his understanding of writing is so juvenile. I would not know where to even begin. My interests are not in that direction at all and I think he is depending on that aspect too.
He just comes across as someone who is trying to rationalize his issues not express an actual fully formed opinion based on any real reading he has done.
Link | December 20th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Angelia Sparrow wrote,
Just another man showing up to tell the little ladies they’re doing it wrong. These are the days when I would rather join a lesbian separatist commune and eat vegan the rest of my life than listen to one more man imbue me with his penis-given wisdom that my poor little female brain cannot handle.
And now we’re pretending to be male?
Because Naomi is such a macho name, right?
And Angelia? That practically screams cigar chomping trucker…oh wait. (hides the cigarillo)
Not even engaging with him.
Link | December 20th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Tracey wrote,
Actually, “TJ” is me. And thanks, Alex. I had to say *something* about those specious arguments of his.
Link | December 21st, 2009 at 2:06 am
TeddyPig wrote,
That was great actually TJ he went back to his name calling right afterward.
Link | December 21st, 2009 at 2:17 am
Tracey wrote,
Meh. Doesn’t surprise me. Considering the source, it’s probably the nicest compliment I’ll ever get.
Link | December 21st, 2009 at 3:19 am
Ally Blue wrote,
OMG! Having a vag gives me Magical Knitting Powers! Who knew?? Instant Christmas presents, yay!!!
Comment #76. Yeah, still lurking. Heh. Is he just yanking our collective chain now, or what?
Link | December 21st, 2009 at 5:11 am
Alex Beecroft wrote,
Ah! I thought that blend of erudition and good argument sounded familiar :)
LOL! Angela, I love the phrase “penis-given wisdom”! Can I borrow it? I’m sure I’ll have lots of opportunities to use it in the future.
Link | December 21st, 2009 at 5:32 am
Alex Beecroft wrote,
Oh and yes, I think he’s doing it deliberately. The man makes his living with words, after all, so he must know that he’s coming across as intolerably rude and sexist. Either he genuinely doesn’t care, or he’s doing it in an effort to get us to lose our temper and insult him back. Can you imagine the mileage he could get from “Straight Women(TM) writers of ‘m/m’ fiction insult a Genuine Gay Man(TM)”? It would be like the “Ally!fail” pile on that happened on LJ after some people said they disagreed with the Lambda Literary Awards excluding straight writers.
Also, where are my Magical Knitting Powers, damn it? I’ve only tried to learn three times and failed.
Link | December 21st, 2009 at 5:42 am
Ally Blue wrote,
I know, right? Dang. My Sooper Dooper Magic Femaleness fails me again <_<
Pretty amusing that David insults gays that don't measure up to his standards right along with us hysterical, mediocre, knitting women.
Link | December 21st, 2009 at 6:00 am
Tracey wrote,
I was rather surprised that of the male gay writers he cited, all were white and all but one born well-off, if not rich and/or titled. Heaven knows I didn’t except him to city gay or bisexual women writers of any race, because girls have cooties, but where were Langston Hughes, James Baldwin and Samuel R. Delany, to name just a few black gay male writers?
Link | December 21st, 2009 at 6:39 am
TeddyPig wrote,
He was probably quoting directly from the snobtastic Lambda Literary Foundation talking points play book.
I’ve heard it recited a million times and it never changes. Must protect the virtues of those dead white guys.
Link | December 21st, 2009 at 6:41 am
Chris wrote,
He’s totally trolling at this point. Right? *really hopes so*
@Ally said: “Having a vag gives me Magical Knitting Powers!”
Now he’s marginalizing gay knitters?!
Link | December 21st, 2009 at 7:02 am
Angelia Sparrow wrote,
I have magical crochet powers. My knitting powers are weak. (four hats and a shawl are my sum total)
Alex, feel free to borrow the phrase.
I mean I like Christopher Isherwood, but he and Maupin are not the be all and end all of gay lit.
Link | December 21st, 2009 at 8:16 am
TeddyPig wrote,
Honestly I put Maupin on a special shelf. He did not write a “fucking memoir as fictional confessional of how much I hated my gayself for half my miserable life”. Which is pretty much all that people were writing at the time.
So he writes a witty funny chatty book Tales Of The City from having lived in SF so long and writing a events column for a paper and then gets snubbed by the good old Gay Lit crowd for being a “journalist” blah blah blah. Oh, and because the book was funny because you know the gay is serious business.
So no, Maupin gets a pass from me because he had to put up with shit from these snobs.
Link | December 21st, 2009 at 8:42 am
Monday Morning Stepback: PM Edition: how to gift an ebook? « Racy Romance Reviews wrote,
[...] The controversial LA Weekly article on the m/m phenomenon, with commentary from Teddypig. [...]
Link | December 21st, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Stumbling Over Chaos :: ‘Twas the night before the night before Christmas and all through the blog, not a creature was stirring, not even a… cat wrote,
[...] addresses some of the issues that he found with the recent LA Weekly article about the writers of gay romance, and some well-known m/m writers [...]
Link | December 23rd, 2009 at 1:03 am