When Sean and Jules approached me about writing an opinion piece on the recent LLF decision to limit the majority of its awards to GBLTQ writers, and the subsequent contretemps between straight and GBLTQ authors, I was happy to give them the opportunity to use this site as a platform to present their position. Since I and others had posted or commented here on the issue, I thought it was only fair that they be allowed to express their opinion here as well; there are always 2 sides to every story (or 3 or 4). I hope that bloggers, authors and readers alike, will comment on what Jules and Sean have to say, but in a non-confrontational way. I believe in freedom of expression, but being rude or vicious is not acceptable here! (BTW the captions under the photos are theirs).*g*
****************
Hi, I’m Jules. I write books. I’m queer. I’m going into my senior year of university with a major in Psychology (concentration on Social Psychology) and a minor in
M. Jules Aedin, Queer Irish American Author
Peace & Social Justice Studies. Since I owe a lot to a specific few professors with nods to Social Justice, I figured I’d include that here.
Hi. I’m Sean. What she said. Except the degree in Psychology. Teacher/librarian/watcher of too much television.
Sean Kennedy, Queer Australian Author
There’s been a lot of well… kerfluffle, to put it nicely… lately over the recent announcement by the Lambda Literary Foundation that only self-identified members of the GLBTQ community would be eligible as authors to win the Lambda Literary Award. In the beginning, there was a lot of silly misdirection and what we can only assume to be misreading or misunderstanding about how this was going to play out, along with cries of “they have no right!” Fortunately, most of that has already been cleared up, so we’re going to take the liberty of skipping past that and going on to other issues. (For the record, there are no bed checks; they’re not saying that you can only write books in the specific category of GLBTQ that you identify yourself as, and they are a private organization with every right in the world to determine their eligibility criteria for awards.)
There are two main issues that we want to address here. The first is whether Lambda’s decision has any social importance, and the second is whether it’s worth getting this upset about.
There has been a lot of vitriol directed at LLF and a war cry of “reverse discrimination.” If you’ve ever had a class on social oppression, you’ll know why Jules, with a concentration in the area, bristles at the term, so we’re not going to use it here. Furthermore, in our opinion, we don’t believe that this is even the crux of why their announcement was important. It needs to be said that we are not speaking on behalf of LLF. We’ve written them a letter asking for clarification, but as of yet haven’t received a response. Considering the amount of e-mail they must be getting right now, that’s not surprising. All we know of their decision is what the rest of you know. There have been conflicting accounts of whether this was LLF’s original policy, then they changed to include straight authors and are now changing back; whether it has always been that the awards were meant for GLBTQ authors; or whether it was simply unclear up until now.
And that last bit is the important part. Why is it important to give visibility to GLBTQ authors? Aren’t we trying to strive for equality? Isn’t this equivalent to asking for “special rights”? That’s pretty much the same thing as asking why we need to have language in anti-hate-crimes laws in order to protect people on the basis of sexual and gender identity. I mean, after all, shouldn’t all crimes be treated the same? Shouldn’t all hate crimes be punished? Why do we have to specify exactly who is protected? Shouldn’t it be everybody? In a perfect world, yes. In a perfect world, we wouldn’t need specific language to protect us or give us visibility. In a perfect world, we wouldn’t be invisible to start with.
James Baldwin - A Gay African American Author
Let us give you an example. In her book, Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?, Beverly Daniel Tatum relates the story of two students in a literature class. One student raised her hand in class one day to ask why they never learned about Black authors. Another student responded to this in his class response journal by saying, “It’s not my fault Black people don’t write books.”
Of course, that’s ridiculous. Plenty of Black people write books. But honestly, until I’m told otherwise, I (Jules) generally assume the author of any given book — even books on racial equality and discrimination — is White. Because White people are in the majority. Minorities are invisible, unless we make them visible.
In the beginning, you could pretty much guess that anyone writing GLBTQ literature was, themselves, GLBTQ. If they weren’t, they themselves were in a minority as a straight author who actually gave a damn about us and about what we go through. There wasn’t any real need to specifically shine a spotlight on GLBTQ authors of GLBTQ fiction; it could just be on the fiction in general. Recently, though, there’s been an explosion in the interest in GLBTQ fiction — specifically m/m, really. In fact, we could even call it a fad. Not that we mind — we enjoy it ourselves. Obviously, we write it and we read it. We read a LOT, too. And in all our reading, we’ve found out that it is pretty much a novelty to discover that the author of an m/m book is part of the GLBTQ community. That’s fine. We don’t mind. But it does mean that GLBTQ authors are becoming the invisible minority in their own genre.
Imagine attending an awards ceremony for accomplishments in African American literature, and almost every single nominee or winner was White. Wouldn’t you start to think something was wrong? Not necessarily with the authors, Black or White, but with the system? Wouldn’t you want to encourage African American kids to become writers somehow?
Elizabeth Bowen - A Bisexual Irish author
It’s important for the world, especially for kids who are confused about their own identity, to know that there are GLBTQ people accomplishing things. This is why Harvey Milk and others were and are great proponents of being “out” as being the most effective form of activism. We have to be visible. If no one knows who we are, then why are they going to care about what happens to us? You could make an argument for GLBTQ fiction, even m/m in general, as being a form of this. Sure. We won’t say it isn’t. But it is fantasy. The real world needs to know about real people. Maybe LLF’s decision wasn’t enacted as smoothly as it could have been, but it is actually important as a means of shining a spotlight on a group of invisible authors.
Now that that’s taken care of, we’d like to address some of the main issues of the fallout from this decision, and that is the reaction of authors both straight and queer. It has been, to steal a phrase from the part of the United States Jules is from, A Great Unpleasantness. (For those of you not up on that particular part of US-history, it’s a reference to the Civil War.)
There’s been mud slung — from both sides of the fence, really — and it’s been extremely ugly.
Here are some of the things we’re hearing:
• Unnecessary call backs to racism/segregation – e.g. drinking from separate watercoolers, lynchings. (Google “lynching parties” if you want to know why this is horribly offensive, not just to GLBTQ but to Black folks.)
• Comparing LLF’s decision to the Nazis’ war crimes of murdering swaths of GLBTQ folks along with the intellectuals, Jews, etc. Because not being eligible for an award is just like being killed by starvation, incinerators, gassing chambers, firing squads, etc.
• “They’re just mad because straight people are writing better gay fiction than gays are!” Thanks, guys.
• That the decision is an elaborate plot against certain popular m/m authors to prevent them from “sweeping.” (For the record, they also put a rule in place to prevent sweeping, so this is irrelevant.)
• ”After all we’ve done for you, this is the thanks we get!” Being an ally is not about getting cookies. If the only reason you do nice things is to get recognition, you’re not actually being all that nice.
• ”LAMBDA is now as bad as the Westboro Baptist Church!” Which, among their many heinous crimes, wanted to erect a memorial to the murderers of Matthew Shepard that basically said, “The kid got what was coming to him; he shouldn’t have been a fag in the first place.” Not kidding. Wiki it. We think this is a grossly unjust comparison.
• ”We’ll just set up our own awards then!” Okay, fine, if you feel like you need an award, go for it. All the best to you, and we mean that sincerely.
• ”Maybe we should just stop writing gay fiction!” If the only reason you’re writing gay fiction is to win awards… Well.
• ”Any minority should not be able to limit their own awards to protect or celebrate their minority!” Those minorities may not agree with you.
• “Not ready for mainstream assimilation yet, guys, or just unwilling to give up your special victim status?” (Direct quote. Not kidding.)
• “Well, so and so reckons it’s wrong, and S/HE’S gay!” That may be so, but no person is the spokesperson for their whole social group. If a gay person then thinks that the decision is just fine, do the two opinions cancel out, or do you just not want to acknowledge their feeling because it doesn’t coincide with yours?
• ”Whoever wins this year should know that they won without competition.” What you’re saying is that a gay person can’t win this award on their own merits, or that gay people cannot write books that are worthy competition.
Irshad Manji, A Lesbian Egyptian-Indian Author
There’s also been some hurt and offense taken by the straight authors who are not happy that someone called straight-written m/m books “prurient fetishizations.” We respect that this is probably very hurtful to people who do not consider themselves to be fetishizing gay people in their fiction.
Well, firstly, let me just say that all erotica involves fetishization of some kind, so let’s not go claiming that it doesn’t exist. Secondly, this is coming out of the fact that we ARE sometimes fetishized. Maybe not by you, specifically, and maybe not in your books, but there are some m/m fans who treat Pride celebrations as their own private peep shows. Same-sex couples at fandom conventions are asked to make out in order to give some yaoi and yuri fans a cheap thrill. On a recent board, I (Sean) heard someone wish that the first couple to be legally wed in South Africa had been “more photogenic.” As if our struggle for equality takes a back seat to them having something pretty to look at.
And honestly, besides this, sometimes we aren’t portrayed realistically in GLBTQ books and media. Sometimes our lives are caricatured, or our struggles simplified or overlooked. Let’s be honest; it’s not all gay bashing and getting thrown out of our parents’ homes. There are subtler forms of homophobia and oppression that often don’t get portrayed in the genre, many of them from people who consider themselves to be helping.
Tim Conigrave, A Gay Australian Author (with his partner John)
Loading ...
Well said. In the fighting, we are losing sight of what we should be trying to accomplish.
Cait:
Thank you! I hope it will help some people stop and think about the value of relationships.
A very well thought out, and thought provoking post. It is sad that things got so ugly on both sides.
Kalita:
Thank you, and thanks for taking the time to comment.
Agreed 100%. I think you said it all and perfectly
Thanks, Sparky.
The worst part of this whole thing, IMO, is way it’s turned people against each other who SHOULD be standing together. It makes me so, so sad to see that. All over an award. I recognize that for some people, this might be a very important award. But in the grand scheme of things, it’s just a small thing. It’s not life and death.
*
That said, I’m going to do my best to articulate how I’ve felt about this whole thing. My first, knee-jerk reaction was a feeling of… hm, mild indignation, I guess, because I was excluded. Then I thought about it. I thought, “why do I feel indignant about being told I can’t enter an award contest I never wanted to enter in the first place?” I mean, before this, it was never even a blip on my radar screen.
*
Let me be clear, here. I never, ever thought the LLF had no right to exclude straight authors. They are a private foundation and have a perfect and absolute right to do exactly as they please. When I started analyzing my initial reaction — yeah, I do that; pathetic, huh? — I realized that really, it had very little to do with LLF. It’s all centered in me and my own history, both as a person and as a female in a male-dominated society. I figure enough experiences of exclusion and being told you’re “less than” can cause a sort of Pavlovian reaction in situations where it isn’t really warranted. And it didn’t take me long to realize that really, any sort of reaction at all from me wasn’t warranted in this case.
*
I have to be honest here, some of the reactions and accusations I’ve seen on the ‘net surrounding the whole thing have been hurtful to me. Nothing has been directed at me personally (that I know of O_O), but some of the accusations aimed at straight writers — and at least some of them have come from other straight writers, one in particular — have been kind of painful to me anyway. This is the first time I’ve said anything about that anywhere, and I’m not trying to belittle anyone else’s struggles or anything. But it’s how I feel and I can’t help that. It’s the same thing I feel when someone says something about all women being shallow money-chasers or cock teases or something (and yes, I HAVE heard those things from men, many times). It hurts to hear those things, even when it’s not directed at me personally. I haven’t said anything anywhere else, because frankly this is about the only place I feel safe expressing myself. “Safe” emotionally, not physically. I don’t think I’m going to be stalked or anything!
*
Other things I’ve felt: I’ve been pretty embarassed by some of the more strident cries of discrimination by straight authors. I mean, maybe they are technically correct, but is this really a fight anyone wants to have? I don’t think it’s really appropriate.
And yeah, I don’t much like the term “reverse discrimination”. Either something’s discrimination, or it isn’t. But that’s another blog…
I DID love Victor Banis’s blog post. This is at least partly because I’m his hopeless fangirl and I adore the way he puts words together, OMG. But also because he knows what he’s talking about. He’s been there, done that, got the T-shirt. I have to pay attention to what he says, because he’s walked that road. Of course he doesn’t speak for everyone, but he does speak from a position of extensive experience. You’d take a doctor’s opinion about a medical problem before you’d take the opinion of your ten-year-old niece, right? Of course you would.
My opinion doesn’t matter. His does.
*
I hope I’m making sense. I don’t have an editor to review my post and make sure my meaning is clear and I’m not just shoving my foot down my throat O_O
Honesty again. I feel like I’m taking a huge risk saying these things. Maybe that sense of risk is false, but it’s always been difficult for me to be this open about subjects this controversial. I hope I didn’t just screw up massively. I don’t want to lose the friends I’ve made. Whether we always agree or not, I cherish every one of you. I love the sense of belonging I’ve found within the GLBT romance community, and I’d rather die than lose that.
Ally
“Honesty again. I feel like I’m taking a huge risk saying these things. Maybe that sense of risk is false, but it’s always been difficult for me to be this open about subjects this controversial. I hope I didn’t just screw up massively. I don’t want to lose the friends I’ve made. Whether we always agree or not, I cherish every one of you. I love the sense of belonging I’ve found within the GLBT romance community, and I’d rather die than lose that.”
**
If we can’t be honest what’s the point of being human? I hope you can feel safe saying your piece here because this site has always managed, in the midst of unpleasantness, to try and remain above the fray. Anyone can feel free to comment here as long as they observe the protocol of being polite in stating their opinions. I welcome dissenting views because we are not a bunch of drones, and human beings are different and make mistakes. I only hope that all the rhetoric will soon go away and both sides of this great divide will reach a compromise.
Thank you, Wave, for everything.
**hugs**
Me, I’ll keep battering away at that RWA door. If I ever enter ANY major awards competition, it’ll be the RITAs, if they ever give equal time to small presses. “If” being the operative word there…
Ally:
Everyone is at different places and has different opinions, and that’s fine; it’s the meanness that I disapprove of. *grin* *hugs* Thanks for stopping by.
Oh hon, as long as you’re as sweet and honest as this, I doubt you’re going to lose friends. Well, speaking for myself, at least.
**massive hugs**
thanks, hon
It gets a tiny bit worse. Lambda wants the entry form faxed. I don’t have access to one. Electronic Discrimination?
“You could make an argument for GLBTQ fiction, even m/m in general, as being a form of this. Sure. We won’t say it isn’t. But it is fantasy. The real world needs to know about real people. Maybe LLF’s decision wasn’t enacted as smoothly as it could have been, but it is actually important as a means of shining a spotlight on a group of invisible authors.”
Putting aside for the moment the fact that m/m contemporary romance/fiction that is “fantasy” might serve to advance GLBT causes in all sorts of “back-door ways, the thing is, LLF’s decision doesn’t just exclude “fantasy” – it’s not based on genre. It also excludes books that might in fact tell the world about GLBT people accomplishing real things – they just happen to be written by someone who isn’t GLBT.
I do agree that there’s nothing to be gained by engaging in divisive attack – although that works both ways; as a straight woman who is an avid consumer (not writer) of m/m fiction, but who is also a very involved and passionate activist for gay rights, I have to admit to being a bit resentful of the “homophobia” labels being flung in my (general) direction. And truthfully, my fiction-reading self doesn’t really care much about the Lambdas – they don’t define what I read.
But my GLBT-rights-activist self is disappointed with this decision, because I think it ultimately hurts the GLBT community and GLBT causes – in a number of ways, but primarily by making it *appear* as if LLF think GLBT authors can’t win if they compete on a playing field that includes straight authors and so require the crutch of having the folks in charge take some of the competition out of the game.
It also seems to me that LLF has possibly defined the Lambdas – which were already controversial – out of relevance, so no one will care about them except the people who win them. On another forum I read, populated primarily by gay men, someone posted this in the discussion of LLF’s decision (it’s visible to everyone, so I’m not repeating anything private):
“Obviously, the foundation views rewarding authors as they’re primary function. I suppose that’s their right, but I don’t really see why anyone other than authors ought to care. If the ‘gay mystery’ category isn’t primarily concerned with telling me the best gay-themed mystery to be published in the last year, why should I care who gets it?
“In the final analysis, what I’m looking for as a reader is someone committed to pointing me to the best possible reading experience of LGBT-themed materials. I can see that there are clearly people interested in a “least likely to win other awards” award, but I think the audience hanging on that announcement may be smaller than they anticipate.”
And I think that’s not a good thing. i think there *should* be widely respected, widely known awards for GLBT literature, and I believe that if LLF goes in this direction (especially with this requirement of “self-identifying” as GLBT), the Lambas won’t fill that role. They’re credibility will be less, and they just won’t matter to most people – they’ll be viewed as awards for authors who are open about their sexuality, rather than awards for the best GLBT literature.
Which of course is entirely LLF’s prerogative, and LLF may not even care about those things. And I actually understand where LLF is coming from – but I still think it’s a step backwards.
justacat:
**
You actually bring up a point we failed to make in our post, which is the definition of “GLBT literature.” The LLF handled this all very badly, but in most academic and formal circles (which is what the LLF claims to be), “adjective+literature” (ie, Black literature, GLBT literature, women’s literature, etc.) is defined by its authors AND its content. Most venues that bother clarifying this say it in much better ways, such as “books by and about women,” etc.
**
I think that is what the LLF was trying to clarify, but boy, did they ever need an editor.
Ken:
Just buy a fax machine already! Gosh!
I agree with everything the two of you have said.
*
I’m studying Native American societies, and the laws and policies regarding them in the 21st century, and OMG do I see a lot of echo of their situation in this. Especially the bit about straight authors unwilling to give even an inch, so that a minority group can have their own space.
*
I think there are legitimate reasons to disapprove of LLA’s new focus without using uneducated and homophobic reasons, like reverse discrimination, or that straight people write better than gay people, or “Dude! Think of the people in Jamaica! They can’t come out!” Because of course someone who is in a life-or-death situation, and who will be persecuted for coming out, will even publish and enter an award in the first place.
*
And I have a new respect for Jessewave for posting up both Erastes’ take on the situation, and this take. I’m glad that a review site, is choosing to be unbiased and publishing both views.
Caitlin:
You make a lot of good points here. And yeah, neither Sean nor I completely agree with everything LLF has done or how they’ve done it, but like you say, the point is not whether you disagree, but how you handle the disagreement. Thanks for the thoughtful comment!
Justacat
Like you, I am outsider here except that I’m a member of a visible minority (Black) so can understand some of the concerns expressed by Sean and Jules. But this is not about me. When I posted briefly about Lambda’s decision earlier in the week Batboy, a gay friend, made the following comment:
“There are many literary awards that recognize only writers in a particular category: women writers, Spanish language writers, disabled writers, and writers who celebrate their Icelandic heritage in prose. They all exclude someone or other. The Lambdas were meant as a way to support a particular community, and it is perfectly appropriate for them to limit entrants to members of that community”.
**
I believe that the Pulitzer Prize is limited to Americans and the Coretta Scott King Award is only for authors of African American descent. So this is not a new phenomenon.
**
Lambda is not unique in using its clout to support its core membership but I believe it also set aside a couple of awards that are for straight authors, so it has not totally closed the door.
I’m not sure about the value of this award because when I buy a book that’s not exactly my first consideration.
**
My hope is that this ugliness will eventually go away.
There have been conflicting accounts of whether this was LLF’s original policy, then they changed to include straight authors and are now changing back; whether it has always been that the awards were meant for GLBTQ authors; or whether it was simply unclear up until now.
There have been several award winners and gay writers who have stated again and again what the original intention of the Lambda Literary Awards from their inception.
But let me quote Deacon Maccubbin the gay man who founded these awards in 1988.
they were specifically intended to honor “the writers, editors and publishers of gay and lesbian literature”. There was no litmus test of the sexual or affectional orientation of those writers, editors and publishers. It was only necessary that a nominated book be of interest to gays and lesbians
I think that is pretty cut and dry since the original founder also went on to declare I think it would be wise to return to the original vision.
I guess he thinks this whole change was a bad idea.
Teddypig,
Thanks for your comment. I did see that comment by the founder after we’d already sent the final content for this post. There is also an argument to be made about the definition of what constitutes LGBT literature, and whether they explicitly stated that it was to judge content only, but in the end, the award wasn’t what we were really worried about. It was more the fact that people who should have been friends and allies were using the opportunity to act very unfriendly and un-ally-like. There is a pretty good social argument to be made about the award, which we mentioned in the post, but not everybody is going to agree on it, not even from within the GLBT community.
*
The main point is that we not allow disagreement to turn into shouting at people. I think even disagreements should be handled respectfully.
*
Thanks for your comment!
but not everybody is going to agree on it, not even from within the GLBT community.
Jules,
I think the yelling from everyone who noticed is not surprising with a sudden backwards lurch in direction like this from a GBLT organization of 21 years.
I mean when the founder says NOPE and someone who contributed so much to the genre like Victor J Banis also says NOPE…
I tend to listen and respect them for their experience and perspective coming from surviving the type of discrimination even I can not honestly say I faced even in my ten years in the military. No one has ever threatened me with federal prison for writing gay books.
They did it without the need of safety nets and special treatment or creating special awards for only openly gay people. They did it based on their love for the genre, their talent, and their want to encourage it’s growth.
I don’t think these new rules encourage that type of growth created by inclusion and acceptance like the old rules did.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you Jules and Sean for writing this post and expressing opinions that aren’t being heard from many. And thanks Jessewave for including this on your site.
I’m a reader, an editor, a writer, and a member of the queer community. Like others, I’ve been saddened by the vicious reactions to this whole situation. It’s one thing to disagree, but the reactions from many have become downright cruel and hurtful. Hopefully people will soon be able to focus once more on writing and reading great stories with wonderful queer characters…and not on what awards the story might win.
Emily:
*hugs* Thanks for stopping by. I’m glad it resonated with you.
Excellent post: articulate, compassionate, civil, and reflective. You guys make a good team.
-Stuart
Stuart:
Thank you for the lovely compliment! Hopefully that’ll carry over to the story we’re planning to try to write together. Co-authoring can be tricky.
[...] In the interest of fairness, I’m linking to a post at JesseWave Reviews that attempts to give a differing perspective on the whole Lambda mess. Here it is: http://www.reviewsbyjessewave.com/?p=8146 [...]
I dunno if I’m in the minority about this one but I’m really quite tired of the entire thing. While I didn’t initially agree, I learned too.
*
I debated with Jules briefly about it because I did think it was unfair. And if I recall correctly, I used the phrase “reverse discrimination”. I was wrong. One, I’ve learned recently that its technically not possible for a minority to discriminate against a majority. And two, it’s not discrimination. Period. So, I apologize formally for saying that.
*
Reading this post reminds me of a healthy debate. These are the points that should have been made obvious and regrettably, Lambda wasn’t as well-edited as they could have been. But regardless of how it was written, the point is still there. And while not everyone has to like it, it’s there. I’ve since let go of my own mild ire about it because like Ally said, Lambda’s never been on my radar before. This is not to imply that it isn’t prestigious in its own right but honestly, it’s never been a big deal to me so why should it now? It’s still quite simply, an award.
*
Lastly, I tip my hat to you, Jules and Sean, for being so eloquent. In the midst of this, its good to see cut and dried reasons. And good on you, Wave, for being so accommodating to both sides.
Zoe:
I *really* don’t think you’re in the minority on being tired of the whole thing! *laugh*
*
And yes, thank you for that insight on discrimination. I didn’t want to get into it on the post since we were already being so long-winded, but that’s exactly it. And by the way, apology totally accepted a long time ago.
*hugs*
It was good to read this well set out, thoughtfully presented opinion piece. It tends to reflect my own views.
*
I think the main problem may have been the way the change (or emphasis) to the rules was made. It was done clumsily, and the timing was out of whack, too, so close to when submissions were due.
*
In the last year or two, I have looked to the Lambda awards to find new authors and books to read, so I was aware of them, and they did mean something to me. I didn’t know whether the winning authors were gay or not, and it wouldn’t bother me either way (but I’m not gay).
*
Saying that, I also have no problem if the awards are categorised in a way that indicate the winners are straight allies, or identify as gay writers. It may give me some perspective as to where the writers are coming from, but it wouldn’t influence my enjoyment of their stories. However, if even one young gay reader has a positive reaction to knowing the winner self-identifies as being gay, that’s got to be a good thing.
*
I’ve been surprised to see many vitriolic posts about this. There have been some nasty things written that have made me feel uncomfortable. It’s a shame that people can’t all work together for the betterment of the gay community. At the end of the day, isn’t that the main aim of everyone involved in the writing, reading, and production of gay literature?
Gaycrow:
Thank you. I read a beautiful entry by someone on Dreamwidth about the impact being able to find gay books by gay authors has on struggling gay teens (after we wrote and posted this, actually) and the other poster said it much more eloquently than I did. I WISHED I’d been able to say it like that.
*
And yeah, there have been a lot of things said and done that made me really uncomfortable, too, which is a shame. I’m glad the conversation here has stayed very civil.
*
Thank you for commenting!
Jules, You’re welcome.
*
I’m wondering if you read the same post I did, by Kaigou on Dreamwidth.
http://kaigou.dreamwidth.org/314949.html?view=3324229
It’s a very good article, and made me think.
*
I also read Brent Hartinger’s post at Afterelton.com. Brent’s an actual Lambda winner, and presents a good case. I don’t necessarily agree with him, but I did take on board everything he says:
http://www.afterelton.com/print/200998/lambda-award-should-you-be-gay
Wave,
*
First, sorry for neglecting my asterisks between paragraphs!
*
But to the point: I understand all of what you, and what Sean and Jules, are saying. I understand that LLF is (ostensibly) trying to support a particular community – actually, I’m not certain I believe entirely in the beneficence of their motives (not the “anti-straight” stuff, but there’s an overtone of misogyny that bothers me; this isn’t the place to get into that), but I’m certainly not claiming any sort of “reverse discrimination” or that the idea of wanting to support LGBT authors is a bad one. Nor am I claiming, or feeling, that any of this is about me.
*
The point I was trying to make, though I might have failed, was that I actually don’t believe this decision is one that will in fact in the end truly help or support GLBT authors, or the GLBT community – I think it rather does them a disservice; throws out the baby with the bathwater. Giving an individual an award does not in and of itself comprise “support” if the award lacks sufficient meaning or value to anyone other than the award givers, and possibly recipients. To use a very rough analogy, it’s like dividing classes in a competition into small enough groups that everyone in each class is almost sure to get a ribbon. What value will others ascribe to a first, second, or third place if there were only four people in each class? Maybe the competitors, and the award givers, feel good about themselves – is that what “support” means?
*
Time will tell, and I suppose it depends on what the LLF wants its awards to mean. And it is good to see debate on all sides of the issue. And I really do understand the ostensible motivation – it is undoubtedly true that GLBT authors have been marginalized, excluded or disregarded because of prejudice; though this argument might be more compelling if the Lambdas had been this way all along. But in extensive reading about this issue all over the web, on various gay-rights blogs and elsewhere, I’ve seen very little truly enthusiastic support for this decision (as opposed to defense of it against the misguided attacks) from GLBT authors, or really GLBT people in general, and to me that’s very telling.
*
It’s not a huge issue, and it shouldn’t so derail us from more important things – in particular, the fact that, as Jules and Sean point out, most of us who read and write this stuff care deeply about the people we’re reading and writing about, and that transcends how any particular group defines its literary awards. But perhaps one of the reasons this decision has aroused such passions is that it does *feel* symbolic in a way, even if it doesn’t have as huge a significance as it’s being given. Perhaps part of the reason for that is what’s going on more widely with GLBT issues. No, of course everything is not about “us,” the straight allies. But this is a time when some very important GLBT issues are at key stages, and the GLBT community really does need the support of non-GLBT allies so that…well, so that justice can be served, in so many ways. The reality is that the things that need to happen simply aren’t going to happen otherwise.
*
And this kind of thing gives the *appearance* that the GLBT community, or portions of it, are saying – we don’t need, or want, or value, your support. (Please note that word: “appearance”!) Or, we want your support, but only some of it, sometimes. Or even, your contribution isn’t really “support” at all, because it’s taking away from a worthy GLBT author. (There’s a debate going on in my community right now – is it better to keep in place a long-time council member who’s straight but a proven devoted ally and staunch supporter of GLBT causes, who’s introduced, and strong-armed through to passage, pretty much all the GLBT-favorable legislation in our jurisdiction, or to try to replace him with an unproven candidate just to have more gay representation on the council?)
*
Anyway – maybe that’s part of why it’s a hot-button. And the LLF’s words, and handling of the situation, really didn’t/hasn’t done much to defuse any of it, unfortunately for all of us.
*
Very interesting discussion!
Justacat:
You’re right, the way Lambda handled this decision was hasty and clumsy, but then as an organization, they haven’t shown a lot of talent for clear and conscious planning in the past.
*
And like you say, the main point we were trying to make wasn’t even the awards themselves, but rather the fact that people were so quick to throw GLBT writers under the bus, even other GLBT writers. It was truly frightening, and to a group of people who are often betrayed by people who claim to be their allies (for example, Bill Clinton, who courted the GLBT community during his election and then passed DOMA and DADT while in office), we might be a little knee-jerk and quick to react to these things.
*
Like I said, I don’t think any side of this is entirely blameless, but I do think I wish everyone would calm down and think things through a little more.
*
Thanks for participating in the discussion! You’ve had some very thought provoking things to say.
I’ve never paid much attention to the LLF, and probably won’t in the future. What will stick with me are the remarks made by ‘disqualified’ writers after the policy change was announced. A lot of M/M romance fans, and several writers, are online friends on mine, and now I don’t know how to, figuratively speaking, look them in the face. There’s a lot of — not exactly hate, more like disdain — going on under the surface.
At least, it used to be under the surface, until some of it bubbled up in recent days. Probably it was always there.
What kind of person throws out references to lynching and hate groups, taunting the very people who are among the presumed targets of those things? And then, with a straight face, refers to themselves as *allies*?
One nice thing about straight guys who write or film F/F — ‘Biker Chicks Behind Bars’ and whatnot — is that they don’t imagine fetishizing lesbians makes them ‘allies,’ much less eligible for gay literature or queer cinema awards. There’s a lot to be said for their outlook.
.
Justacat:
“we don’t need, or want, or value, your support. Or, we want your support, but only some of it, sometimes.”
.
Actually, I think it’s more than fair for any group to tell well-wishers we only want some of your support, sometimes. In other words, to decide when and if the support being offered is actually helpful.
In the case at hand, I’m going to say what some have hinted at: maybe the LLF actually *did* make this choice specifically in order to eliminate M/M Romance from the Lambdas. Maybe they decided it fetishizes, trivializes, or demeans gay men, and they wanted to separate the LLF from it as fully as possible. Maybe it was the one way of choosing what kind of support is helpful; of saying, on observing the growing flood of slash fiction, “That’s terribly nice of you, and I appreciate the thought behind it, but couldn’t you find a *different* way of supporting us? Please?”
Batboy, you’ve hit the nail on the head. It feels like some people are saying “after all we’ve done for you!” under a different guise.
There’s a lot of hurt feelings on both sides, but the thing is, you can EMPATHISE with people in minorities as an ally but you can never really know the depth of their experience because you haven’t lived it in the way they have.
As a reader I’m just sort of baffled by the whole thing. Having seen more than one kerfluffle on the net, I can understand how hurt feelings can translate into out of control on-line behavior. I’m a big fan of honest, intelligent discussion so I appreciate the post, but I’m with Justacat.
*
I’m aware that minority groups will have their own awards, thus excluding others not of that group. And I don’t have a problem with that. So I guess it comes down to how these were awards were set up. It sounds, from what I’ve read, that it was originally not set up as “great gay books by gay authors” but as “great gay books”. Changing that is their prerogative but they can’t be surprised that that would upset the people they are now excluding or setting aside.
*
I get that Lambda can change their rules but it feels like they are cutting off their nose to spite their face. My love for a book doesn’t depend on the sexuality (or gender) of the person who wrote it. I certainly can’t tell whether or not someone is gay from their writing, unless they include that in the author notes. I’ve even been surprised to find out the author’s gender a few times. Maybe some people can suss that out, but I’m not one of them.
*
I understand the merit in what they are trying to do, but it should have been set up that way all along then. It should have been clear that the awards were for a certain set of people rather than the finished product. If the awards were thought to be about the best work, then the sexuality of the author should have no impact. If the awards are for only gay people, then that’s something different. It sends a message that the work isn’t as important as the person doing it. And I agree with posters above, that there then becomes a danger of marginalizing the very people who you wish to praise.
*
I assume this has probably been talked to death and I’m not adding any info you haven’t seen before, but again, I’m just totally baffled that someone as Lambda didn’t see this coming from a mile away. Why didn’t they just set up another award? One award that concentrated on the work and one for the gay people involved? Maybe the fear of one too many awards? Like that ever stopped anyone. They should have known the implications of this and planned accordingly.
I think you also have to look at the history of this award. When it was set up, the great majority of people writing LGBTQ fiction were LGBTQ themselves. Of course, there are notable exceptions, but it was like protections didn’t have to be put in place because, well… nobody else was doing that. With the explosion lately in the industry, LGBTQ people were in danger of becoming the minority yet again, so even though I think things were worded badly, I don’t think their reasons for reworking the system were nefarious.
What a wonderful well-thought-out sensitive post. I understand not everyone, including people within the GBLT community, may agree with the changes, and that’s their right, of course. But the fallout has certainly dismayed me. So it’s refreshing to have a place here to be able to discuss it. Thanks for this, Jules and Sean.
And Jesse for hosting this site.
Thanks, Joely.
I think that’s one thing everybody can agree on – that the aftermath is unpleasant for all those involved.
Yes, when the award was established, straight authors were not barred, but the market has changed.
*
I think the argument of “there are straight authors who have written wonderful gay literature” is a valid one. The Front Runner, The Persian Boy, and Brokeback Mountain are all great, and no one denies that.
*
I just have two problems with that argument. One is that that’s not the kind of fiction we’re discussing when it comes to Lambda’s new policies. I love gay romance as much as the next person, but I’m not going to kid myself and say that the gay romance I read is being written to elevate gay people. Gay romance authors are hardly putting out works like Patricia Nell Warren’s and Mary Renault’s here. I am absolutely not saying that there’s no great works coming out of the gay romance genre, because there are.
*
Problem two is that gay literature written by straight people don’t really need Lambda’s help with getting visibility. Works like Brokeback Mountain and The Persian Boy are widely read, not just among the LGBT community. Poppy Z. Brite, Diana Gabaldon, Suzanne Brockman, etc. Even without awards from Lambda (or any other LGBT organizations), they will continue to be well read. On the other hand, works written by LGBT authors are not widely read outside of the LGBT community.
*
Lesbian fiction does somewhat better than GBT fiction in this area. Everyone knows Julie Ann Peters and Sarah Waters’ works. Christopher Rice doesn’t count. His claim to fame was being the son of Anne Rice (another straight author whose gay fiction is widely read). But how many people outside of the LGBT community read Armistead Maupin, or Alan Hollinghurst, or Jay Quinn, or Victor Banis (his gay works)?
*
Just a few years ago, Andre Aciman (straight male author) received loads of attention because he was so “brave” for writing Call Me By Your Name. He didn’t receive this attention because his earlier works were all that popular. He received that attention because he was a straight author who ventured into gay literature. When was the last time a gay author received that much attention outside of the LGBT community?
*
So I think straight authors (male and female) can write realistic and good LGBT fiction, but they hardly need awards to gain publicity and attention. But LGBT authors might as well be invisible to the public.
Thank you, Caitlin. It does seem true that when a ’straight’ author writes good LGBTQ fiction they get that added praise… kind of like when a straight actor gets told they’re being brave for playing a gay person. And there is a bravery in it! Because they are then attacked by the wingnuts out there. But you’re right, they get the visibility not afforded to those LGBTQ authors who write a good work but are still put on the seperate shelf.
Hi Batboy:
“Actually, I think it’s more than fair for any group to tell well-wishers we only want some of your support, sometimes.”
Hmm. This is a tough one for me. Non-GLBT people who devote significant portions of their energy, effort, even lives to the fight for civil rights for GLBT people (which might not, admittedly, include all or even most m/m authors; the ones you’re referring to, for example) aren’t “well-wishers.” I’m not going to go off on a soapbox in this forum, but to paraphrase MLK, there’s no justice for anyone until there’s justice for everyone – the fight for equal rights is every caring, responsible human’s fight. Whether or not someone fighting that fight is a member of the particular group at issue, it’s still her fight, even if in a different way. It affects all of us. And many of us who aren’t GLBT have nonetheless been victims of other forms of persecution.
*
I don’t give my support because a group wants it; it’s not a “gift” I’m bestowing – I support causes, or whatever, because it’s the right thing to do, because it’s necessary, because a fight for human rights is my fight too, and a fight for people I love. And the group can’t give it back. (By the same token, I can’t, and don’t, expect a group to genuflect to me for being so generous as to support them!) The GLBT community could say, we don’t want any straights on our side – but fighting for GLBT civil rights would *still* be the right thing to do, whether the group wanted it or not. And anyway – who would get to make that decision? In this case, does LLF speak for the entire GLBT community? I know for a fact that many GLBT people think the LLF’s decision is misguided.
*
But I think you probably wouldn’t argue with me about this; I think the issue underlying your comment really is, what exactly constitutes “support”? I was kind of assuming that m/m fiction is a sort of support of GLBT – and for many of the authors and readers I know personally, this is so; they are passionate supporters of GLBT causes and many are bisexual or gay themselves. But of course it’s not necessarily so, except in an indirect fashion – I do believe m/m romance, and its increasing acceptance and proliferation, help make gay relationships (and sex, which can be an issue) “mainstream” and unobjectionable – and unthreatening – to a portion of the population that might not have responded to other types of persuasion.
*
In any event, though, going back to my own point, what I was really trying to do was posit a partial explanation for what has caused this issue to become so inflammatory – namely, the perception, the appearance, of the rejection of support. As someone on another forum I’m on pointed out – a gay man, actually – any author who truly cares about GLBT causes isn’t going to be turned off from that by this decision. But I can still see how it must feel like a slap in the face to many authors who *have* been friends to the gay community. LLF’s decision appears to send the message to those authors: no, we don’t want you with us.
*
You could respond – well, we, GLBT people, have experienced rejection like that all our lives; now you can just suck it up. But that would be a pretty petty attitude. I can see authors feeling…well, it’s not so much you LLF should be grateful to us, after all we’ve done for you, we were helping you the poor oppressed – though there may be some who have acted that way, I can’t buy it! It’s more, we thought we were all in this together, all on the same side, helping each other, but now you’ve shut us out as if we were the enemy.
*
Again, it’s easy to say – oh, poor widdle authors, they had their feelings hurt, deal with it, we do – but that doesn’t get us anywhere. Again, I’m simply trying to offer an explanation for why I think people have reacted as they have. It hurts to be rejected – and that’s particularly so when you’re rejected from a place you thought you belonged. Hurt makes people lash out, stupidly sometimes. Not to say that some of the people lashing out aren’t really in fact stupid – but some of them are probably just hurt. And truthfully, I get that.
*
Moving on: the point about LLF possibly having made this decision because they believe m/m romance fetishizes, trivializes, demeans gay men is an interesting one; I’ve seen that posited elsewhere, and it’s an obvious, if mildly insulting and grossly generalizing, argument. Problematically, though, the LLF’s new rules *don’t* actually exclude m/m romance from the Lambdas, just m/m romance written by non-GLBT authors. I for one couldn’t actually tell you whether the authors of a purportedly “fetishizing” m/m romance I’m reading is a straight, bisexual, or lesbian woman (or of course a gay man, but getting back to a point I made in my earlier comment, there seems to be a troubling overtone of misogyny in all of this). So does that mean the LLF thinks it’s okay for a queer woman (or of course a gay man) to fetishize gay men, but not for a straight woman to do so?
*
And if indeed the LLF was concerned that m/m romance isn’t sending the “right” kind of message, or isn’t the kind of GLBT-related literature they want to support, or isn’t the kind of support they want from the non-GLBT community – a pretty big generalization, but whatever – perhaps it might have behooved them to a) draft a rule that actually addressed that problem directly, rather than a rule that also excludes works such as Annie Proulx’s Brokeback Mountain that are about as far from contemporary “fetishizing” m/m romance as you can get; and b) express their concern more explicitly, rather than doing something so broad and general, and offering an explanation so nonspecific, that, as Sharvie points out, almost anyone could have predicted would have the effect of causing people to feel upset, excluded, rejected?
*
I have to admit – I hope the whole fetishizing thing isn’t behind this decision. If LLF were motivated solely by the increasing number of straight people getting Lambdas, by their desire to give awards to GLBT authors – I might disagree, because I think it ultimately hurts GLTB authors and GLBT causes, and I might see how newly-excluded authors feel excluded by it, but I get it, I understand it, I even sympathize and empathize with that motivation. But the “homophobic,” “fetishizing,” “demeaning” labels being thrown at women writers of m/m romance (and by extension their readers) as a group – I find those nasty, insulting, hugely over-generalizing. Not necessarily never accurate, but certainly not accurate as descriptions of an entire large genre, an entire group of authors. I’d hate to think that sort of…well, prejudice was really behind this.
*
Anyway – I’ve rambled on long enough. The whole kerfuffle raises so many issues, and lots of them are hot buttons. What’s most unfortunate, what I think is the real tragedy of the LLF’s decision, is the divisiveness it’s caused. Even assuming that there were, are, good, solid reasons for the LLF’s decision, even assuming for the sake of argument that it’s the “right” decision in some sense of the word, I can’t help but wonder whether it’s worth it if it results in driving wedges between groups where there were none before. We don’t need more wedges – we need to support each other! I suppose it depends on how quickly all this blows over, and whether it rears its head again when the time comes to make the awards.
Justacat, I really feel I have to take you up on one point, and that is that m/m fiction helps ‘mainstream’ gay relationships and make them ‘unobjectionable’ to society – that’s a very nice way of looking at it, but really, it’s only actively reaching out to an audience that is ready to accept it anyway. Preaching to the converted, as it were. Maybe I’m just being cynical here (it’s been a tough week or so), because I’m including myself as an author, but I don’t think any revolutionary change in social thought will occur because someone read “Tigers and Devils”.
And you say it’s a “slap in the face” to some authors who find themselves excluded – I can see why they would be hurt. But as we tried to explain in this post, being an ally is sometimes stepping back and realising it’s not personal. And then, not turning around and making sure you slap them in the face twice as hard.
@batboy 126, well especially.
i think one of the problems with alliances of any kind is the power differential in an ally – helped relationship. the ally is always from a dominant party and therefore the party being helped is at an implicit structural disadvantage. worse, the ally feels like a ‘helper’ but the extended hand is from above, and seldom across a chasm; creating real resentment. as a woman of color – i love my alliances and hate the need for them. i think the llf did not seem to resolve the role of straight allies within the organization, nor did the organization seem to have a clear set of announcement outcomes…
-kkm
Hi Sean,
But…I don’t think it’s *entirely* wrong. I completely agree that for the most part the audience for m/m fiction is already receptive to it. But I know for a fact there are women who started out as m/f romance readers, who once found m/m relationships, and sex, pretty shocking, but who were introduced to m/m through their romance reading connections and community; it sounds cliched, but it did open their minds. The thing is, you read something once and it’s shocking and “edgy” – but you read it for the twentieth time, and it starts to seem normal, and you stop remembering why, or that, you ever didn’t see it that way.
Yes, I have to grant you, that is a nice way of looking at it!
*
It’s a small thing, but I think it matters. People’s minds are opened in all sorts of ways. Anything that makes a marginalized group seem less “other” is a good thing. I was reading an article recently about gay kisses on TV – some church or other here in the U.S., or maybe it was a hard-core conservative group, I can’t remember, said that gay kissing is okay, as long as it doesn’t go farther than that. I remember so well the uproar that a planned gay (well, m/m) kiss on TV caused (it wasn’t in fact shown). Now, even this anti-gay group is pretty much giving kissing a free pass (yes, I know, it’s big of them, but I’m making a point here! *g*). You see something enough and it becomes less shocking, less alien, even to those who hate(d) it the most – not that there are men kissing all over television these days or anything, but it certainly happens.
*
So you’re right – Tigers and Devils, as wonderful as it is (and it is!!! Coincidentally, I just last week finished it for the third time!), isn’t going to start a revolution. But I still think it matters. Someone who might not have responded to pamphlets and flyers and an activist talking at them will read it, and then another very accessible m/m book, and then another, and eventually, she’ll forget that she ever didn’t think the idea of two men together was perfectly normal, that she thought it was strange or was vaguely disgusted by it. And maybe she’ll tell her friend, or she’ll react when her homophobic husband makes a remark, or *something*. No, not a revolutionary change in social thought. But…even small things can make a difference. I think familiarity is one of the things that changes attitudes.
*
Finally, to your other point: not taking things personally might be the more rational, more useful reaction, but it isn’t easy to keep emotions out of our reactions, especially when the emotion is one of feeling hurt/excluded/rejected – that’s not always rational. The point I was making is that I think that’s part of the reason this has become so inflammatory.
*
And you know – I’m just theorizing now, but perhaps it’s more difficult for women to deal with feeling slapped in the face in this context? One thing to remember is that most, or at least many, women, straight or not, have experienced being marginalized, disempowered, by men. It’s not as if sexism has been eradicated. And it’s a thing in that women and gay men have in common, a sort of gender-based targeting by the straight male power structure. So perhaps (again, I’m just musing here, off the top of my head) that’s another reason why LLF’s action, which *seems* so specifically aimed at women, is being experienced by some as such a personal and painful rejection.
“And you know – I’m just theorizing now, but perhaps it’s more difficult for women to deal with feeling slapped in the face in this context? One thing to remember is that most, or at least many, women, straight or not, have experienced being marginalized, disempowered, by men. It’s not as if sexism has been eradicated. And it’s a thing in that women and gay men have in common, a sort of gender-based targeting by the straight male power structure. So perhaps (again, I’m just musing here, off the top of my head) that’s another reason why LLF’s action, which *seems* so specifically aimed at women, is being experienced by some as such a personal and painful rejection.”
*
But this is exactly why you should be able to understand where LLF is coming from. As part of another minority group, this should make anyone more sensitive to minority issues. It just so happens that the people who are feeling like they’ve been slapped in the face are not the minority here (putting aside the fact that I doubt LLF is doing this to slap their allies).
*
If an organization for Women’s Rights decided to give out literature awards for only women, that’s not discrimination (regardless of whether or not men were able to compete in the past originally). If a man then said that it felt like a slap in the face to him because he’s been an ally regarding women’s rights, that still doesn’t change the fact that it’s not discrimination. He can say that he is more sensitive to rejection because he himself is a gay man and part of a minority group, that STILL doesn’t change the fact that he is not the minority in women’s rights. In fact as a gay man, he should understand and empathize. If he cannot, he isn’t a true ally.
*
And unfortunately in this issue, some people are not true allies. The lynching analogy that batboy126 mentioned earlier was made by an author writing for Amber Quill, and I have taken her name off of the list of authors I will read because she stated that she does not regret using that analogy and that no one should expect an apology from her because she won’t be giving one. She is definitely not an ally, despite her claims. White people lynching black people is not comparable to the Lambda situation AT ALL.
*
There are many ways to disagree with LLF’s new policies (and the clumsy way they’ve rolled them out), but feeling hurt is pointless to put it bluntly. Not only does it stem from an inability to put a minority’s issues in perspective, it also leads to emotional, vitriolic attacks (and extremely offensive analogies like the lynching one up above).
I’m in agreement with you on this, Justacat. Storytelling, whether through film or music or fiction, is in fact a *powerful* advocate for change. And it is in fact within genre fiction or popular fiction that society often begins its first sluggish steps toward reformation.
*
I partly agree with Sean that m/m romance per se is probably mostly — though not all — preaching to the choir. But fantasy, mystery, SF, historical…this all reaches readers who would not dream of reading porny romance and erotica. Mary Renault reached many a reader through her historical and literary fiction. Readers who would never in a million years dreamed of trying out a “gay romance.” Same with gay mystery. I can’t tell you how many mainstream mystery readers have stumbled on my work and given it a try because it is first and foremost mystery.
*
Granted, some have asked why I had to put all that gay romancy stuff in there — gay readers among them — but for the most part the reception has been positive.
*
Storytelling is a powerful advocate. It must never be underestimated.
“But this is exactly why you should be able to understand where LLF is coming from…”
*
I have to hope the “you” here isn’t actually me, (even though I’m responding anyway), because I think I’ve said about twenty times that I *do* understand where LLF is coming from. I don’t agree that they’re decision is going to advance their interests best in the long run, but that’s something about which minds can differ.
*
And the fact that I can understand why some authors, those who have been in the running all along but aren’t anymore, feel bad about this doesn’t mean I personally feel hurt or slapped in the face – I know I’ve been pretty clear about that by this point; once again I have to assume the “you” in your comment isn’t actually “me”! What I do think is that LLF handled this very clumsily – saying, “you should understand because you’re a minority too” works both ways, it seems to me.
*
But – clumsiness is not “discrimination” or “lynching” (LLF’s actions are like white people lynching black people?! I missed that, and I’m glad to have…) Disagreeing with LLF’s decision, even feeling hurt about it, isn’t the same as (unapologetically!) flinging ridiculous, harmful, divisive accusations (I think even a “true” ally can disagree, civilly; there’s disagreement within minority communities, after all). You clearly are right that obviously there are people in this community who aren’t truly concerned at all about the interests of the people they ostensibly are writing about, which is, to me, the saddest thing about all of this.
To come back to something Justacat said earlier: “But the “homophobic,” “fetishizing,” “demeaning” labels being thrown at women writers of m/m romance (and by extension their readers) as a group – I find those nasty, insulting, hugely over-generalizing. Not necessarily never accurate, but certainly not accurate as descriptions of an entire large genre”
*
This doesn’t seem to have been addressed by any of the subsequent commentators and I wonder why? Because it’s this aspect of the ‘LLF are right’ group’s argument which gives me pause.
*
I do think that the LLF have a distinct point, albeit they went about it in a way one might term ‘hamfisted’, but it also feels (to me) that it’s women in particular whose contribution specifically to gay male literature is not wanted.
*
I also wonder, for all their (LLF’s)words about sexuality being fluid, how it would play out if (for example) a bisexual author currently in a relationghip with someone of the opposite sex won, or an asexual author (asexuals being the invisible A). Some commentors in the various discussions are of the opinion everything in the garden would be rosy, but I’m concerned that there would be a wankstorm which would make this one look like a wankstorm in a teacup.
But Lexin, the truth is there ARE some works that fetishise gay men and their sexual acts – we all know they’re out there – the ones where the men are cartoonish stock characters who indulge in over the top and quite frankly, ludicrous sexual situations in which barely little plot and even less reality connects them. And I’m not going to lie here – some of these books are done by gay men. It is unfair that the worst ones written by women get singled out – but lets face it, they get singled out more merely because of the sheer number of them – more women are writing than men in this genre, therefore they are more ‘visible’. See, it comes back to the whole visibility thing again.
I can’t speak on behalf of anyone else, but I don’t give a fig if the person is bisexual but in a relationship with the same sex – it is all about self-identification. Virginia Woolf wrote eloquently about loving women, yet she was married to her husband and madly in love with him for decades – that doesn’t discount what she wrote a bit.
And once again, it is not about ‘not wanting’ fiction by women – it’s about trying to return to the recognition of LGBTQ fiction by LGBTQ people themselves, who are becoming marginalised in their own genre. Can’t there be ONE space where they can recognise and celebrate their own without it being seen as OMG DISCRIMINATION?
As a two-time Lambda finalist, I have to say I’m really divided on this issue — which is why I’ve spoken (relatively) little on it.
*
It’s hard to argue with people Like Dean and Victor and so many others who were there at the barricades. I respect them more than I can say. It’s not my place to contradict them.
*
And personally and professionally it is my belief that the most qualified person — regardless of race, religion, gender, orientation — gets the job/award/cookie. This is the directive by which I’ve operated all my life — particularly back when I had a day job and made decisions that did indeed affect peoples pay, jobs, lives.
*
However, as much as I believe all this, I also believe that the Lamdas are not — not these days, anyway — simply awards given for literary merit. These awards do have a social and philosophical and politcal significance. Certainly within the GLBT community. What do they mean to the larger literary landscape? I don’t know. I don’t know that it matters.
*
If the current direction of the Lambdas mean that a writer like myself who openly uses a pen name, doesn’t use a photo, never discusses my personal or private life or sexual history with anyone but the closest of friends is out of the running then I’M OKAY WITH THAT.
*
Really.
*
I was honored — deeply honored — by both of my shortlistings, and I will continue to submit books and works to the Lambdas because politically and philosophically *my* belief is that it is no one’s fucking business who or what I am. Or who or what YOU are. But I also respect the Lambda committee’s position, and I feel they’ve got a right to give the award to whoever they like, whoever — by whatever criteria they choose to use — whichever book they feel is most deserving.
*
And if that sounds like a contradiction, well, life and people are complicated and these are complex issues.
*
I think the mission of “Advocacy, Celebration, and Education” is a lot more important than me. Than you. Than any of us as individuals.
*
It’s ironic that we’re all writing these stories about love and tolerance and acceptance, and there’s so much anger and self-righteousness and divisiveness in our small writing community. I’m sure this WON’T be the last word on the subject, but it’s certainly mine. This has been my personal philosophy for most of my life — and continues to be — and you can take the word “brothers” to mean whatever you want it to; I don’t believe MacLeish was leaving womankind out of the equation:
*
To see the earth as it truly is, small and blue in that eternal silence where it floats, is to see riders on the earth together, brothers on that bright loveliness in the eternal cold – brothers who know now they are truly brothers.
Archibald MacLeish
Sean wrote: “Can’t there be ONE space where they can recognise and celebrate their own without it being seen as OMG DISCRIMINATION?”
*
Of course there must be such a space and its natural place is the Lammies – and I think I said so but perhaps I wasn’t clear enough.
*
I do wonder, though, if the LLF’s failure to adequately quantify exactly what GLBT (they missed off the Q but allowed ‘fluid’) means will bite them in the arse either later this year or in some future year’s competition.
*
It appears to me that the lack of clarity is what I would call in my professional career advising people of that kind of thing “a hostage to fortune”. They are a risky business, and were LLF paying for my advice before going public on their rule change, I’d have suggested they hold it over until they’ve decided exactly what they mean by “the GLBT family”.
*
My concern stems from the experiences I’ve had – and I know others have had – that not all GL people are as accepting of BT people as one would hope, let alone accepting of the wider range of queer/questioning/intersex/asexual folk.
*
Justacat,
I don’t actually believe the LLF made the change for the purpose of blocking M/M Romance; my intention was to push the conversation along to the next step, to say, ’suppose they *did* intend to do that; is it all that unreasonable?’
.
Justacat quote: “I for one couldn’t actually tell you whether the authors of a purportedly “fetishizing” m/m romance I’m reading is a straight, bisexual, or lesbian woman … So does that mean the LLF thinks it’s okay for a queer woman (or of course a gay man) to fetishize gay men, but not for a straight woman to do so?”
.
Tricky question. We would normally ‘fetishize’ something which is considered exotic, foreign, outside ourselves, not something familiar and domestic, unless special purposes or rituals are attached to it. Consider the way a lot of white men regard Asian women. Can an Asian man brought up in an Asian community with 3 sisters and 4 aunts really ‘fetishize’ Asian women? Not in the same, often objectifying, way, at least.
.
I have to suggest that writing M/M romances may not be a genuinely helpful way of supporting the community, however good the intentions were. And I acknowledge that they usually are good — not always, but usually.
I apologize for bringing up yet another jarring racial metaphor, but the whole situation reminds me of minstrel shows. They also presented black men to the general audience in a way they could accept; and many of the performers were actually black men themselves. They still weren’t the voice of African Americans, but white people speaking through black ‘masks.’
.
I’m not expressing this well. The best and clearest explanation I’ve read of why queer literature written by queers is *different*, and why it’s important, came from the Dreamwidth post linked above. Here it is again:
http://kaigou.dreamwidth.org/314949.html?view=3324229
.
Batboy,
This is going further than I want to in this forum – and truthfully, further than I feel entirely competent and confident going in a web-based exchange with people I don’t know, especially off the top of my head, into issues like fetishization, the social psychology of minorities, etc. I wouldn’t mind discussing them more, but in a context in which I could explore and learn and accidentally say dumb things, because I don’t actually have the knowledge I’d need to speak authoritatively…
*
So just a few things. I do understand the distinction you’re making – insiders in a group have license to say things to each other that would not be acceptable from outsiders. I’m not going to attempt to get into the issue of whether a gay male author could “fetishize” gay men – I think in the sense we’re using the word it’s possible (see Sean’s comment above), but I guess I’m not that concerned about it either way.
*
The only thing I do want to address is the implication in your comment that women-written m/m romances are analogous in some way (not literally, I know) to minstrel shows as a genre. Is this what you’re suggesting? That women-written romance about gay men is by definition “fetishizing” (in the most negative sense possible)? That’s something I feel strongly is not the case – though I guess my debating it would require me to, after all, talk about what I think “fetishization” means to me.
*
I’ve done a bit of poking around about the meaning of fetishization and the use of the term, and I’m pretty sure that though it’s indisputable that I love reading m/m romance, I at least am someone who is much more guilty of “idealizing” gay relationships and sex than I am of fetishizing them. I can’t be alone in this. There can be many reasons that women might want to write or read stories involving romantic relationships between men. The blanket generalization that for every woman one of these reasons is that she “fetishizes” gay men is inaccurate and, like any generalization, harmful and alienating. It’s no more true than generalizations such as “all gay men are obsessed with sex.”
*
Which isn’t to say anything, really, about LLF, or the Lambdas, since LLF didn’t actually say anything about women writing m/m romance, or fetishizing. It’s more a response to the commentators on the issue who are making this sort of statement.
*
As for whether writing m/m fiction is a way of supporting the GLBT community… I think what was in my mind originally when I wrote this was that many *authors* of such fiction are supporters of the GLBT community, rather than that the books themselves constitute support. The books…well, I don’t know. It depends, perhaps; there’s such a wide range. I’ve seen some m/m romances, especially paranormals and mysteries, written by women on the readings lists of local gay book clubs, whereas others are, perhaps, at least a bit more akin to the minstrel shows, as you posit.
*
I guess one thing that can fairly be said is that many of them constitute entertainment and escape to at least some gay men, as well as to women! That’s not really the kind of support I was thinking about; still, it’s a good thing, and one thing for all of us to remember is that the LLF’s decision doesn’t affect at all any of our abilities to write or read anything we want, and to get enjoyment and pleasure out of it!
Justacat:
You’re quite right; this is getting well beyond the scope of the discussion. I probably shouldn’t have taken this direction in the first place.
I think the thing that most people seem to be missing or glossing over is that when Lambda previously didn’t exclude straight authors, and then suddenly they did, people’s feelings were justifiably hurt. Yes, I do believe that hurt is justifiable. Lambda didn’t just welcome these authors, they gave them awards. So to turn around as say, “You’re no longer welcome.” It’s going to sting.
*
Anytime a group that was once inclusive is suddenly exclusive, the newly minted “outsiders” are going to feel hurt, betrayed, and set aside. This is true for any group that kicks formerly welcome people out. Again Lambda made this welcome very clear when they gave people they knew weren’t “members” the awards they felt were only due members. I have no idea why they did this, but it was a massive mistake on their part. However, that’s the past; let’s fast forward to the present.
*
What made the situation far worse, and is evident in this post and articles this post has linked to, is that people defending Lambda or even taking them to task, still are not giving any validity to these hurt feelings.
*
You ever get an “I’m sorry, but…” apology? It never sounds sincere. The reason is that everything following the “but” is going to be excuses/reasons that the person hurt, has no right to feel that way. It completely tries to invalidate their feelings. But as we all know, that never makes those feelings go away. It only serves to anger the person further. Cause now not only do they have the initial slight, but now they feel as if their feelings mean nothing to the person “apologizing” because all they are being given is reasons they shouldn’t feel hurt in the first place.
*
In some cases, like that Dreamwidth article, there is no mention of the hurt feelings at all, much less admitting to their validity. In fact it goes far enough to advocate telling the “outsiders” to go somewhere else and also suggests taking away the awards previously given. Oh, and here’s this insight, “However, my disagreements with the wider LGBTIQ† community — of which I am a part — does not in any way validate a non-member’s disagreements. My complaints do not constitute giving you, the non-member, a right to use me as example or justification for your conclusions — ones which, I can pretty much guarantee, I won’t agree with. Why? Your premise will be faulty: you are not a member. Simple as that.”
*
Yes, simple as that. That blatantly states that what I may think or feel is of no merit because I’m an “outsider”. It’s no wonder this blew up to the massive kerfluffle that it turned into when people are touting that as a good representation of how they feel. And the fact that people seem blinded to the irony of the situation only fueled the hurt as well.
*
The sad thing is that I don’t disagree with a great many of these “reasons”. If Lambda had gone about this as “Hey, let’s make something new, just for gay or straight ally authors!” I don’t think anyone would have batted an eye. But to kick people out is something else entirley, no matter how noble or full of merit their reasons are. As long as “members” fail to acknowledge that the newly minted “outisders” have every right to feel what they feel, this rift will never fully heal.
Sharvie:
If you’ve read the entire Dreamwidth post and still think what’s missing is a proper apology for hurt feelings, I don’t know what to say to you.
.
Kaigou didn’t say your opinions were worthless. She said the views of outsiders have no weight when members of a community make decisions about their own identity, purpose, or way of presenting themselves. Do you really feel the need, for example, to apologize to men who disagree with the way you, and women in general, conduct yourselves? How seriously would you take the hurt feelings of men who were excluded from a women-only event, whether a feminist caucus or a gynecological health discussion? Would you give the excluded men a sincere apology for leaving them out?
.
Straight people comprise a large majority. In terms of literary awards, they will typically win about 90% of awards open to the general public; and 90% of awards granted to most other specific groups; and under current conditions, might well also receive 90% of the awards given for queer fiction. If the LLF decides that’s not acceptable, or is no longer acceptable, it leaves straight writers with access to 90% of *everything else except* the Lambda award. And this is seen as a hostile act?
.
As Sean said earlier, “Can’t there be ONE space where they can recognise and celebrate their own without it being seen as OMG DISCRIMINATION?” Apparently there can’t; at least, not without a lot of heartfelt apologies.
A lot of important things have been said in response to this essay and I am not sure I can think up something as profound as much of what has been said.
*
I wanted to applaud Jules and Kennedy for writing such a thought-provoking essay and doing it in a respectful way, that invites more conversation. The vitriol that can flare so quickly online is scary. It’s easy to be rude to someone you can’t see. (I worked part time as a switchboard operator for a while and I can vouch for that.)
*
It’s shocking to see how quickly fear can fuel anger; fear of being left out of an award contest, fear of losing something, even if you don’t know what it is. I don’t want to rehash the arguments but I would like to say that you have created a forum for reasoned arguments, rather than attacks; for exchange of ideas rather than name-calling, and where people can consider their reactions to this announcement from GLBT.
*
Ally Blue, you have my undying admiration for the honesty and vulnerability with which you revealed your thoughts.
*
Jules and Kennedy, you have demonstrated what courage is, the balls to stand up for what you believe in, even if people throw tomatoes at you; doing what you must to measure up to your standards of what kind of person you should be.
*
I agree with Josh Lanyon on the power of storytelling. There is a certain amount of voyeurism and titillation in writing about the sex lives of other people for sure, but in the end, writing stories where it is okay and normal for two men or two women to love each other DOES make a difference in the world. If only one kid who is unsure reads Two Steps Up (a stellar story by Sean Kennedy) and finds the courage to embrace himself, then you HAVE the changed the world for the better.
*
I’ll pass on an award in the name of recognition and encouragement for gay authors anyday.
OK, I was not going to post here about Lambda award, but the picture of Irshad Manji made me say something – she could be gay, but she is also a tool of USA imperialism and racism against Muslims, and she is supported by people who really are NOT friends to gay people (i.e. white racists)ONLY because she uses her background to smear Muslims, while knowning next to nothing about Islam and the ME and knowing no Arabic (I know it from such REAL scholar as Angry Arab (http://angryarab.blogspot.com )
But she is called “scholar” even though she got NO DPh and so on.
And no, I am not a Muslim, I am an Atheist,but I was a bit surprised to meet a well-known reactionary’s picture here as an illustration to the actricle about human rights.
Jeebus, I’m not going to even touch this one.
Batboy:
I think the only people who should apologize for Lambda’s decisions and their shotty implementation of those decisions, is Lambda.
*
It all comes down to one question. Does the end justify the means?
*
In the end, Lambda created a space where self identified LGBTQ…can celebrate their own. I think you’ll find that if Lambda had broached this issue and asked if everyone thought splitting the awards or creating a new space just for gays or straights (one or the other or both) would be a good idea, I think it would have been well received. I know I’d be on board. And then Lambda could have gone about the business of creating a new division of awards or splitting them. That’s not what happened.
*
The means in which they went about achieving their desired result was sloppy and near sighted. People that were previously welcome and awarded for their participation, were told to get lost and by the way don’t let the door hit you on the way out. Oh, and one last thing…be happy for us. And no, you have no right to feel upset about being no longer welcome where you once were.
*
Lambda invited these people in, gave them awards, and when they become inconvenient or too numerous, kicked them to the curb. “She said the views of outsiders have no weight when members of a community make decisions about their own identity, purpose, or way of presenting themselves.” That’d be true if those decisions didn’t affect anyone else outside of the community. This one did.
*
Lamdba’s decision took people who were once included and turned them into “outsiders”. These weren’t people always standing outside of the glass, looking in. These were people who were at one time sharing a table and then told they were no longer welcome. Lambda created this mess, and the new “outsiders” were caught in the crossfire. Many of whom would probably agree with the need to create a separate space where the community can celebrate their own. Though I think they would have preferred to not have been stepped on in the process and they have a right to that viewpoint.
*
Kaigou, and most people here, are talking about why the end result is important and/or valid. I actually agree with a lot of the points made, but what is missing is much discussion over the means and its consequences. That’s been all but swept under the rug. A few grumblings about how Lambda was sloppy and then it’s right back to why the end justifies the means.
*
It’s become clear that many people feel the end does justify the means. That it’s okay to push people aside, away, or down to get what they want. To tell them that they have no right to their feelings, and any thoughts they have on the issue will automatically be faulty due to their “otherness”. The irony of that alone is stunning.
*
So yeah, I guess we are at an impasse cause to me, the end doesn’t justify the means. It’s not okay to ignore and belittle people that have been rejected and then tell them they have no right to their hurt feelings. Lambda stepped in it, big time. But I can see why this turned ugly when people are excusing or glossing over their bad management because they liked the end result, damn the consequences and people’s feelings. No apologies were needed from anyone but Lambda but a little sympathy and support might have been nice.
*
This could have gone down so differently. It could have been a giant group effort to bring about the necessary changes in a way in which few felt slighted or excluded. Or it could have been a joint effort between gays and straights against Lambda’s shotty management. But what I’m sensing is that there is a lot more tension in the community between supporters and members than anyone had any idea about, including me.
But once again, that comes back down to “Hey, wait a minute! OUR feelings are hurt, so let us tell you what you should do!” When this started, there were few people coming from the side of those who felt that a ’safe space’ should be preserved – they were all people who were not of this specific minority feeling slighted and then turning the tables on them. This was why we wrote this article, because we felt, ironically, we were being silenced all over again. Yes, feelings were hurt, but allies would say, Okay, it’s NOT about us. I understand this time.
*
Looking at some of the comments that have been made by supposed ‘allies’ over the past week has, in my darkest moments, made me feel like certain people respect their fake gays more than real ones.
Hi everyone
I’m closing off the comments on this post because I think we all had enough time to make our views known. I respect every one’s right to their views in this and every instance, which is why I gave Jules and Sean equal time on the site to post their opinion on this matter.
**
Thanks everyone for your insightful comments and impassioned arguments, pro and con, and isn’t it great to live in a part of the world where opinions can be expressed freely and are not stifled?
**
I appreciate everyone who logged on to this post and, in particular, those who commented.