Bitchin' Blog Posts
Welcome to GLBT RWA Chapter, Rainbow Romance Writers
by SB Sarah | by SB Sarah | May 05, 2009 | Tuesday at 12:39 pm | 57 Comments
If you missed the great awesome news: RWA has a new chapter, the Rainbow Romance Writers, a GLBT Romance chapter. WOO HOO! How awesome is that? Mazel tov!
I first heard the news from RWA President Diane Pershing at the Princeton romance conference, though she asked at the time that the announcement not be made until the final details had been filed - so I didn’t mention it then. There was, however, applause and squeeing at the time. No comment on who exactly was squeeing.
So while I was waiting for the official word from RWA, which went out 1 May, I bothered Jade Buchanan, the president of the Rainbow Romance Writers, and asked if she’d answer some nosy questions.
Her reply cracked me up: “I’m a little long-winded I know ...which is slightly puzzling for someone who writes mainly novellas.” SNORT.
So behold: an interview!
(And can I tell you again at how damn excited I am that there’s a GLBT chapter in RWA now? HOLY SHIT that is awesome.)
In your stated goals, you write: “to be an advocate within the industry for our genre.” Can you expand on that? What specific topics immediately demand advocacy?
Jade: At the most basic level, we want to promote the authors who are writing GLBT romances on an even playing field. The world of e-publishing and small press publishing has been wonderful for a lot of our authors, while traditional mainstream presses have been closed to the majority of GLBT romances with a few exceptions. Running Press has a new experimental historical gay romance (non-erotic) line and there have been a handful of publishers who have either published GLBT romances for brand name authors or for authors who have GLBT characters in their existing series. A lot of our authors have also been refused reviews from large review bodies because of the GLBT content of their books. While we believe that every publisher and review site has the right to limit their books based on their target audience, we do want to be able to promote our authors and their books to the best of our ability.
We are also aware that as a chapter we represent all our member authors who write in the fields of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender romances. Some of these are more popular at the moment, but all four categories (as well as all types of cross-over stories) deserve to be discussed and will be treated equally by us as a chapter.
Do you plan to have a newsletter, e-newsletter, or conference? How about contests for published or unpublished writers?
Jade: We are currently hard at work on our first electronic newsletter, which will include craft articles and publishing news as well as interviews with our current members. Weíve discussed having a conference at some length and have also discussed the possibility of published and unpublished contests. I deal a lot with management systems in my day job and I believe that a slow and steady approach is best for an organization to sustain itself in the long run. A GLBT romance contest is something we want to have, maybe in the next year or two, but we are not ready for it yet. The same goes for a conference. Hopefully in the future!
So far, no courses are listed on your website, but you’ve already created a space for them. If you were to offer online courses to your members, what topics do you think would be most important, or most appreciated? Who will you tap to teach them?
Jade: Two of the courses we have planned are on marketing and plotting. We also had a recent request for a class on writing short stories, which weíll consider. Weíre very lucky to have an amazing talent pool among our current members so we will initially tap interested members to teach courses and then branch out if needed. Weíll also consider virtually anything that our member authors would like to learn about, if itís feasible and if enough individuals are interested.
What issues or challenges face GLBT romance writers which most romance readers or the rest of the romance community might not know about?
Jade: I think one of the biggest misconceptions about our group is that our authors only write gay romances. We actually have quite a number of individuals that write lesbian and bisexual romances and we also represent authors who focus on transgender romances, including those with either transvestites or transsexual characters.
Our current members come from all areas of the industry, both published and pre-published authors, as well as agents, editors, publishers and other industry professionals. Because we are so diverse, our members have all had quite different experiences within the romance community. One thing we almost all have in common is the need for a place to discuss our careers and our writing goals within an open and accepting environment. While some of our writers have had positive experiences at local or other special interest chapters when we reveal our GLBT focus, there are a lot of our members that have had very negative experiences. Some of our members have been ostracized from other chapters and a lot of members have had to deal with stereotypes and negativity. We’re dedicated to providing all our members with a comfortable place to gather and discuss issues!
Would you personally - not speaking as president but as an author if that is a more appropriate perspective - want a GLBT category in the RITAs as part of RWAs annual recognition of romance novels? Or do you prefer that the sex/gender of the protagonists is not specified, and ultimately may include GLBT protagonists?
Jade: Speaking personally, and not as a RRW representative, I would prefer that GLBT titles not be considered as a separate category, but rather be welcomed within whatever category the book fits. It’s always been my belief that a great story is a great story because of the plotting, characterization, world-building, etc. and not the gender or sex of the protagonists. One of the reasons we decided to form this chapter was to give a voice to our genre and hopefully show that we represent a number of very talented individuals that are no different than any other group of romance writers out there. At the end of the day, we all write about love!
Thanks to Jade for her time, and congratulations to the new chapter. For more information about the chapter or to inquire about membership, visit them online at RainbowRomanceWriters.com.
Filed: General Bitching, Interviews & Smart Responses, The Link-O-Lator
Tagged: writing, rwa, romance, princeton, lesbian, glbt, gay romance, epublishing, authors
Cat Marsters said on 05.05.09 at 01:48 PM • [link]
Fantastic news, and another step in the right direction from the RWA. But I’m wondering about the title of the chapter, and I remember the difficulties faced by the RWA’s erotic chapter when it formed a few years ago. Part of the deal was that the word ‘erotic’ shouldn’t appear in the title, which is why it was named Passionate Ink. Has the same thing happened here? Are we allowed to include gay romance so long as we don’t have to use the G word?
CourtneyLee said on 05.05.09 at 03:22 PM • [link]
As a junkie for GLBT romance and a sometime writer of it, I was thrilled to red about this on the Fiction With Friction blog a few days ago. I have several friends in a local RWA chapter and they’ve never quite gotten that the MF pairing is not the only combination that can produce a worthy lovestory.
MeggieMacGroovie said on 05.05.09 at 04:11 PM • [link]
Equality=Sexy
I hope this chapter has a ton of success!
*would66 (Depends. What’s a 66?)
Leslie H said on 05.05.09 at 04:20 PM • [link]
Congrats to RWA and to the new Chapter!
Rock on Y’all!
Sarah Frantz said on 05.05.09 at 04:43 PM • [link]
@Cat Masters, I think it’s more an issue that “G” doesn’t cover it all. And GLBT is unwieldy. And do you add the Q or not? What order to you put the letters in. I was NOT involved in choosing the name, I hasten to add, but I think “Rainbow” covers more ground.
Darlene Marshall said on 05.05.09 at 05:21 PM • [link]
Exciting news! Congratulations to all who are involved!
Mary K Chelton said on 05.05.09 at 05:28 PM • [link]
It is about time!
Monica Burns said on 05.05.09 at 05:36 PM • [link]
My congratulations and warm welcome into the RWA fold to Jade and the other members of RWA’s newest special interest chapter. As a member of Passionate Ink, I know the hard work involved in getting a new chapter started. Kudos to RWA for being open-minded and accepting of this new chapter and its goals.
Louisa Edwards said on 05.05.09 at 06:08 PM • [link]
Great interview! I really think RWA has a lot to offer pubbed and pre-pubbed authors of GLBT romance, so I’m thrilled we’re all coming together in such a positive way. And Jade, I loved your answer about the inclusion of a GLBT category in the Ritas. Love is love is love, no segregation into a separate category required!
kirsten saell said on 05.05.09 at 06:21 PM • [link]
I admit, when I looked at your bookshelf I jumped to that conclusion myself, because the L and femaleB parts of LGBT often have little or no presence in many online venues for discussion, review and even publishing, despite the use of the LGBT banner.
The discussion over my initial assumption got quite rancorous, because yes, it was a hasty judment based on a first glance at your site. But I have spoken to a number of others (mostly readers) who jumped to the same conclusion, because the general invisibility of f/f(/m) is something that’s fairly pervasive in the online romance community. Many readers and writers of L and fB have come to expect that LGBT doesn’t necessarily mean them. That isn’t RRW’s fault, but there are things you can do to dispell the misconception that RRW is one of those venues.
I’d really like to see an immediately visible presence of your f/f(/m) members—that doesn’t mean you should promo their books if there aren’t any, or over and above m/m books, but slash-tags next to the names on the members list would have been an instant and visible way to refute the misconception.
It would also make it so people like me, who actively seek f/f and f/f/m books and authors, wouldn’t have to visit every author’s website and sift through their booklists for something we’ve come to expect might not be there.
It would be a visible reassurance that yes, they’re there, and yes, they’re represented.
Me too! I read romance across the board, and it would be absolutely fantastic if RWA moved toward embracing love and sexuality in all its forms. I hope RRW can be an equal and effective advocate for all permutations of LGBT. I wish you the best of luck. :)
Karmyn said on 05.05.09 at 07:10 PM • [link]
While I am not a reader of m/m romances, I would be open to f/f romances. I think this new group is good for the RWA. Romance readers are a diverse group and deserve to be represented,
ttthomas said on 05.05.09 at 07:16 PM • [link]
As a charter member of the Rainbow Romance Writers who is about 95% finished with an historical f/f romance, I’d have to say that I really would not want a slash tag next to my name in order to offset a misconception. I hear what you’re saying, but I, for one, do not want to be, essentially, “sub-tagged” as anything. I’m in the Rainbow Romance Writers chapter of the Romance Writers of America. That, really, ought to be enough said. I think the day that we have to put slash tags next to our names to offset anyone’s misconception that Rainbow Romance Writers chapter is not inclusive is the day we might need to embiggen the font on our website that speaks to our goals. The first goal noted says that it is a goal “to promote excellence in gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender romances.” That’s enough for me.
AgTigress said on 05.05.09 at 07:27 PM • [link]
This is an interesting and admirable development. Congratulations to the RWA, and good wishes to all the writers involved.
Betsy said on 05.05.09 at 07:36 PM • [link]
Yessss! SO happy there’s an LGBT chapter now. Hallelujah.
kirsten saell said on 05.05.09 at 07:44 PM • [link]
Maybe more f/f(/m) graphics on the site, then? At the moment, the graphics on the homepage are male (or m/m if you include the ad), all the books on the bookshelf are either m/m or trans, and the only f/f graphic is on the resource page (and it’s not even overtly lesbian—it could easily be a picture of two BFFs, lol). I’m just looking for something to counter a general lack of visibilty and difficulty finding f/f(/m) that sometimes happens elsewhere online, from publisher’s sites to review venues.
I’ve been sites flying the LGBT banner, where they’ve even had mission statements that were inclusive of all permutations of LGBT, but L/fB/T content constituted less than 1% of the material there. So it’s a misconception that’s based in part by the experience of readers and authors who’ve encountered it elsewhere.
Plus, for authors like you who don’t want to be limited, they could simply put “all subgenres” rather than a slashtag.
Sage Othomas said on 05.05.09 at 08:13 PM • [link]
Jade—you are far from long winded!!!
All I can say is it’s about time! In this day and age—we needed this. The energy within this newly founded group is beyond amazing… I believe with all my heart that RRW will truly be a success and set the standard for how diveristy and openmindedness can indeed, combine harmonilosly with disimular people working for the greater good—love is love, no matter how you make it!
Claudia said on 05.05.09 at 08:19 PM • [link]
This ought to make for some interesting RWR letters in the next few months. If I renew RWA, I’ll join RRW just to support them.
LDH said on 05.05.09 at 08:48 PM • [link]
YAY!!!!
I fall a little bit more in love with the romance genre every day.
Jessa Slade said on 05.05.09 at 08:51 PM • [link]
And Sexy=Sexy. Flavor it as you will. How nice to see everyone finding their place at the table.
Diana Peterfreund said on 05.05.09 at 09:04 PM • [link]
First of all, ttthomas, I love that you use “embiggen.” Such a cromulent word!
Kirsten, I find this such a strange request. I have to admit, this is the first time I’ve ever seen an RWA chapter’s website so harshly criticized. I don’t assume that because the Hearts Through History website has two crossed swords and a Celtic love knot on their homepage, that they would be opposed to members who write Westerns. (What? no cowboy hats? I’m outta here!) :-)
I’m so happy to see this chapter take form, and I’m excited to see where it goes.
Jade Buchanan said on 05.05.09 at 09:12 PM • [link]
Thanks for your support and the lovely interview, Sarah! I had fun answering your questions :)
I appreciate the lovely words of support from all of the comments, thank you!! Rainbow Romance Writers is definitely still in the beginning stages as a chapter and we certainly appreciate hearing suggestions for improvement. We have a lot of different things planned, and we will be unveiling them in the near future now that we’re officially part of RWA.
A lot of work went into starting this up, and I’m very thankful to Sara Bell, Kimberly Gardner, JL Langley, Jet Mykles and Laura Baumbach for helping me get through the past few months. We also have a wonderful group of members that I can’t wait to get to know better :)
kirsten saell said on 05.05.09 at 09:33 PM • [link]
Well, if you’d ever gone looking for reviews for f/f or f/f/m romance, and found an LGBT review site with a mission statement almost exactly word for word what RRW’s is, and then discovered that f/f(/m) and trans reviews comprised less than one percent of their content, you might not find it so strange.
That’s not RRW’s fault, or even necessarily the fault of the review site in question (because they can’t really force their reviewers to read books they don’t want to, and to be honest, I wouldn’t want my f/f or f/f/m romance reviewed by someone who didn’t enjoy those kinds of books). But it can leave you with an impression that “LGBT” isn’t always going to indicate, in practical terms, the full diversity inherent in the tag.
I’m not really trying to be critical (because, as I’ve said, it’s not their fault that the LGBT tag doesn’t always reflect equal representation—willingness, sure, but it still might not be there, for whatever reason), just making suggestions for how they can more effectively dispell, on first viewing of their site, a misconception they admit already exists.
Ally Blue said on 05.05.09 at 09:42 PM • [link]
Wonderful interview, Sarah and Jade! I am proud to be a charter member of the new chapter. Our group is one of the most diverse, interesting and supportive you’ll find anywhere. This has been a long time coming and I’m just tickled to death to see it finallly happening, and to see all the love and support from the romance community :D
Iron Lesbian #2 said on 05.05.09 at 10:31 PM • [link]
I volunteer to review. MMMMMMM, lesbians. Romance novels that reflect my reality more fully, won’t that be lovely.
kirsten saell said on 05.05.09 at 10:57 PM • [link]
Caution, brief thread hijack ahead:
@Iron Lesbian:
You could always write a guest review for Loving Venus- Loving Mars. We’re still really small, and we don’t only review lesbian romance, but welcome f/f in all permutations, and we’re catering to a female readership that crosses the Kinsey Scale.
Email me if you’re interested. :)
/thread hijack
Diana Peterfreund said on 05.05.09 at 10:58 PM • [link]
I’d posit that the needs of reviewers/readers are vastly different than the needs of writers who might benefit from the chapter’s existence/programs/etc. If I were going to judge the quality of my first RWA chapter by their cheesy graphic designs (flamingos kissing?) I’d be in real trouble! And yet they taught me everything I needed to know to get published.
I saw nothing on the site that indicated that a writer of lesbian romance would be unwelcome. If anything, quite the opposite, as I’ve been writing a lesbian romance into my latest WIP and was toying with the idea of joining myself.
Jo Leigh said on 05.05.09 at 11:03 PM • [link]
Wonderful news! I’ll go check out the website, can’t wait to see how this chapter grows.
ttthomas said on 05.05.09 at 11:27 PM • [link]
Why yes, yes it is—-thank you for noticing. I can’t, in good conscience, take credit, though, as I am a sub-species, as it were, of Crombec, although a warbler of words more than song. Some have suggested I can be a Cormullion, but I’m sure we both know how utterly yesterday that trope is. Still, if I absolutely had to put a sub-genre slash status on it, I’d probably be fine with c/c. ;-)
ttthomas said on 05.05.09 at 11:27 PM • [link]
Why yes, yes it is—-thank you for noticing. I can’t, in good conscience, take credit, though, as I am a sub-species, as it were, of Crombec, although a warbler of words more than song. Some have suggested I can be a Cormullion, but I’m sure we both know how utterly yesterday that trope is. Still, if I absolutely had to put a sub-genre slash status on it, I’d probably be fine with c/c. ;-)
ttthomas said on 05.05.09 at 11:32 PM • [link]
Though it may bear repeating, I swear I didn’t say it twice. Btw, yes, thank you to the Smart Bitches for the coverage. It really means a lot.
kirsten saell said on 05.05.09 at 11:35 PM • [link]
I’ll grant you that.
But I don’t see how more visible diversity on the site would hurt anyone, either, or that it would be difficult to do. I’m sure f/f writers wouldn’t have complained if there were a second graphic on the homepage of, say, a woman wearing a rainbow t-shirt or something.
Why shouldn’t the design of the site accurately reflect the diversity of its members? Sure, not every site does—or has to, for that matter—but I can’t imagine there’s one good reason why they shouldn’t do it.
~Speaking as a reader and author who reads across the LGBT genre, and who writes romance from one end of the Kinsey Scale to the other.
stacia said on 05.05.09 at 11:49 PM • [link]
Speaking as a reader and writer of lesbian romances, I have to say that I would argue very strongly against seeing a “f/f” tag next to my name. I would much prefer “lesbian romance.” I don’t write “these parts/those parts,” I write about women who identify as lesbian, and the “f/f” tag strips that essential aspect of the work. Also, as someone pointed out to me in another online discussion, a reader who doesn’t necessarily want a lesbian romance/erotic romance but who is looking for a sexual/romantic experience between bi-curious women could be misled by the “f/f” tag.
kirsten saell said on 05.05.09 at 11:59 PM • [link]
That’s certainly true, Stacia.
So the slash-tags won’t work. Would you object to “lesbian romance” being next to your name on the members’ list? Because yes, f/f and lesbian are not synonymous at all. Maybe it was an imperfect idea—although it would have made it easier for me to find authors who write what I like, for sure.
As far as site design goes, though, I mean, kissing flamingoes aside, you want your website to evenly reflect its purpose. I just feel that online, at least, f/f in all its permutations is very low key, sometimes virtually invisible, and it couldn’t hurt drawing more positive attention to it. There’s no real reason not to do it, is there?
I mean, they don’t have to, I guess. But it would be nice. *shrugs*
stacia said on 05.06.09 at 12:47 AM • [link]
@kirsten: I’ve been thinking about it, and I think the easiest solution might be to list the appropriate letter after the author name. Instead of m/m and f/f, perhaps something like: authorname (G), authorname (B f/f), authorname (B m/m/f), or authorname (L). Perhaps combining the two would give a better indication of what the content is.
I’m not entirely sure that such labeling is necessary. As someone said upthread, this is already a special interest chapter, and I’m not certain that I feel the need to break it down by subgenre. This might be something for the RRW members to discuss.
AgTigress said on 05.06.09 at 01:23 AM • [link]
I don’t quite understand the desire to provide precise labels.
If one is classifying erotica/pornography, books that are written chiefly to titillate, then I suppose the kind of sexual conjugations featured are important to readers, but if we are discussing romance (which I thought we were), then who cares? If a story is about human emotional relationships, about love, then I can’t see why it matters whether it is about a man and a woman, two men, two women or (up to a point) more than two. As a heterosexual woman, I am very happy to read a good story about a lesbian love affair, or a male homosexual one. Just as I am happy to read good stories about relationships between people of different races, colours, traditions and cultures than my own. Americans, for instance.
Maybe I have missed the point somehow. I am sure someone will enlighten me. Perhaps this is only about ‘erotica’ after all?
CourtneyLee said on 05.06.09 at 01:31 AM • [link]
RRW is still new and as such, their website probably isn’t in its absolute final form. It wouldn’t surprise me if, over time, their graphics change and mature along with them. Just because they don’t have a ton of lesbian/FF graphics right now doesn’t mean they never will, IMO.
kirsten saell said on 05.06.09 at 02:51 AM • [link]
Well, it shouldn’t be necessary, and I don’t think it would be necessary if there had been an f/f or bi-female book cover—or more (or more sensual) f/f graphics if there were no f/f books to promote. I mean, I know there is at least one trans romance author at RRW—because there’s a trans romance on the bookshelf page.
I’m not so much concerned with whether they are open to representing authors of f/f romance—I know they are. But at the same time, I did have three people tell me: “I think it’s mostly an m/m thing,” or “looks like it’s all m/m romance, so I didn’t think you’d be interested,” or “do they even have any f/f authors there? I can’t tell.”
I know f/f is very successful in the print world, but the RRW website is an online venue, and online, f/f (whatever form it is) is already kind of a no-show in a lot of discussion forums, review venues and publishers. RRW may find that to help f/f authors maintain online visibility, they’ll have to compensate a bit for its lack of presence elsewhere. At the very least, they’ll have to understand that when readers and authors who are very active online don’t see f/f, even under the LGBT banner, they’ll often assume it isn’t there.
If tags are objectionable or unworkable (you and tthomas seem to have different views about why you don’t like them, so I think maybe they aren’t the answer), there are other ways to let visitors know who writes what. The members’ list could be embellished with a brief, author-penned bio and description of what they write, such as:
Amy Greatauthor—Amy, who lives in suburban Wisconsin with her partner and their two kids, writes lesbian romantic suspense set in Post World War II America, as well as contemporary lesbian fiction.
John Manlove—John, who lives in Chicago with his partner Chad, his dog Boomer and a stray cat who won’t go away, writes Science Fiction romance and erotica exploring gay themes.
Ginger Bicurious—Ginger lives a swinging lifestyle of PTA meetings and soccer practices, and in her spare time writes bi-female themed historical erotica and erotic romance.
Actually, I really like that idea, because it tells you a little about the members as well as their genres without having to click to their sites—kind of like author bios on publisher websites.
And as I said before, it’s not like they have to do any of this—just that it would be nice, and it would help dispell the misconception Jade mentioned that RRW is m/m-focused.
kirsten saell said on 05.06.09 at 03:19 AM • [link]
It does matter to many people. There are plenty of readers who will gobble up m/m and het, and not even consider f/f—and vice versa. But more often, people will read most anything, but will find some pairings (or multiples) appeal to them more than others. And that doesn’t even necessarily have a huge amount to do with the sex, really.
I’m with you. I read and write pretty much across the board, but my experience of a gay romance is entirely different from my experience of a lesbian one. The relationship dynamics are different and the characterization is often very different. It’s not just a matter of writing romances with two penises, or two vaginas—it goes beyond that, and part of that is the relationship outside the sex.
There are even subtle but distinct differences in how the relationship dynamics work in a lesbian romance and an f/f romance with two characters who identify as bi. Not everyone who would enjoy a lesbian romance will enjoy a bi-female f/f, because the dynamics of the relationship might not resonate with them. And women who are not lesbians may not enjoy lesbian romance, because they don’t necessarily identify with lesbian relationship dynamics or lesbian issues.
If there weren’t those differences in interest and experience, you wouldn’t find so many authors who only work within one subgenre (whether that’s het or otherwise).
I confess, titillation, both sexual and emotional, is one of the things I read for—-and I can get that from pretty much anything, from het to LGBT. But I have a specific soft spot for f/f/m menage, because I’m bisexual, and because I love the fantasy of being able to straddle the fence and keep one foot in each field (which seems to work better in fiction than in small town reality, heh). That’s partly about sex, sure, but it’s also about the emotional aspects of relationships that most resonate with me, and they’re often very different depending on whether I’m with a man or a woman. It’s not so much about the body parts, but how the characters relate to one another—which is why when f/f/m works for me, boy howdy, does it work. And when it doesn’t, it’s just ick.
So though I can read and enjoy just about anything, I will actively seek out f/f/m and bi-themed f/f, because I find the relationships as well as the sex appealing.
JulieLeto said on 05.06.09 at 04:40 AM • [link]
Hey! I like our kissing flamingos! It says FLORIDA. (Nevermind that the birds aren’t native…they actually do live in the wild here…escaped from Busch Gardens, no doubt, but I’ve seen them in the wild!)
Their necks are in the shape of a heart. Very cute and romantic.
Besides, the Miami chapter already took the heart-shaped palm trees. We didn’t have a choice.
:-)
Adriana Kraft said on 05.06.09 at 04:49 AM • [link]
Great job Jade, I’m thrilled we finally have a voice within RWA for all the rainbow genres and I’m proud to be one of the new chapter members. As an author of chiefly bisexual heroines (what does that make me: f/f/m? Bi? Queer? Poly?) I’ve already felt a welcome in the chapter and applaud the inclusiveness of the chapter goals. I do think brief bios that give a glimpse of author genres will help readers find what they’re looking for. Love=love=love, but as readers and authors we all respond differently to different combinations, and it helps to know where to find what we like best.
kirsten saell said on 05.06.09 at 04:55 AM • [link]
@Adriana:
Hi! Fancy seeing you here, since my blogging buddy is reading one of your books right now, and she can’t say enough good things about it. I think I’ll have to get it myself. :)
Stephani Hecht said on 05.06.09 at 05:11 AM • [link]
I am very excited about this new special interest chapter and so proud to be a member. I have watched all the hard work the board has put into getting us recognized and I can’t thank them enough.
SonomaLass said on 05.06.09 at 07:12 AM • [link]
FWIW, I agree that lesbian romance is a lot less visible on line than gay romance. There’s been a lot of talk lately about all the straight women reading m/m, and how that market is poised to grow (ahem) and all that jazz. Which is great, but I agree that anything this new chapter can do to show that they are really inclusive is worth doing.
Obviously it’s up to them how they would want to do that. I have no doubt that they want to be inclusive, and of course (as kirsten saell points out) the perception that in romance LGBT actually means m/m (or m/m/f) is in no way their fault. But just because you aren’t the cause of the problem doesn’t mean you can’t be part of the solution.
I’m thrilled to see this chapter form, and interested to watch it develop and affect the larger RWA community.
kirsten saell said on 05.06.09 at 07:48 AM • [link]
Just wanted to note that there are plenty of straight women who enjoy reading f/f—just like there are quite a few lesbians who are avid readers of m/m.
The idea that the erotic material that women like to read is connected to their sexual orientation ought to be exposed more often for the misconception it is. (Not that you were saying that, SonomaLass—just that it’s something that gets said a lot.)
:)
AgTigress said on 05.06.09 at 10:43 AM • [link]
Kirsten, thank you for your very helpful reply to my points.
I understand well that the structure and dynamics of a lesbian relationship and those of a male gay one will be different from one another, and also different from a heterosexual one. Believe me, someone of my age has seen enough relationships, gay and straight, evolve, and sometimes collapse, during her lifetime! But to me, this is a plus. The fact that real pair-bonds (I’m leaving out the trios and quartets for a moment, since I know far less about those) occur in different ways is one of the things that makes the whole subject so intriguing, and one of the reasons why I think that it should be normal for a reader to be interested in relationships of a kind that she herself has no firsthand experience of. (Sorry for that tortured syntax - I am writing in a hurry).
My reference to cross-cultural elements in reading romance were, quite seriously, part of the same thing. I cannot empathise with readers who wish only to read about people just like themselves - same culture, generation, race, sexuality. Where’s the fun in that? Yes, I should be perfectly willing to read a story about a white, middle-class, mostly heterosexual British woman born in the 1940s, but really, I already know an awful lot about people like me. I am more interested in learning about people from other backgrounds, and with other attitudes towards life.
Trix said on 05.06.09 at 12:37 PM • [link]
That’s true as far as it goes - hey, I read straight romances. But I much prefer to read about people I have something in common with, and one of the most significant things is a shared subculture, such as being queer. So, I love the JD Robb books, where it’s kind SF, it’s urban, it’s suspense, all that stuff. I enjoy Eve and Roarke’s relationship, because Eve is not a girlie-girl, and yet she’s hot.
Reading about the Millionaire’s Virgin Bride in the Suburbs with Secret Baby Cousin is something I wouldn’t do in a million years. So yeah, while it’s not that great if a label turns into a ghetto, there are benefits to “tagging” the appropriate information and having places to go check out certain subgenres.
As for the author above saying she’d prefer her work isn’t categorised as f/f because it’s exclusively about lesbian relationships, as a lesbian, I would rather find the specific information in the cover blurb, rather than categorising too narrowly. Do we then have categories for butch/femme lesbians, lesbians who have dogs, etc? Yes, I know that’s reductio ad absurdum, but really, the f/f relationship is about two women. For me, that’s the important part. Yes, I’d want to be able to read the blurb and see whether the women are lesbian, bi, or don’t know yet. For me, that information won’t actually make a difference whether or not I read, but I think it’s useful for those who it would, and it’s nice to have context.
The reason I don’t want people to get too reductionist in their labelling is that most of my partners have been bisexual women - are we assuming that lesbians only have relationships with other lesbian women? When do we get to read about the bi/lesbian/whatever dynamic if the categories are too narrow?
Deidre Knight said on 05.06.09 at 05:25 PM • [link]
Great discussion and awesome interview. As to the inclusiveness of the RRW website graphics, keep in mind a few things:
1. This is a brand new chapter that’s only gone live in the past week, and it’s been a huge rollercoaster of work for those involved.
2. There are lesbians who’ve joined this chapter and are thrilled to have a chapter where they’re at home, included, welcomed. That’s the real issue: is this chapter inclusive of the writers they’ve formed in hopes of serving. The site graphics can be amended to visually reflect that fact.
3. To not forget that the formation of this chapter, and the approval of it by RWA, is a groundbreaking moment. THAT is a victory that should not be overlooked.
Thanks! Just my three cents. Deidre
Deidre Knight said on 05.06.09 at 05:27 PM • [link]
Ugh. Totally brainfog moment. Just read above (why can’t I edit my post?) On point two, I was attempting to say:
The real issue is whether or not the chapter is inclusive of the writers themselves, whether GLBT, and as a member, I can say that it is. The site graphics can be amended to visually reflect that fact. :) Thanks!
MB (Leah) said on 05.06.09 at 05:36 PM • [link]
I would rather find the specific information in the cover blurb, rather than categorising too narrowly.
Trix I agree that specific labeling can be a slippery slope for authors and pigeon hole them and I wouldn’t want that either.
However, the blurb idea is not useful at all to me. That is like if you go to a book store and there’s a whole wall of books in the GLBT section, based on the current, true situation in the online offerings under GLBT, you’d have to pull out hundreds of books to find that one or two f/f or lesbian books on the wall. What a major waste of time.
That’s just the way it is. I understand Kirsten’s frustration because it’s mine also. I read and like all of it: mf/, m/m, and f/f. I actively seek out f/f but the truth is, on so many ebub sites and other general GLBT promo or review sites, finding that lone f/f in the massive m/m haystack is a PITA because they all get lumped together under GLBT.
It’s another truth that m/m is just way more popular than f/f. I get that. But there are many readers who do like f/f and it’s very hard to find. And I’m not talking about print, because lesbian in print is very easy to find. I’m talking about readers and writers of ebooks who are the main force behind GLBT gaining in popularity and getting recognized.
I was sent a link to the website of this new chapter before it became public. I looked at it and the “books” section and of course, mostly m/m. So frankly, I blew this site off as one more that I won’t to go to find what I want in GLBT.
As far as m/m goes, I’m inundated with m/m. It’s so easy to find and it’s all over the place. I have many favorite authors of m/m, very excellent authors whom I love to read, so I don’t complain about that. But as a full on GLBT site, I would like to be able to go there and easily find at the very least, the L part of that.
And I need to make it clear that I’m not criticizing this new chapter of RWA. It’s a huge accomplishment for GLBT authors to get recognition and support. A big step forward. I agree that it’s in it baby stages and given the fact that m/m authors are more predominant under the GLBT umbrella, and that they have a huge voice, it’s no surprise really that on their “books” page there’s be a plethora of m/m represented.
And it is a paid membership organization so they can’t force authors of lesbian or f/f bisexually oriented stories to join. But as a reader who’s always looking out for authors of f/f of any orientation within that, I’m just so tired of the GLBT banner on any site or organization being mainly the voice of m/m and I can’t be bothered going there if I don’t see some representation of other books I like to read.
kirsten saell said on 05.06.09 at 05:47 PM • [link]
@AgTigress:
I really do appreciate your point, and on a personal level, I agree with everything you say. I can’t really relate to readers and authors who limit their fiction to one type of relationship only, because I also find the unfamiliarity of relationships that differ from my own RL experience intriguing. I don’t think they should write or read what they don’t want to, and I certainly don’t expect everyone to feel as I do, but I just don’t “get” that kind of perspective, really.
At the same time, speaking as a reader, the idea of slash-tags is attractive to me, because it helps me find the kind of story and relationship dynamic I want to read at a given time (and that’s constantly changing). And it really helps when I’m looking for those particular kinds of books I mentioned above, which are extremely hard to find in today’s ebook market, to which I’m limited in my purchasing at the moment. In that sense, it’s no different, really, than labeling something as science fiction romance or romantic suspense.
As a writer of ebooks, as the market stands now, they’re also a bit problematic to me—because not every reader is like me and you. Not every reader is willing to give m/m a try, but there are some who actively seek it. But often, women will refuse to pick up a book with even one f/f scene in it because they’re sure they won’t enjoy it, no matter what context it’s presented in.
Speaking as Kirsten Saell the ebook writer, if those tags simply went away, I’m relatively certain more readers would be willing to pick up one of my books. And I’ve had enough straight women tell me things like, “I was really leery about the f/f bits at first because I’ve never really tried any f/f, but they were damn hawt!” to know that often women assume because they aren’t lesbian or bi, they won’t be able to enjoy f/f. And while not every woman will, many do, even when they didn’t think in a million years they would.
And while I don’t think even those women will necessarily go on to seek out books specifically because they have f/f content in them, it would be nice if so many didn’t actively avoid them, and tags help them to do that.
@Trix:
I also get what you’re saying. I’ve been agonizing over whether I should market the book I’m writing as a lesbian romance, because though it’s between two women, they fall in love while one believes the other is a man. In that sense, it’s almost an m/f. And it’s not a trans romance, because the female hero doesn’t have gender identity issues—she lives as a man because that’s what she has to do to survive. In the sense that neither woman is lesbian—the “hero” is bi, and the heroine simply falls in love with a specific person she thinks at first is a man—it’s not a lesbian romance, either. I really find the concept of sexuality that shakes off traditional definitions attractive, and my books reflect that.
But categorizing it as such may help readers find it more easily than if it’s cast into the veritable ocean of man meat that is the general LGBT section. On the one hand, I don’t want to define it as more than f/f, because it’s not. It’s just a love story between two women. On the other hand, in a world where those tags exist, anything that will bring me readers isn’t something I can just discount.
And I can understand the reluctance of a lesbian writer to have her work labeled simply f/f—because so much popular f/f is the straight man’s fantasy (to which straight guys are entitled, really), and I can’t blame any woman writer from wanting to distance herself and her work from that. And frankly, a fair amount of f/f(/m) written by women comes off as very close to that fantasy. This may not be Stacia’s concern, but it is a concern.
M/M doesn’t have this problem. If, whenever you turned on the TV after 9 PM, you saw ads for Guys Gone Wild, there might be more of a push to draw a line between gay romance and m/m romance written to a female audience.
So while the whole notion of tags and defining relationships is problematic and kind of sad, I understand that as things stand now, we’re kind of stuck with them. If everyone felt the way I and AgTigress do, we wouldn’t need an LGBT chapter of the RWA, really, would we?
Diana Peterfreund said on 05.06.09 at 05:59 PM • [link]
I’m a member of several different special interest chapters. I’m not a member of this one (yet) but I don’t think I’d feel comfortable with the labelling, because I write in a wide variety of genres, and I’m not going to say—oh wait, this is the chick lit chapter, I’d best not mention I write YA fantasy, or this is the RRW chapter, best not mention I’ve got some straight stuff, too.
Most RWA chapters I’m a member of, the majority of members (as in RWA as a whole) are unpublished authors. They have no idea what they are going to end up writing when all’s said and done. I don’t think I’m even listed as a published author of my home chapter on their website (and I’m on the board).
Yep. Nope: http://www.wrwdc.com/index.php/authors/C22/P42/
I would like to point out that’s my own laziness for not sending in a bio. But that’s seriously how little it matters int eh grand scheme of things. It’s not my publisher not listing me as an author. It’s an RWA chapter. It’s there for writers, not for readers. If readers happen to stop by, great. Most readers don’t care whether or not an author is in an RWA chapter, or what chapter she’s in, or whether or not the graphics header on the RWA chapter’s website speaks to her or not. RWA chapter websites are not where 99.99999% of readers of romance (of any variety) find out about books.
As a writer of that kind of romance though, you can go—awesome, there’s a place where I can find out more info about my specific type of work. I’m just baffled by the reader-response criticism. That’s totally not the point of the chapter.
This entire discussion has rather derailed from the overwhelming awesomeness that there is now a chapter for those writing these types of stories.
Suze said on 05.06.09 at 06:26 PM • [link]
I’m getting the feeling that people are wanting a searchable database where they can click each of the permutations they’re interested in, and get a filtered list. So that they don’t have to go slogging through lists, and searching manually. (And hey, Smart Bitches, when you have time some day, how about arranging your reviews in alphabetical order by author, rather than just lumping all the A-C’s together in a clump, etc.? Just sayin.)
For example, Mangafox.com does this searchability function for their on-line manga (yes, I buy manga when I can, but so very much of it isn’t available in English or in North America. I promise, I do buy!). I can choose romance AND yaoi but NOT shota-con (which is squicky for me). I can filter out the smut if I’m in mixed company.
Would you be looking for a book database or a review database like that? A database of authors where you can select the sub-sub-genres they write in? Not that I know of any, mind you, but it seems to me that if that’s what you’re looking for, it’s not the same thing as an RWA chapter website.
And, speaking of which, WOOHOO Rainbow! Congratulations!
kirsten saell said on 05.06.09 at 06:38 PM • [link]
@Deidre
That’s certainly true, and I’m pretty sure f/f will become more visible on the site as they get the kinks worked out. At the very least, there will eventually be some f/f books on the bookshelf. That’s why I tried really hard to word my suggestions so that they wouldn’t come off as a criticism—they were meant to be helpful in dispelling the notion Jade mentioned that RRW is a chapter for m/m writers. They’re not responsible for that misconception, but it exists.
But I empathize with Leah, because the difficulties she often has in finding f/f (at publisher sites, review sites, online discussions) when it’s categorized as LGBT, are difficulties I’ve had as well. We’ve had many an email conversation about this, and though we’re not sure there’s much to be done about it, the situation as it stands now can be very frustrating.
In a world where some epublishers’ “gay and lesbian” or “LGBT” sections have scores upon scores of m/m titles and only a few (or no) f/f books in them, we’ve kind of come to expect that though “LGBT” may reflect a willingness to be inclusive, we still may not find what we’re looking for. And though RRW isn’t just for ebook authors, RRW’s website is an online venue and will attract a lot of ebook readers who are predisposed to judge them based on what they see on the site and their experience of other online venues.
Which is why the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of author bios on the members’ list. It would be a way to show not just that they’re happy to represent all the letters in LGBT, but that they already have members reflecting the full diversity of LGBT. It would allow authors to be as wide-open or as specific as they like in describing the books they write, from ones who write only lesbian romance, or only m/m, to those who write stories along the full spectrum of the Kinsey scale. And it would put a face to the name for people visiting the site, give a feel for who the author is as a person, which is always nice.
:)
kirsten saell said on 05.06.09 at 06:44 PM • [link]
Well, the launch of an historical romance chapter of the RWA probably isn’t going to be seen as such a big deal, both among writers and readers, either. RRW is a bit different in that respect, no? And Jade did mention there was a misconception she’d like to counter. We’re just suggesting ways she might go about dispelling that misconception.
As a writer of that kind of romance though, you can go—awesome, there’s a place where I can find out more info about my specific type of work.
Not if I don’t know there’s anyone already there writing the same thing as me.
kirsten saell said on 05.06.09 at 06:59 PM • [link]
@Diana Peterfreund again, because I hit submit too soon:
I’m lazy, too. If I were interested in joining RWA specifically so I could join RRW, I’d go to their site. I wouldn’t be interested in joining for the m/m I write, because I’m an ebook writer and m/m is already very successful in ebooks. I’d be joining specifically to interact with authors of f/f.
Based on the site, my first impression would be that they might not have any f/f writers as yet, no one writing the material I’d be joining for. This impression is largely due to experiences I’ve had as both a reader and writer online, which again, RRW are not responsible for. But at the same time I would almost certainly not go to the expense of joining until I knew there were other f/f writers. (Which I know now, but wouldn’t on a first glance at the site.)
At the very least, as an ebook writer, I’m aware that the general invisibility of f/f in the online market is one of the hurdles that face f/f authors, and I would hope RRW would be both aware of that, and vigorous in their efforts to counteract it. The first place they can do that is on their website.
The misconception that RRW is for m/m authors may exist through no fault of their own (or anyone, really), but there are things they can do to dispell it.
kirsten saell said on 05.06.09 at 07:11 PM • [link]
As someone who has a really hard time finding the kind of book I have a specific soft spot for, yeah, that would be nice. Thing is, though, that for readers of books that are already difficult to find, any means of locating them is welcome. As a reader I would certainly use the RRW site as a way to find authors, pubbed and soon to be pubbed of bi-female oriented romance. RRW is a special interest chapter that may get more reader traffic than most, simply because of their focus.
As an author who would only join because I write f/f, the diversity of membership, which is not overtly reflected in the site right now, might have a bearing on whether I’d go to the expense of joining or not.
Lee Rowan said on 05.09.09 at 08:17 AM • [link]
Since RWA award categories allow judges to bomb an entry out by labeling it ‘not romance’ and since many of the people who judge don’t even believe same-sex couples are capable of genuine romance… I think labeling m/m, f/f, or whatever permutation might, at some point, help to filter contest entries to judges who are not going to automatically disqualify them. Wouldn’t want to give someone paliptations by confronting her with something outside her preconceived notions!
My perspective is that the / denotes who the characters are, not that same/sex is necessarily going to be graphically erotic. A conventional m/f sweet romance is only different from an m/m sweet romance like Charlie Cochrane writes by the fact that her characters are both men—there’s no graphic sex in, for instance, Lessons in Love.
I’m not in RWA or any subgroup. I wouldn’t want to join an organization that rushes to rewrite its rules when the indy presses start nearing the finish line that qualifies them for “professional” status—I don’t have the patience to put up with that. But I do wish the RRW the best of luck with RWA and with sorting out the opposing preferences on the labeling/nonlabeling issue!
“parts99” Always about the parts. Sigh…
Mil said on 05.09.09 at 07:17 PM • [link]
@Lee Rowan: I entered an RWA chapter contest and received scores of 0 from one of the judges who wrote, under comments, that a romance was the story of a man and a woman, and that my story just plain didn’t fit. This was not an erotic work by any means, and I found the whole experience extremely frustrating.
Care to comment?
Comments are now closed for this post.
Subscribe to These Comments