There have been some pretty heated discussions going on lately at the Romantic Times Readers’ Roundtable Messageboard and at the AAR Potpourri Messageboard about Anne Stuart’s new book, Cold as Ice. Apparently, Stuart had the audacity to write about…oh, steel yourselves and be sure to have your hartshorn ready, ladies…a man who’s had them homosexual encounters.
The threads are huge, and I admit, time and my blood pressure aren’t allowing me to read through all of them. Some of the old standard canards have been brought up, from “OMG IT’LL RUIN ROMANCE BECAUSE IT’S VIOLATING THE ONE MAN/ONE WOMAN RULE!” to “OMG IT’LL RUIN ROMANCE BECAUSE HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMINATION!” Sigh.
The kerfuffling began with this report from LLB on the 2006 RWA conference included this snippet about Stuart’s upcoming book:
…the hero, a spy who slept with a man in Black Ice, has total control over his body, which allows him to have sex with men or women, whatever the job entails, without any emotional feelings whatsoever. At one point in the upcoming release, the hero informs the heroine that he kissed her to distract her in order to knock her out. When she asks what he would do if he needed to distract a man, he answers, “I would do the same thing.” Cold as Ice will be released in November. Given Harlequin’s sometimes old-fashioned reputation, I asked what the editors at MIRA thought about this. Stuart indicated hers loved it and that other editors who heard about it thought it was “cool.”
I noticed this bit of information when I first read the conference report last week, and it raised a brow, sure—but probably not for the usual reasons why anyone would raise their brow at the idea of a bisexual hero for a mainstream romance novel.
Why can’t a guy in a romance novel just enjoy cock because he enjoys cock, and not be a freak, emotionally cut-off to the point of pathology or a sociopathic villain who’s looking to shag anything that moves and a great deal that doesn’t? Not that Romancelandia is populated by the healthiest of heroes, but c’mon, now. A guy can like cock or cock AND pussy without being a sociopathic freak, you know. No, trust me, I know this, if you know what I mean, and I think you do..
I’m here to explode some myths about bisexuals. Hold on to your panties, people, because they are ground-shaking revelations of the first order.
1. Not all of them are polyamorous.
2. Not all of them are into group sex. Just because they’re omnivorous doesn’t mean they want all of it, all of the time.
3. Not all of them are indiscriminately slutty. Liking both sets of bits doesn’t mean they’re sex fiends, or that they don’t care who’s attached to those bits. That’s like saying omnivores don’t care about the quantity or quality of their food, simply because they enjoy both meat and vegetables.
4. Being bisexual doesn’t mean they’re wishy-washy or unable to make up their minds about what they want sexually. That’s like saying an omnivore is somebody who can’t make up their minds whether they like meat or vegetables, so they must be confused vegetarians or carnivores.
Furthermore, having a sexual encounter with the same sex doesn’t, in my opinion, immediately make somebody gay or bi. A lot depends on context of the encounters. Would a man who was raped by another man be considered gay, or bi? What about a man who had sex with other men strictly for the money? What about a man who was in a confined situation in which women were scarce for extended periods of time (as in jail or a ship)? What about a guy who was curious about what it would feel like to sleep with another man, but otherwise felt no real attraction to them?
And to flip this around: would a person who self-identifies as gay but married and slept with somebody of the opposite gender so the person could serve as a beard be considered bisexual?
People have this tendency to immediately go “AHHHH TEH GAY GERMS!” and label somebody bisexual or homosexual based on a few encounters, when to me, the true test boils down to: are you able to fall in love with a person of that gender? Does your interest immediately perk up when you see an attractive specimen? In short, are you attracted at a primal level to people of that gender? By that standard, I’m not sure that the hero of Cold as Ice is, as described, bisexual—he just happens to be willing to take on the cock for king and country.
But back to the debate. Of all the objections I’ve read, the one about “OMG IT VIOLATES THE MAN/WOMAN COVENANT OF ROMANCE” to be the most puzzling, because dude: it’s romance about a man and a woman. Just because it makes you go “EW, he touched peener in the past!” doesn’t make the hero any less monogamous or any less in love with the heroine by the end of the book.
And I won’t even begin to address all the “you can write it, but don’t call it romance—it’s actually EROTICA!” claims I keep stumbling over in the discussions. I’ve ranted plenty over that issue already.
Something else I keep stumbling over: people keep vigorously complaining about their right to be asshats without being called out on their asshattedness. “Stop judging the judgmental” etc. etc. etc. And true, people have their right to their opinions—but we also have a right to call you on your bigoted reactions. Look at it this way: if the hero to Stuart’s book, instead of shagging men in the past, had shagged black women in the past, and some people railed against the book in disgust, what would you think of those people? In that context, let’s look at some of the comments I’ve culled from various messages:
“…it [sic] warped , dysfuntional and abnormal …”
“I won’t be buying it because it’s too far outside my comfort zone.”
“Either way, it sounds gross”
“No thanks, I had trouble with this with Laurell K Hamilton and Anne Rice, but got past it because the men in question were not human.”
Mmmm-hmmmm.
I’m glad a mainstream romance author has a protagonist who’s had some homosexual encounters in his past, but I’m disappointed that Stuart, who’s pushed some interesting envelopes in the past, seems to be sticking with tradition in making those same-sex encounters traumatic.
lovelysalome said: this has been a fairly complex couple of days!
Yeah, I could use me some mindless mantitty cover snark right about now. Where’s Fabio when we need him?
😉
“If I try to introduce context and explanations, it’s because I believe it’s useful to see WHY people believe what they do as well as WHAT they believe.”
And, I think that’s pandering to bigots, and them giving them (yet another) a platform for spreading hate. What are these reasons for bigotry and prejudice other than ignorance and hatefulness? Really, what is it other than that? Ignorance and hatefulness borne of religion? Ignorance and hatefulness born out of… well ignorance and hatefulness? At what point does “seeing why” become, “giving audience to another diatribe of full misinformation, another sermon full of judgment against my fellow man and woman, and another speech I’ve heard before about giving into my basest urges to feel superior to others for the most arbitrary of reasons?”
It’s not like I’m some foot soldier pushing for Black Nationalism and Lesbian separatism here. I’m just asking why when it comes to bigotry calling a spade a spade is “too powerful” and “too simplistic.” Because, if it’s too powerful then “nice” people won’t call bigotry out when it’s bigotry. And, if it’s “too simplistic,” then anyone that likes to think they are realistic will give up, because the problem is too complicated to ever be solved. Which is to say.. I think it’s defeatist to give up on calling bigotry what is is, for fear of the power it might have or the simplicity of the solution.
I don’t want to give in to implied defeatism; I really want to believe society can change. I’m sorry my earnestness and hope ran over your intentions in a way that upset you. I thought I was being clear, not obnoxious. Shit happens. I apologize.
“Yeah, I could use me some mindless mantitty cover snark right about now. Where’s Fabio when we need him?”
Ditto that.
lovelysalome—You forgot POLITICS.
We could combine formats, race politics etc. How’s about a quick comparison between the right’s portrayal of Sharpton as a chauffer and the left’s portrayal of Lieberman in blackface?
I’m in bitch mode and it’s showing up in my blog enough as it is. I want credit for being quiet. Gimme a goddamn gold star.
I just kind of get tired of the implication that I’m ready to fall for anything because I’m more open minded. I had a boss once who would never come out and tell me she thought I was stupid for standing up for the rights of all people, not just those certain moralists consider worthy. She’s just the sort of person I wouldn’t want on my jury.
Veronica: if at any point you see me hesitating to admit that my parents or my parents-in-law are prejudiced—sometimes even bigoted assholes in their behavior—you let me know, mmmmkay?
I think trying to understand why bigots think and behave the way they do actually helps me come up with ways to talk them out of it. If they don’t feel like I’m listening to them and making an effort to understand their point of view, they’re much less inclined to listen to ME. And when I react badly to something they do that’s bigoted, they’re much more likely to give a shit and be willing to change their behavior if we’re on speaking terms to start with.
“I think trying to understand why bigots think and behave the way they do actually helps me come up with ways to talk them out of it.”
Exactly. Understanding causes and reasons leads to finding ways to communicate and counteract. And then, to ways to prevent. Otherwise, we’re just standing on opposite sides of the river, throwing rocks. Or worse.
The biggest problem is usually getting the other side to listen to *you.* But once connection is made, and true communication begins, it’s impossible not to see the other party as anything but an individual and human, no matter how mistaken you think them.
Veronica: if at any point you see me hesitating to admit that my parents or my parents-in-law are prejudiced—sometimes even bigoted assholes in their behavior—you let me know, mmmmkay?
Candy, I think she’s actually referring more to my refusal to call readers who don’t want to read interracial Romance or booksellers/publishers who shelve AA Romance on separate shelves racist.
I understood what you said just fine, although I may not be the person you want on your side right now. I’m all for “calling a spade a spade, too” once, of course, we’ve decided what, exactly, a spade is. Is it a woman who won’t read Romance with forced seduction? Is she a bigot? How about a man who won’t read Romance? Is he a misogynist? How about an AA reader who won’t read white Romance? Racist?
I can see Veronica’s idealism in her comments because I used to hold some of the same views. And I think that sort of take no prisoners idealistic fire serves an important purpose—up to a point.
One of the things I have to do on a daily basis in my job is try to negotiate across very divisive lines of difference, and I’m learning more and more every day what works and what doesn’t. Sometimes provocation works and sometimes it doesn’t. And while I’m referring to no one in particular here, I think there is a point where people can become more invested in being right in their judgments than in working toward reconcillation and resolution—and I think this happens both with the so-called bigots and with those who hate bigotry and would call others out as such. I can only speak for myself, but as I’ve gotten older, I’ve become more interested in reconcilliation than righteous anger, even thought it was so much easier to be in that idealistically angry place.
Answer me this. As one of the few black chicks speaking, I’m curious.
Why do folks have snake on a muthafuckin’ plane when they’re called racist?
Why is it worse to be called racist than to be racist?
I’m not being facetious here, I’m genuinely curious.
There is no such thing as race. I agree with Robin there.
There is such a thing as having pride in your culture, traditions and background.
Everybody has background and traditions. There is no one monolithic “white” cultural more, nor is there a black one.
Some “white people” are proud their ancestors landed on Plymouth Rock, others are proud they survived the potato famine, and still others are proud oof their Greek or Italian roots. I can be proud that my forbears made it out of the southern states and settled in Kansas as self-sufficient pioneers. I don’t see how that relates to treating people differently because of their so-called race.
That’s racism, no matter how it’s softened or what gradiations you explore of it.
As a black woman, let me tell you this. Every single blessed time I’ve been treated differently because of my race, no matter how the person perceived it—fostering my racial pride, getting down with the black chick, making it easier for me, whatever—it was still a slap in the face.
I’m sure my math teacher thought he was being kind when he gave the test I made 100% on a B+ instead of an A. The white boy next to me made 100% and made an A. When I asked him how I could not miss a single question and still make a B+, he told me he graded on the Bell curve. When I still complained, he got frustrated and said he was only trying to make it easier for me. If I was good at math because the “others” would be even meaner to me. (Ohmigod, the horror of the way white boys treated the only black girl in the school. I would homeschool my daughter before I’d let her endure it).
This is a true story. I would bet my next advance that this man thought he was doing me a favor if didn’t compete with the white boys and make them angry by being smarter than tham. I’m sure this nice family man didn’t think of himself as racist at all.
But he was.
For the record, I’m white. I have Southern, old, racist and homophobic family members, and you know what? Those people are Racist and Homophobic.
Amen. To those that are the receiving end, there is no other word for it.
Robin said, On the most basic level, I don’t think calling those people racist is going to do one thing to eradicate racist beliefs and behaviors.
People are afraid to hear it because they don’t want to look into a mirror and see their true face.
To themselves, their family and friends they may look fine. Their racism is excusable.
But to the “other” it isn’t. The “other” can see the ugliness.
I think that’s where the discomfort comes into play when race is discussed.
Racism can be changed, it’s a living entity. I’ve seen it change when white people have gotten to know me and came into my house. It’s like a lightbulb, “She’s just like me.” Enough of those lightbulbs light and spread and racism will eventually wither away.
It seems to me that if you’re gonna call somebody a racist, they’d damn well better be a racist. It’s a powerful word, and throwing it around minimizes the power of that word. “She’s a racist because she won’t read AA romances.” *cue nationwide eye roll* (And, no I’m not quoting anyone here. I never actually saw anyone say that and I’m too lazy to check it out.)
Nobody addresses WHY it’s such a powerful word, to whites.
It’s not that powerful to me. In fact, it’s rather common.
I wouldn’t dare to call somebody the R word for not reading romance by black people.
But would I be anti-Semitic if I said I wouldn’t read any romances by Jews?
If you were Jewish, would you not want to ask me why I made the statement?
Then what if I said, “It’s too much trouble to read Jew romance. I don’t know what Jew writers are any good. I read one once and it sucked. I don’t relate to Jew romances. No, I won’t bother to read Jew romance, you Jew romance writer. And don’t you DARE call me anti-Semitic. You Jews always do that, pull the Anti-Semitic card. I don’t have to read Jew romances if I don’t want to. So there.”
That’s how those people who won’t read AA romance come off to me. But are they racist? Of course they aren’t/
That’s a bad example.
That’s a religious issue, not a racial one. People can’t decide to become Asian, whereas anyone can covert to Judaism if they put time and effort into it.
I have something of a unique perspective on prejudice, given that I live in Mexico, and I am, unquestionably, a minority here. It’s been an interesting and eye-opening experience.
But would I be anti-Semitic if I said I wouldn’t read any romances by Jews?
But is that what you’d hear if I said, “Eh, I don’t really read Jewish romance.”? Because that’s very different from “I wouldn’t read any romances by Jews.”
I don’t read Greek Tycoon romances either and I don’t have anything against Greeks. I’d certainly read something more up my alley (historical, etc.) if it was written by a Greek author Okay, Greek-American, because I don’t know how that shit translates.
As to the racist question. . . There’s no fucking defense against it, is there? That’s why I’d bristle at it. What the fuck are you supposed to say to that? “No, I’m not! I’m NOT a racist!”
But what if you are a racist? Not to yourself or to your buddies, but to the “other?” How would you really know?
Wouldn’t a better response be, “Why do you say that?” and listen.
Really listen. They will tell you. It would be an opportunity for dialogue and enlightenment if you could put yourself into the other person’s skin.
It’s different to not have come across any AA romances (there are fairly pervasive, but still), than to say, “I don’t read AA romance.”
I was talking about the folks who say, “I don’t read AA romance.”
You’d be surprised how mamy say this. There are lots of excuses, endless excuses, but you could hand them an AA romance of their favorite type, and they wouldn’t read it. But they would read an unknown nonblack author.
I’ve heard from authors who couldn’t give their books away to whites at conventions and conferences. They just don’t want to read them. But they read the new and unknown white authors. If you were a black romance writer, how would this make you feel.
I wasn’t going to get all personal but I changed my mind. Being treated differently because of your race is fucking painful, whatever the reason, even if people have good intentions. Hell, especially if they have good intentions.
Saturday, I was invented to my sister in law’s baby shower. It was hosted at a gorgeous party room; that’s very common, renting a salon, which is then catered and decorated by professionals. I dressed nicely and I brought a great gift, something my little boy loved as a baby. A Johnny Jump-Up.
I got there, the valet parked my car, and I went inside. Gave the customary, half-hug and cheek kiss to everyone, even people I didn’t know. My sister in law was glowing. My mother in law (o mi suegra) led me to a table. It was totally empty.
At the table next to me, there were three empty chairs. Now why couldn’t I sit there? Why didn’t I get to pick my own seat? Why? Because those women didn’t speak any English, and I am not given credit for being smart enough to make my way in the conversation. In fact, I do pretty damn well in Spanish, considering I’ve only been here a year. I had a great conversation with a taxi driver yesterday about politics, the election, and the various candidates. But he was willing to talk to me.
So there I sat by myself, hands folded, face burning. I don’t know when I’ve ever felt so humiliated, singled-out and embarrassed. They eventually dragged a poor woman over to sit with me, who spoke a little English, and that was even worse. She made her escape as soon as she could, went to another table. Another humiliation.
I don’t need special treatment. I just want to be treated like anyone else. I left as soon as I could and went home and just cried. I haven’t written everything that happened or maybe even given a true sign how bad it was. They had good intentions. They wanted to make allowances for the stupid American woman who isn’t fluent in Spanish yet. Somehow that doesn’t make me feel any better.
If you were a black romance writer, how would this make you feel.
Hell, I’m sure it feels shitty. But that doesn’t make the non-buyer a racist, regardless of how it makes you feel. Your feeling does not define the motivation.
People say to me all the time, “I don’t read historicals.” What does that make them?
Between work and a deadline and getting kids back to college and a close family member coming out of the closet and a lately very cranky spousal unit and the line I write for biting the Big One and wrangling with Wells Fargo over college loans and paying bills and writing thank you notes and having the flu and taking care of RWA board business and reading one-hundred-thirty-two comments at Smart Bitches….*sucks in huge breath*….I’d just die to read ANY romance. Gimme black, white, black/white, man/man, woman/woman, man/woman, man, woman, God, dead guys, wolf guys, funny people, long ago people, in the future people, right now people, three doors down people, superheroes…dayam, I need a reading fix.
*whimpers, followed by long whiiiine*
I’m totally intimidated, by the way – there’s lotsa smart people here in BitchLand. Taxes? I’m your girl. The day Candy gets somethin’ goin’ about the tax implications of family limited partnerships or Hope Credits, I’m there baby.
Otherwise, I’m in the cheap seats, watching the ball bop back and forth.
And wishing I had freakin’ time to read a book. Although at the rate these comments are piling up, maybe I did have time?
Ana, there is really no such thing as race.
Scientifically, the concept of race is being debunked.
People have classified Jews as a race when they wanted to denigrate them and treat them as a despised minority. This is not the case in the U.S. today.
In WW2, Jews were certainly considered a race and killed because of it.
People say to me all the time, “I don’t read historicals.†What does that make them?
It makes them a person that doesn’t like historicals.
However if they say, “I don’t read historicals by Jews,” it makes them an anti-Semite.
Ana, I’m sorry. I don’t know you from Adam, but I’m so sorry. Having been humiliated before – whether racial or gender related, humiliation is humiliation – I empathize and think it’s amazingly kind of you to say they ‘meant well’.
Monica – I wish things were different. I admire you for stepping up to the plate and saying how you really feel.
Actually, Ana, you said they had ‘good intentions’, not that they ‘meant well’. My bad for misquoting you.
Shit, I’m tired….
Stef, you got the gist of it right and that’s what counts.
At the moment, it’s a bit hard to feel kindly disposed toward them, though. Their good intentions made me feel like shit. I’m just white-trash, right? Uneducated, come from Kentucky hill folk, and I can’t learn a civilized language to save my life.
Actually, I do come from hill people, but I put myself through college, studied literature, and got my degree. I speak Spanish conversationally, just have a hard time remembering verb tenses mainly, and I need people to be patient with me. I need people willing to try, not put me at a table by myself.
PS I do hate wearing shoes, so maybe my in-laws have a point about me, huh? If only their son hadn’t married down…
Ana, I feel for you.
But you lift your chin and don’t let anybody get you down. That’s the worst thing, when they get you to believe something is wrong, that you’re different and flawed somehow.
Don’t ever let people do that to you. Fight back and say no. You’re intelligent and sensitive, I can tell by your writing.
You can sit anywhere, go anywhere and do anything. But you already know that, don’t you? (((hugs)))
Yo, Monica, you up for a road trip? Where, exactly, are you in Mexico, Ana? I’m thinkin’ Monica and I need to come down and meet the in-laws. Should we arrive bare-foot? They’ll loooove my hick accent – and my great grasp of espanol. “Donde es el bano?” or, “Hey, yo! Pass me a fumar with that Corona!”
Sadly, I was at one time very close to fluent – but alas, I lost it. You know, the best revenge is doing well – so learn your Spanish and kick some ass, girlfriend.
Hee. Thank you. *hugs to both Stef and Monica* You two almost made me cry.
I’m in Mexico City, northern suburb called Naucalpan. It’s gorgeous here, my troubles aside, and I’ll host anyone who wants a free vacation. You supply the airfare though. My husband won’t let me pay to import bitches unless he gets to watch me sleep with them. We’re about a three hour drive from Acapulco. Nice beaches there.
I was talking about the folks who say, “I don’t read AA romance.â€
You’d be surprised how mamy say this. There are lots of excuses, endless excuses, but you could hand them an AA romance of their favorite type, and they wouldn’t read it.
Btw, I agree with you that it’s racist to say, “I won’t read a book by a black author.” Clearly, that has nothing to do with the subject matter and everything to do with the author and the color of her skin.
Monica, do you consider AA romance a subgenre within romance? I mean a romance with a black h/h, nothing to do with who wrote it. I know you don’t think it should be shelved separately, but most subgenres aren’t, after all. I have no idea what would define a genuine subgenre, so I’m curious what you think as a writer.
(My apologies if my writing in the first person makes this more difficult to read)
Without making apologies for anyone’s bigotry—be it behavior or thinking—I just wonder: how often an attack on the person is effective in ridding him/her off his/her bigotry?
In my experience, rarely if ever.
Once the other perceives my statement as an attack on his/her essence as a person, what motivation does s/he have to listen to a word I say?
None, really.
His/her behaviour or thinking may (in my perception) de-humanize me, or at least reduce me to something less than s/he. But when my response brands him or her as something less than a decent human being, how can I expect him or her to behave decently?
Could it be that a less agressive approach would be more effective, statisticaly speaking? Such as instead of saying “You are a racist,” saying “That statement/opinion is racist, and this is why/how.” Please notice that the latter, while as true as the first, pertains the behavior/belief rather than the person holding it, and it’s therefore a bit less likely to be taken as a personal attack.
Will this more diplomatic approach effect instant and dramatic change in society at large?
Hell no.
But I believe it has a damn sight better chance of effecting some change than alienating everyone who isn’t on par with my exalted and oh-so-pure-never-ever-prejudiced-in-any-way position does.
Monica, do you consider AA romance a subgenre within romance? I mean a
romance with a black h/h, nothing to do with who wrote it. I know you don’t
think it should be shelved separately, but most subgenres aren’t, after
all. I have no idea what would define a genuine subgenre, so I’m curious
what you think as a writer.
I think a sub-genre should be defined by the content of the story, not the race of the characters. So, no, I don’t think AA romance is a valid sub-genre.
Defining a sub-genre by author’s race is ridicuous.
I say author’s race because notice that white author’s romance with black characters aren’t treated like black romance. They are categorized with the white romance sub-genres and treated accordingly.
The content in black romance isn’t basically different from any contemporary romance as far as the plot. There may be some minor nuances in characterization, but most whites are astounded with how similar black romance is to white-authored romance, rather than how different.
But the black romance sub-genre works, as wrong as it may be. Whites (for whatever reasons) won’t buy it. Harlequin has tested mixing black romances in with their other lines. They won’t sell. So romances by black authors need to be separate and easily accessible to black women. Our black readers solely support us black authors. When you think of how many of us there are, that’s a lot of reading. And most black romance readers read white romance too.
Bless the black romance reader.
Good god. I go out for an evening, and come back to my e-mail telling me there’s been 51 new comments. Pardon me while I wade upthread for the one I really needed to respond to.
Regarding asking why people hold certain beliefs:
And, I think that’s pandering to bigots, and them giving them (yet another) a platform for spreading hate. What are these reasons for bigotry and prejudice other than ignorance and hatefulness?
I hit on a good phrasing in one of my anthropology seminars, during a discussion of cultural relativism and how to explain to people that no, it doesn’t translate to “everything’s okay.” In short, an explanation is not the same thing as an excuse.
Somebody abuses their kids because they were abused as a child? That explains the abuse; it doesn’t excuse it. But we need to look for those reasons, those answers to the “why?” question, because otherwise we can’t do a damn thing to change the situation—we’d be fumbling blind. It is NOT enough to say “ignorance and hatefulness” are the cause, because we need to know why that person became ignorant and hateful, and what the nuances (yes, nuances) of their ignorance and hatefulness are. Then we’ll know the weak points we can use to chip away at their bigotry, and how to (hopefully) prevent another generation from growing up the same way. Writing off the situation without asking why leaves us no option but to shout at each other, and that rarely has any good effect.
That’s my view as an anthropologist, coming from the field of study which pretty much dedicates itself to asking “why” about any human behavior that wanders within pouncing range.
In closing, amen to all this discussion—it’s a ridiculous flood of comments, but man, it gives me hope that y’all have the passion to discuss this so thoughtfully. (And all because of some errant cock . . . .)
I think there’s an unclosed italics tag in the comment upthread of mine, so I’m experimenting to see if throwing a random close italics tag into this comment will put a stop to it.
Hey, I’ll make a plea too for a bitch to fix my italics.
Ana, you’re a kind soul and you’ll do okay.
azteclady, I agree that directly calling people racist is counterproductive. But the problem is when people are so defensive about it, there can be no dialogue at all.
Most people don’t go to the extreme of “I hate black people.” It’s more subtle such as “I don’t relate to black people,” or “They are different from me, too different and dangerous to be in close contact with.”
But if these people who might want to be decent are so defensive about their racism, how are they ever going to be open to communicate with the other, understand the other and thus change?
I don’t think getting the victims of racism never to say racist or racism is the answer.
I think it’s getting the majority to accept the possibility they may be racist, but the world isn’t going to blow up in flames if they admit the possibility, communicate with a reasonable black person, and try to understand where they’re coming from.
Note I said reasonable black people. Don’t run to chat about how racist you are to your black co-worker who can’t stand you anyway. [chortle!]
I have to agree, Monica. One of my best writing buddies is black. We always room together at National – although she didn’t make it this year – and man, oh man, have we gotten down and dirty, talking about racism, particularly in romance, but also about how she handles it in her daily life. She’s married to a white guy, which opens her up to a whole other group of People Who Don’t Like That – including a lot of black people. She gets it from all sides. She’s got a major attitude, and sometimes can get in my face, at which point I tell her to lose the damn chip on her shoulder.
I remember her getting upset because someone at the conference was rude to her, ignored her. She called her a ‘racist bitch’. I said, yeah, I’m sure there are some of those here – but you got that chick all wrong. She’s just a bitch, no matter what color you are. Later, I proved the point and we had a good laugh about it.
I’m not saying everyone should go out and find a black friend, so they can ‘get it’. I’m just saying that it’s interesting, and okay, humbling, to get the perspective from somebody who walks the walk. I get frustrated because I honestly don’t know how to change it, or what I can do about it.
But the black romance sub-genre works, as wrong as it may be. Whites (for whatever reasons) won’t buy it. Harlequin has tested mixing black romances in with their other lines.
This is why I asked. I think publishers and/or booksellers now market it as a subgenre, so many readers see it as a subgenre. And then it just becomes more easily pushed aside by white readers. “I don’t read that.”
But you’ve definitely made me think about this. It’s actually very easy for me to say, “I don’t read AA romances,” because I think of AA romance as contemporary and I don’t read straight contemp. But I have to wonder if I would say that even if I did read contemp. And would it be racist? I don’t think so. But then you’d never see me saying no to anyone handing me a free book to try out a new author, and that’s the damned truth. Racist or not, that’s just crazy.
I think I may go look up an AA historical. I know they must be out there. (I am seeing a cover in my head from a few years ago. Maybe a western.)
Somebody expressing a strong distaste for bisexual heroes on an romance-related Internet forum is miles away from, say, the people who attacked Matthew Shepard, though they’re probably the same people who voted for the constitutional amendments blocking gay marriage.
Actually, I don’t think they’re miles away. I think they’re down the street, peeking discreetly through lace curtains while their thuggish younger generation murders gay kids. These hatemongers who suck up the homophobic spew in church and ‘righteously’ vote against human equality are the ones who have created the atmosphere in which the violent reactionary ‘soldiers’ believe it’s all right to kill people because they’re different. They’re the ones who defend the closet cases arrested for murdering guys who come on to them and try to justify it because the poor little psycho was in a ‘panic’ over being propositioned – as though “no thanks” wasn’t the more appropriate response. The hypocrites are every bit as vicious as the violent; they’re just more cowardly and less honest.
SandyW said: “I’m trying to puzzle out the ‘bisexual partners are more likely to be unfaithful’ argument.â€
In this day and age, there is a higher risk that a husband who’s on the ‘down low’ and unfaithful with another man may bring home AIDS. The reason for the bi worry may be in part that a lot of men who identify as heterosexual don’t “count” m/m sex if they personally aren’t penetrated. Denial? You betcha. But it still comes down to whether your partner will honor the marriage vow. If that’s not the case, it doesn’t matter if he’s got a hankering for men, women, or St Bernards.
My favorite response to this is in one of Lois McMasters Bujold’s books. Her character’s husband is a bisexual (space) naval officer who’s got a serious kink for military lovers… he’s had affairs with men (forbidden in his sexist, homophobic society), but when he meets Cordelia he lucks out, because she’s a Woman! And a Captain! An enemy tries to poison his marriage by telling Cordelia that her husband used to fuck men, and she just says, “He was bisexual. Now he’s monogamous.”
And that is exactly how it can be when you have the right partner. It isn’t about the plumbing. I am bisexual; now I’m monogamous. My partner is a friend of many years and a better lover than anyone of the other gender has ever been, for me. Our minds and hearts fit, and the bodies go along. Neither of us ever enjoyed the ‘thrill’ of the chase, and we’re old enough to appreciate what we have…but we both still enjoy looking, and we read m/f, m/m, and f/f. When you can allow your partner’s imagination to run free, there’s a lot to be said for monogamy, no matter what the physical arrangements are. Let not the marriage of true minds admit impediments, and all that.
But … I can only speak for myself. Every relationship is different, and a lot of people are petrified of uncertainty, so they want One Rule, One True God, and all that. I don’t. “An it harm none, do as ye will.”
I think I may go look up an AA historical. I know they must be out there. (I am seeing a cover in my head from a few years ago. Maybe a western.)
Try Beverly Jenkins’ new one. Civil War era AA. Love the snarkable cover!
Black historcal romance authors
Beverly Jenkins.
Francis Ray. I think Francis’ book had white characters though.
Shirley Hailstock wrote one.
Patrica Vaughn.
I used to love Frank Yerby as a kid. Anita Richmond Bunkley.
Bella McFarland is African and wrote a Nubian historical romance. If you put your hands on it, let me know.
AlTonya Renee Washington wrote one. I’d like to see that one too.
J. Marie Darden wrote a couple.
There are probably more.
The problem is these books simply don’t sell. They aren’t marketed to black readers and whites won’t. Beverly Jenkins has hung in there though. But she’s now writing contemp romantic suspense.
I always hesitate before jumping into any racism discussion. Why? Because I’m white and I live in Texas, a state where you’ll get thumped with a bible or two if you stand still more than a split second. So I’ll just have to say I’m not a racist, and y’all will just sort of have to trust me on that.
I read all the comments, and two just really jumped out at me. First, from Monica:
“Many blacks are grateful to be published at all and to have characters in books that look like them” [emphasis mine]
And later down the thread:
“It’s different to not have come across any AA romances (there are fairly pervasive, but still), than to say, “I don’t read AA romance.â€
Why can’t it be as simple as this—I’m a white chick, and I like reading about people who look like me? Also brought up by someone whose comment I can’t find, she wanted more romances about over-50 women who are still passionate, vibrant and looking for their HEA. They want characters who look like them. That’s my take on the, “I don’t read AA romances” schtick.
NOW. Please don’t tune out yet. That’s totally different from saying “I would never read anything from an AA author.” And I think these two very different views have been equated, probably just because blog comments are written quickly and off the cuff.
Personally, unless you’re La Nora with your pic splashed on the back cover, I don’t know what color you are. I honest to God don’t understand how someone can find this out, maybe because I’ve never put this much effort into researching authors. “Ooh, the latest were-crawfish saga looks great, but let me research the author first and find out if she’s a WASP”—this is effort, and I’m lazy. Just give me a fucking book.
I’m not saying that no one ever boycotts AA authors. I’m totally aware that this happens. (I live in Texas, y’all, a few hours from Vider, and once accompanied a black guy friend to Vider to pay a traffic ticket because he was afraid he’d go down there and not come back. And I think he had cause for concern, which is why the 3 of us went too!) So yes, I know that [pick your word of choice, my head aches from the word discussion, interesting as it was] is alive and kicking.
I just want to point out this distinction. “I don’t read romances where the characters don’t look like me” is different from “I won’t read anything written by an author who doesn’t look like me.”
Reading is my fantasy time. I want to be in my fantasies. I don’t think that wanting a role in my own down-time is racist. However, I DO think that ignoring an author because of his/her color, gender, shoe preference, or favorite underwear style is wrong, immoral, etc.
By the way, since this has turned into such an interesting and open discussion, can I ask a question? Both I and a good friend of mine have just published interracial vampire romances, both with AA heroes and white heroines—mine released today, and hers released last week. (Oh yeah, and they’re dead. Hot, hot men, but dead. Sorry ‘bout that.) Both our covers feature really hot black men on the covers, tho hers is better cuz she didn’t get Poser… but I digress.
Mine’s an ebook and won’t see print, hers will in a few months, but I assumed that both would be placed in the AA romance section because of the covers. I have no experience with print in general and AA romance shelving in particular, but is this an accurate assumption? I sort of got the impression that the shelving had to do with who’s pictured on the cover and portrayed in the story rather than who penned the story. I really can’t see our interracial vamp romances sitting on the shelf beside the Harlequins.
Kendra’s hero is a former Nubian slave, so his history informs much, much, much of his character—mine is ancient, powerful, has always been the master of his domain, and really never had to deal with anyone calling him crap because he’d fry them, so I fully admit his conflict actually has nothing whatsoever to do with his color. (It’s actually more to do with the whole ‘dead’ thing.)
So, anyway. It’s 1am and I don’t know how much sense this is making. I guess it boils down to, would these books be in the AA Romance section because of the protagonist, or would they be beside the Harlequins since both the authors are white? Is the amount of AA culture in the romance the deciding factor? (We’re ignoring for the moment that mine is a 16k short and hers is an 80k novel, with lots more room for deep character examination, introspection and backstory.) So Kendra’s would go in the AA section, because her hero spent more time in modern AA culture than mine did, and mine would go by the Harlequins? Maybe I’m hopelessly naive, but I honestly didn’t realize that the color of the AUTHOR had to do with the separation of the sections, and now I have all these other questions running through my sleepy noggin.
Monica, Lia, Robin, Veronica, others ‘in the know’—what’s your take? And do you think that a white author can accurately portray an AA character? Like, maybe if they weren’t an undead vampire? I mean, I certainly don’t know how it feels to be a black woman, but I don’t know how it feels to be a vampire either.
I hope so, as I’ve written one and my agent is shopping the book around as of this week. The hero in the novel is based loosely on someone I knew in real life, someone I loved. It’s not the same man, obviously, but I drew from him in creating Ash and I think he feels real. Other people may disagree.