Books you love that fit other's "hard no" criteria

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

My only problem with gay romance is that it is overwhelmingly written by women, often for women.

Of course. As is the case with romance in general. It's comfort food for women. How many men want to read romances, let alone write them? The male equivalent is action adventure, I believe. If set in a fantasy world, the male protagonist often has a harem.

[Logseman]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Of course. As is the case with romance in general. It's comfort food for women. How many men want to read romances, let alone write them? The male equivalent is action adventure, I believe. If set in a fantasy world, the male protagonist often has a harem.

I'm a bloke and I want to read romance: I also expect the writer to try to spin a story. These days, the only chance I'm not thrown some millionaire (or even billionaire) with a sob story/score to settle is to sidestep the guys altogether and go for lesbian romance. Carsen Taite, for example, doesn't necessarily throw me more interesting romances (although in a good day she can), but usually the whole setups on how characters have to navigate legal mazes are credible and well done.

Love is complicated and messy because our lives are complicated and messy, which is partly due to the rules we have to follow and the fetters we have as members of a society. I can't really care about a fellow (or a gal) with more money than God who can buy their way off most problems, because then it's clear that the problems are of their own making and all the book is superfluously waiting until they snap off their funk.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Logseman

I'm a bloke and I want to read romance...

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Of course. As is the case with romance in general. It's comfort food for women. How many men want to read romances, let alone write them? The male equivalent is action adventure, I believe. If set in a fantasy world, the male protagonist often has a harem.

Or if it's a series, the man has a different temporary girlfriend in every town he passes through

[Apache]

I don't mind romance in a story that is part of the plot and is well done. I am not interested in reading Romance as a genre. I also do not like a book that has graphical sex situations.
Apache

[hildea]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

My only problem with gay romance is that it is overwhelmingly written by women, often for women.

I'm not a believer in cultural appropriation. Anybody should be able to write about anybody. But if you go to Amazon's best sellers in gay fiction, of the top 50 books there are five male authors. That does bother me.

I agree that's a problem. Like you, I don't think it's wrong for authors to write about people who are different from themselves (although they should make a serious effort to be knowledgeable and respectful), but I do think it's a problem that voices from minority authors get drowned out by the majority. This drowning out is made worse because the more privileged authors tend to get more and better publication deals and more PR, including when they write about less privileged people.

I try to counter it by seeking out books by authors who aren't cis and straight. I also know that queer romances where the protagonists aren't cis gay men get less attention, so I try to look for that as well.

There are also a pretty big elephant in the room regarding objectification.

Alexis Hall (he writes queer romance) has written some thoughtprovoking articles about this issue, including this one.

Originally Posted by Alexis Hall

I genuinely cannot reconcile the idea that readers of LGBT fiction are blind to the genders of the protagonists of their love stories with the industry reality that well over 90% of LGBT romance is m/m, and a very particular type of m/m. By my limited understanding of the market, the overwhelmingly popular books in the genre are about kink, college boys, shifters or soldiers, and involve conventionally attractive white protagonists. I do not think there is anything wrong with people liking what they like, and reading what they read, but these trends do not to me reveal a market that is primarily interested in challenging normative ideas about romantic relationships. It certainly doesn’t look like a market which is incompatible with material that could be seen as objectifying or fetishising.

...

M/m fiction, and LGBT fiction in general, has the capacity to be extremely powerful in promoting LGBT rights, particularly in promoting the normalisation of same-sex relationships. But this does not mean that it is never possible for m/m fiction or LGBT fiction to be harmful, marginalising or undermining. M/m fiction has the potential to be a tremendous force for good, but the very fact that some of the people it is supposed to be good for feel marginalised and excluded by it suggests that the genre as a whole has some way to go before it lives up to that potential.

Originally Posted by Logseman

I'm a bloke and I want to read romance: I also expect the writer to try to spin a story. These days, the only chance I'm not thrown some millionaire (or even billionaire) with a sob story/score to settle is to sidestep the guys altogether and go for lesbian romance. Carsen Taite, for example, doesn't necessarily throw me more interesting romances (although in a good day she can), but usually the whole setups on how characters have to navigate legal mazes are credible and well done.

Thanks, I'll seek out Taite.

Originally Posted by Logseman

Love is complicated and messy because our lives are complicated and messy, which is partly due to the rules we have to follow and the fetters we have as members of a society. I can't really care about a fellow (or a gal) with more money than God who can buy their way off most problems, because then it's clear that the problems are of their own making and all the book is superfluously waiting until they snap off their funk.

You might like Meet Cute Club, by Jack Harbon -- not a millionaire in sight (although admittedly a lot of the couple's problems are from their own emotions and hangups).

[Sirtel]

Personally I read fiction for pleasure and escapism. I'm not interested in fiction books with an agenda, even if I happen to agree with that agenda. It's an instant turn-off. When I want to read something "challenging normative ideas", I read nonfiction.

Moreover, I'm not interested in the author's gender, skin color or sexual orientation. They play exactly zero part in how I select my reading material.

The above doesn't mean I have anything against minorities or think they should not express their views. Not at all. I just can't stand propaganda in fiction. We had enough of that in the Soviet Union to last a lifetime.

[hildea]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I just can't stand propaganda in fiction. We had enough of that in the Soviet Union to last a lifetime.

I certainly get that view, and it's interesting to see how different backgrounds can give different perspectives.

Growing up in a democratic and mostly capitalist country, and reading a lot of fiction published in even more capitalist countries (UK and US, mostly), I'm very aware of the unthinking propaganda that creeps into culture when profits, and beliefs about profits, are the main influence on what gets published. It's certainly different from what I expect the planned, conscious propaganda of a dictatorship looks like, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. One typical aspect is that the safe majority view gets lots more publishing money, while authors and topics which are more risky from a commercial point of view get more rejections, are published at smaller publishing houses, and get less PR. This means that if I just pick books from what gets most attention, my reading will be heavily influenced by the dominating groups in society. I'll have to look consciously for other voices if I want to read them.

Like you, I read for enjoyment, but I tend to find better and more varied books when I make a bit of effort to seek out a wider variety of authors.

Things are changing, although not very quickly. If I reread books I read, and loved, as a teenager more than thirty years ago, I find pretty stark sexism. Today, that's better, but I'm pretty sure that if I reread today's books in thirty years, I'll notice propaganda and bias that's a lot harder to see now.

--

An off topic comment about different perspectives: I was at an IT conference in Estonia a few years ago, and was part of a group which shared perspectives on IT security. In Norway, the typical view is that databases which are critical to national security (not just military stuff, but stuff that's needed for society to function) need to be kept on hardware inside our borders. Our typical threat scenario is foreign interests getting hold of, or sabotaging, critical databases. The Estonian IT people we met told us that to them it was more important to keep their critical databases outside their borders, so that in case of an invasion, a government in exile could have access to important data. I'm simplifying, and in a lot of cases it's probably better to keep copies both abroad and at home, but it was really interesting to see how a different history led to a very different view of threats and security.

I loved what I saw of Tallinn, by the way

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Personally I read fiction for pleasure and escapism. I'm not interested in fiction books with an agenda, even if I happen to agree with that agenda. It's an instant turn-off. When I want to read something "challenging normative ideas", I read nonfiction.

It's tricky. I don't think having an agenda is the point. But at the same time, fetishization is a problem.

I don't think Disney had an agenda when they made Song of the South, but it is a very uncomfortable movie to watch regardless. It presents a worldview that is wildly out of sync with what we know to be true.

When 90%+ of fiction about gay males is written by nice, married suburban moms spinning out fantasies without really understanding the world they write about, it is a problem.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Ummm... what's gun porn? The first time I've seen the term.
(And I didn't know about Eddings either... guess I've been living under a stone or something).

Maybe no under a stone, but certainly hiding in a bush.

Gun porn tends to have a lot of esoteric descriptions of guns and gun modifications.

I actually didn't know about Eddings unto someone here brought it up, but when I went out and looked, it appears to be true. Don't know the actual details other than he and his wife were convicted.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by MarjaE

Tolkien is one of my favorite authors. Though I avoid most fantasy, I love his. And his values and the overall stories oppose racism. But his letters and the tropes in his stories sometimes support racism.

http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Racis...kien%27s_Works

https://tolkienaboutscifi.wordpress....-lotrs-racism/

I tend to prefer books which are part of a series. It allows more stories, more character development, and more worldbuilding than if they're not.

I often look for books with disabled characters. I am struggling with my own issues, I want characters like myself, and I want the same for other people with other disabilities. Same with lesbian characters.

And yes, I look for books which try to support good causes. I'm considering a charity bundle which would support Doctors Without Borders.

Tolkien, like most people, was a product of his times. The racist thing seems to have been mostly people projecting their feelings on the whole orc, eastern tribes thing that was in LOTR. If you go looking for something, you can usually find it if you try hard enough.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by hildea

Spoiler:

I certainly get that view, and it's interesting to see how different backgrounds can give different perspectives.

Growing up in a democratic and mostly capitalist country, and reading a lot of fiction published in even more capitalist countries (UK and US, mostly), I'm very aware of the unthinking propaganda that creeps into culture when profits, and beliefs about profits, are the main influence on what gets published. It's certainly different from what I expect the planned, conscious propaganda of a dictatorship looks like, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. One typical aspect is that the safe majority view gets lots more publishing money, while authors and topics which are more risky from a commercial point of view get more rejections, are published at smaller publishing houses, and get less PR. This means that if I just pick books from what gets most attention, my reading will be heavily influenced by the dominating groups in society. I'll have to look consciously for other voices if I want to read them.

Like you, I read for enjoyment, but I tend to find better and more varied books when I make a bit of effort to seek out a wider variety of authors.

Things are changing, although not very quickly. If I reread books I read, and loved, as a teenager more than thirty years ago, I find pretty stark sexism. Today, that's better, but I'm pretty sure that if I reread today's books in thirty years, I'll notice propaganda and bias that's a lot harder to see now.

--

An off topic comment about different perspectives: I was at an IT conference in Estonia a few years ago, and was part of a group which shared perspectives on IT security. In Norway, the typical view is that databases which are critical to national security (not just military stuff, but stuff that's needed for society to function) need to be kept on hardware inside our borders. Our typical threat scenario is foreign interests getting hold of, or sabotaging, critical databases. The Estonian IT people we met told us that to them it was more important to keep their critical databases outside their borders, so that in case of an invasion, a government in exile could have access to important data. I'm simplifying, and in a lot of cases it's probably better to keep copies both abroad and at home, but it was really interesting to see how a different history led to a very different view of threats and security.

I loved what I saw of Tallinn, by the way

Thank you. I almost never travel, but if I should get an urge some day, Norway has always been very high on my list of hypothetical travel destinations.

I don't actually select my books by bestseller lists or other people's recommendations/reviews/opinions. I select them purely by their synopsis and reading samples. So there are many small publishers and self-pubs in my library. But you're right in the sense that they still reflect my personal preferences which probably are closer to the safe majority view than not, given that I'm a straight white woman living in a country with pretty conservative all-white native population.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Gun porn tends to have a lot of esoteric descriptions of guns and gun modifications.

I haven't read any gun porn yet, though I do have a few books that fall into the category. Monster Hunter International and Jerry Ahern's Survivalist. Partly I've put off reading them because I'm afraid I'll find that aspect tedious.

It does seem to be particularly American. I wonder why that is? Canadians love their guns too and so the citizens of many other nations, I'm sure. But in my (admittedly limited) knowledge, all the authors are American.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Apache

I don't mind romance in a story that is part of the plot and is well done. I am not interested in reading Romance as a genre. I also do not like a book that has graphical sex situations.
Apache

That's pretty much my take. I like authors like Patrica Briggs and the Mercy Thompson series because it's well written and has a plot. The Romance stuff isn't a huge part of the story and I can scan forward if the Romance gets too much.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

When 90%+ of fiction about gay males is written by nice, married suburban moms spinning out fantasies without really understanding the world they write about, it is a problem.

It's what their readers want to read. And 90+ % of their readers are straight women. I don't think anyone is stopping real LGBT people from writing and publishing (though I may well be wrong). It's just that those straight women (who are, after all, the majority of romance readers) don't find their stuff as attractive. Like it or not, but the majority of both writers and readers are straight people with pretty conventional preferences.

Edit to add: I've read several novels about gay men written by actual gay men. Some of them were very good. But those works are few and far between. I guess there just aren't enough gay male writers to compete with thousands of those suburban moms.