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

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

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.

Song of the South was based on Joel Chandler Harris' Uncle Remus stories and was fairly consistent with those stories. The somewhat ironic thing is that the Uncle Remus stories was basically Harris documenting the folklore that had been brought by slaves from Africa and passed down through the years. He actually put quite a bit of effort into documenting the folklore and validating the stories through multiple sources. Harris was very active in trying to normalize race relations at the time. Uncle Remus was an effort to humanize blacks for the average reader at the time. He was quite the progressive in his day.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

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.

Or they are being choked out of the market.

My experience comes from a group of gay authors whose work was rejected by Dreamspinner and a few of the other big (relatively speaking) gay romance publishers because their work didn't fit the demands of the formula needed to satisfy their straight female audience*.

Of course, they can go indie. But there is something off to me about a company that specializes in publishing gay fiction rejecting books by gay authors, not because of their quality, but because it doesn't satisfy the wants of their non-gay audience.

It feels a bit like the old minstrel shows.

*This is via a Goodreasd grooup that is private as they have been harassed for pointing out it would be better if the gay fiction market were more representative.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Song of the South was based on Joel Chandler Harris' Uncle Remus stories and was fairly consistent with those stories.

Right, which is why I chose Song of the South rather than Joel Chandler Harris' stories.

The trouble spots of Song of the South aren't the animated stories. Those still occasionally pop up, for instance in Splash Mountain.

It is the live action, original segments that are the most squirmy.

And again, I don't feel Disney had any agenda going in. They wanted to make a family movie that wouldn't raise the hackles of the South in those days.

But watching it now (which is very difficult to do as Disney has buried the movie) it is very obvious that no black person had any input in the direction of the movie.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Or they are being choked out of the market.

My experience comes from a group of gay authors whose work was rejected by Dreamspinner and a few of the other big (relatively) gay romance publishers because their work didn't fit the demands of the formula needed to satify their straight female audience.

Of course, they can go indie. But there is something off to me about a company that specializes in publishing gay fiction rejecting books by gay authors, not because of their quality, but because it doesn't satisfy the wants of their non-gay audience.

It feels a bit like the old minstrel shows.

Well, publishing is a business like any other. They want to make money. So they publish what they think will bring the most profit.

Not that I consider it to be the ideal state of affairs. But capitalism is based on profit and market demand. And we haven't managed to invent a better social order yet.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Well, publishing is a business like any other. They want to make money. So they publish what they think will bring the most profit.

Sure. And again, this position is outside of the norm for me. I wish all authors involved the best and may they all sell enough to live off their earnings.

But I still find it off-putting. Again, minstrel shows would be a good comparison for it. And I doubt you would defend them saying it's cool if it makes money.

And if you notice, I keep saying gay fiction. All gay fiction struggles to be seen due to the glut of gay romance novels written by soccer moms.

The Amazon list I linked to wasn't the best sellers in gay romance. It was the best sellers in gay fiction overall.

I'm not saying I have answers. Just pointing out problems.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

But I still find it off-putting. Again, minstrel shows would be a good comparison for it. And I doubt you would defend them saying it's cool if it makes money.

I'm not defending them or saying it's cool. It just is what it is. Yes, in a perfect society all writers could publish based solely on the quality of their work (but that would be problematic too, because quality is very subjective; one man's bread and so on. Who will judge?). Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect society.

And what would be the alternative? Suburban moms would still outnumber LGBT writers. Not permitting anyone to write about things they don't have personal experience with? That's certainly not viable.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

...but that would be problematic too, because quality is very subjective; one man's bread and so on. Who will judge?

It's a big job, but I am willing to take on the mantle

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

It's a big job, but I am willing to take on the mantle

With your love of Stephen King? Oh, the horror!

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

My experience comes from a group of gay authors whose work was rejected by Dreamspinner and a few of the other big (relatively speaking) gay romance publishers because their work didn't fit the demands of the formula needed to satisfy their straight female audience.

Of course, they can go indie. But there is something off to me about a company that specializes in publishing gay fiction rejecting books by gay authors, not because of their quality, but because it doesn't satisfy the wants of their non-gay audience.

I suspect any publisher that wants to stay in business has to consider their target audience. It might be great if every author could make a living off their work but sadly, we have to live in the real world where filthy lucre is an important consideration. Even if the book is the greatest book ever written, if the publisher feels the manuscript would be best used as kindling for the fireplace (*), there not much more to be said.

Looking the sheer number of indie romance and SF/F books being published, I can't see why those gay authors would not want to try the indie route. I will admit to being prejudiced there since I support my computer hobby by doing cleanup on indie books. I'm not certain as what percentage of indie authors actually make a living from their books but there are quite a few who are doing well enough that they have made writing their full time occupation.

* Spring found us with decayed teeth and several pounds of foolscap covered with inky, illegible scrawls. A quick rereading proved it to be a surprisingly brilliant satire on Tolkien’s linguistic and mythic structures, filled with little takeoffs on his use of Norse tales and wicked phoneme fricatives. A cursory assessment of the manuscript’s sales appeal, however, convinced us that dollarwise the thing would be better employed as tinder for the library fireplace. Foreword to Bored of the Rings

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

With your love of Stephen King? Oh, the horror!

Oh, believe me, Stephen King is in the more respectable waters I read in. Wait until you read the gritty, violent, morally ambiguous British westerns I also like*

*A good example that I don't, in general, have a problem with books written by people unfamiliar with the worlds they write about.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Even if the book is the greatest book ever written, if the publisher feels the manuscript would be best used as kindling for the fireplace (*), there not much more to be said.

And Bored of the Rings is the greatest book ever written. You heard it here, folks!

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

And Bored of the Rings is the greatest book ever written. You heard it here, folks!

Perhaps a remedial reading course? That quote from the Foreword referred to the original version of the National Lampoon's parody of Lord of the Rings. The version that was published? To quote what the Foreword had to say about that version:

The next day, handicapped by near-fatal hangovers and the loss of all our bodily hair (but that’s another story), we sat down at two supercharged, fuel-injected, 345-hp Smith Coronas and knocked off the opus you’re about to read before tiffin. (And we take tiffin pretty durn early in these parts, buckaroo.) The result, as you are about to see for yourself, was a book as readable as Linear A and of about the same literary value as an autographed gatefold of St. Simon Stylites.

“As for any inner meanings or ‘message,’ ” as Professor T. said in his foreword, there is none herein except that which you may read into it yourself. (Hint: What did P. T. Barnum say was “born every minute”?) Through this book, we hope, the reader may find deeper insights not only into the nature of literary piracy, but into his own character as well. (Hint: What is missing from this famous quotation? “A —— and his —— soon are ——.” You have three minutes. Ready, set, go!)—Foreword to Bored of Rings

That version reached the New York Times best seller list, has been continuously available since it's original 1969 publication and has been translated in 11 or 12 languages. H. L. Mencken was right!

"No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby. The mistake that is made always runs the other way. Because the plain people are able to speak and understand, and even, in many cases, to read and write, it is assumed that they have ideas in their heads, and an appetite for more. This assumption is a folly."—H. L. Mencken, a column in the Evening Sun, Baltimore, Maryland, Sept. 18, 1926

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Perhaps a remedial reading course?

Maybe I was just goofing around?

"No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby. The mistake that is made always runs the other way. Because the plain people are able to speak and understand, and even, in many cases, to read and write, it is assumed that they have ideas in their heads, and an appetite for more. This assumption is a folly."—H. L. Mencken, a column in the Evening Sun, Baltimore, Maryland, Sept. 18, 1926

I do like the Mencken quote.

[cfrizz]

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.

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.

I am the same way, I read for pleasure and escape for real life. I like to read about millionaires rather than downtrodden poor people who are just getting by. (too much like real life!) My favorite genre is Paranormal romance, it's different and I love it.

I don't care what color the characters are or what color the writer is for that matter. Nor do I care what your characters sexual orientation is. So long as you write a good, entertaining, imaginitive book, I'll read it.

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

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.

There are gay/lesbian publishing houses, that do quite well, and have been in business for years and the writers are gay/lesbians.

What I find somewhat annoying is as you are reading the book, you start noticing that EVERYONE is a lesbian, and you can count the number of straight people on one hand!

I mean I get that you want to read about something that you think represents you, but come on that is just not realistic. For me, it's all about balance.