(no subject)

[erastes]

I know that I've mentioned it before, but really. BLURBS! Why does no-one care for the blurbs?

Why do people not treat them as if they were as important as the book itself? In a way, they are MORE important, because sometimes they are all the prospective buyer has to gauge whether or not they will pick the book up off the shelf and put it in their basket, or whether they will bother to click on the link and find out more.

This morning I read SUCH a stinker I couldn't believe what I was reading, missing commas, pronoun confusion, not even telling us the name of the Main Protag until half way through the blurb, vague references and none of it made sense. It's such a shame that people don't take them as seriously as they need to.

*considers starting 'I'll write your blurb' business.* /rant

Nice News! I've been invited to attend the London Literary Festival in June/July for an event that James Lear is organising: Dirty Books. Don't know when or where, yet, and I rather think I'm going to be grilled heavily about "OI you, WOMAN, why you writing about us gay men?" so I'll have to gird my loins and get a lot of stock answers under my belt. Hell. I know why *I* write it, who knows why other people do? Why do people write about elves when they aren't elves!?

More to the point, is anyone else planning to go?

And why aren't I still getting any comment notifications?

Comments

(frozen)

[megleigh.livejournal.com]

I hate writing blurbs and admit that I am not good at it. It's so hard to compress the story into just a few paragraphs. I'd be tempted to use a blurb writing service lol.

Congrats on the invite to the London Lit fest.

(frozen)

[batboy126.livejournal.com]

Best book blurb I've ever encountered:
"I don't want to say that this is the best book ever written, but as I slid it into my bookshelf a chorus of angels began to sing and my other novels were engulfed in holy flame. I guess that's a little ambiguous, though."

"OI you, WOMAN, why you writing about us gay men?"
It's still a good question. We know why people write about elves who aren't elves: because elves can't speak for themselves. And because elves are magical creatures who have fascinating, other-worldly adventures. And possibly because they suck at writing about real people.

[aunty_marion]

I once tried to write a sample blurb for one of the stories my best friend has written (and which she'd love to get published, but they can't afford an agent, and no-one else seems to want to know), and it's a lot harder than it looks. Even just doing a half-page summary was tricky enough. However, anything I wrote for such an endeavour would (don't you know it?) be at least grammatical and properly punctuated. At least when it left my hands - there's no telling what publishers might do to it afterwards...

[rwday.livejournal.com]

Why do people write about elves when they aren't elves!?

I think that elves everywhere should rise up in protest at the cultural imperialism of JRR Tolkien and his ilk who dare to exercise (OMG!) imagination. More seriously, if there were elves, they ought to be protesting Peter Jackson's casting of insipid Orlando Bloom as Legolas.

And even more seriously, come on. Why do men write women characters, librarians write about truck drivers, Americans write about Brits? Because they're interested in them, because that's the story they're driven to tell, because they were women/truckdrivers/Brits in another life, whatever. I don't care what personal characteristics and identity an author has. All I care about is whether he or she can write.

[lee-rowan.livejournal.com]

"OI you, WOMAN, why you writing about us gay men?"

Well, you could go in drag. Or get a button made that says, "Why did Tolstoy Write About Anna Karenina?"

I just hope Speak is out by then!

[lovemefearme.livejournal.com]

*hugs*

[lovemefearme.livejournal.com]

I think that elves everywhere should rise up in protest at the cultural imperialism of JRR Tolkien and his ilk who dare to exercise (OMG!) imagination.

Lol.. okay you rock.

[zamaxfield.livejournal.com]

Oh, hello. Hot button. I've wondered all along why men wrote about women when they weren't women. I wonder if Flaubert had to defend himself for not being a bored housewife. Can you picture it?

Think about Jack London, surrounded by wolves...

I have to say, I love blurb writing, I just pretend I have organ bridge music in the background and it makes all the difference.

Give James Lear a wavity from me, like he cares, but I'm still laughing from 'Back Passage'.

[omnivorously.livejournal.com]

You can write my blurbs any day ; ) Though I'm far more likely to produce books of postmodern theory, than novels ...

[sleveen.livejournal.com]

When I worked in publishing, back in the day, I used to write the book-jacket blurbs. It was something I took very seriously because I knew that many potential readers only ever looked at that to decide whether they wanted the book or not...lose 'em with the blurb, and you've lost 'em.

Writing blurbs taught me how to write synopses, in a way - because a synopsis, IMHO, is kind of like a blurb on growth hormones... ^_^

(frozen)

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Hee - If I had time, I'd seriously do it. I've done it for a few friends here and there.

Thanks! They are paying me!! *swoons*

(frozen)

[erastes.livejournal.com]

That really sounds like something from The Pit of Voles. How awful.

Well, I've discussed that before, and I reiterate what's been said - writers write about what interests them. Tolstoy and Flaubert didn't have to be women, neither did Heinlein and all the many many other men who write from women's POV.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

You spawned an hour of Bloom loathing this afternoon. I decided he has a case of the Nobbes. Charisntma.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I think it will be probably not the print book, but I'll take a LOAD of promotional items with snippets on, perhaps see how much leaflets are to print - I know I can get 10 free brochures from Vistaprint but that will take ages to get loads printed.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Thanks, it's been a really grumpy day.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I know - it seems to the only genre that people get all hot under the collar and I really don't get it (particularly as men have been writing about women as sex objects since... well, since they could write.)

I don't like writing them, but I will get them beta-ed, and looked at by others and treat them seriously and that something that most people don't do. They just think they aren't important.

I will. It was a great book.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Eekk! Don't think I'd ever be able to do that!!!

[erastes.livejournal.com]

ABSOLUTELY. Like the cover (another pet peeve of mine) it's your ONE chance to impress. I think I'll just start saving the bad ones up and post them once a month, to help people see what sucks and what doesnt

[spikeyboots.livejournal.com]

WOOT> Does this mean I can come fangirl you?

(frozen)

[batboy126.livejournal.com]

Fine. As long as you understand I'm going to go on griping about it.

(frozen)

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

By that way of thinking, gay male writers should have no one in their stories but gay males, lesbians no one but lesbians, whites no one but whites, blacks none but blacks, no female writer write of anything but women, and no male writer should even acknowledge that women exist.

E.M. Forster should never have written Howard's End. How dare he, a gay man, write from the viewpoint of a straight woman?

Robert Heinlein should never have written Friday or To Sail Beyond the Sunset.

Isaac Asimov should never have written any stories from the point of view of Dr. Susan Calvin, roboticist.

Lawrence Block, a straight male, should never have broken into the writing business by writing novels about, and from the point of view of, lesbians.

Unless Edgar Allen Poe spent his spare time traveling to the Renaissance to wall people up and to the Spanish Inquisition to be tortured, he should never have written "The Cask of Amantillado" and "The Pit and the Pendulum."

Jim Butcher, of course, has no business writing about a wizard detective unless he secretly IS a wizard detective.

And naturally, Dorothy L. Sayers should not have written about Lord Peter Wimsey unless she secretly WAS the second son of the Duke of Denver and really did solve mysteries in her spare time.

And no mystery writer should ever write a murder mystery unless he or she has committed murder. (Which pretty much limits the mystery field to Anne Perry, doesn't it?)

Science fiction and fantasy, of course, shouldn't even exist as genres, because it's highly unlikely that the writer would be an alien, a dweller on a distant planet, an explorer on a starship or a reluctant protagonist on a seemingly impossible quest in a magical land.

I'm also fairly certain that Terry Pratchett has never been a crotchety old witch, a watchman in a corrupt city-state, a reformer of a monotheistic religion, a Pharaoh, or Death's granddaughter; that Michael Mulpurgo and Anna Sewell weren't horses; that Jack London was never a dog or a wolf-dog hybrid; and that Lewis Carroll was not a seven-year-old girl.

"Write what you know" is a suggestion for young and/or inexperienced writers who don't know what to write about. It's not a mandate for the entire profession.

Bottom line--imagination is one of a writer's tools. (Research can assist imagination ably, to ensure that the writer's imaginings are accurate where they can be confirmed and plausible where they can't, though it's no substitute for imagination.) A writer is not obligated to limit himself or herself solely to empirical experience...and fiction would be extraordinarily dull if that were the case.

(frozen)

[batboy126.livejournal.com]

A long and interesting list of examples, but I'm not sure they answer the question.

First, although Erastes says (below) that M/M is the only genre people have a problem with, it's really not the case. Just yesterday I found a TV discussion by several African American writers, on how Black Americans are presented in popular fiction, and how much that stems from the fact that most Black characters are created by White writers.
Similarly, a few years ago there was a fairly large controversy here in Canada over what was called 'appropriation of voice' -- begun in response to a series of novels by a White author whose characters were Native. In fact, the way Natives have been presented in fiction (by White authors), as ignorant savages, etc., has been an issue for many years. Do we dismiss these concerns by pointing out that Kenneth Grahame wrote Wind In The Willows even though he wasn't a Rat, a Mole, or a Toad?

"By that way of thinking, gay male writers should have no one in their stories but gay males, lesbians no one but lesbians, whites no one but whites, blacks none but blacks, no female writer write of anything but women"
The thing is, we're not talking about literature in general; we're talking about a specific genre known as M/M. Let's take your example of white authors writing about black characters. To make a real parallel, we'd have to imagine that, for some reason, a major fad began among white people: they developed a strong interest in black people's love lives. White people began writing endless numbers of stories, amateur and professional, which featured black people having sex, or at least engaged in romance of some king. Publishers began specializing in the growing popularity of so-called B/B fiction. All-white blogs were dedicated to discussing their favourites, sharing trivia about black celebrities and what they might be doing with each other, and comparing notes on whether they preferred extra-dark couples, medium-dark, or mixed.
Now, as your Grade 6 textbook would have said, here are some points for discussion:
1. Would this situation really have anything to do with Flaubert writing about a female character, or Jack London about a dog? Why or why not?
2. Is the fact that the objects of 'B/B fiction' are a disenfranchised minority group significant? Explain.
3. How would you expect most black individuals to feel about this interesting trend? Flattered?
4. How would you answer the following question: "Oi you, white people; why you writing about us black folks?"

(frozen)

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

1. Would this situation really have anything to do with Flaubert writing about a female character, or Jack London about a dog? Why or why not?

1) Yes, it would. The issue is one of imagination and the ability to write plausibly something outside of empirical experience. The logical extrapolation of your objections is that no writer should write about anything that he or she has not personally experienced. That is a limited and a limiting notion.

2. Is the fact that the objects of 'B/B fiction' are a disenfranchised minority group significant? Explain.

2) No, it's not significant. Women are a disenfranchised minority group and men have been writing about us and the female experience--even from female points of view--for millennia.

3. How would you expect most black individuals to feel about this interesting trend? Flattered?

3) I would not expect a unilateral reaction at all. I would suppose that some people would be perplexed by it, some curious, some enthusiastic, some amused, some offended, and some who just flat out didn't care.

4. How would you answer the following question: "Oi you, white people; why you writing about us black folks?"

4) I'd say, "Why not?"

***

And now I have some questions for you.

1) You know that Erastes is a woman who writes gay historical romances. Given that this upsets you, why do you bother to read her LJ? Explain.

2) I notice that you say that you are speaking of a specific genre called M/M, and not of other forms of literature. This would seem to imply that you have no objection to straight males writing about lesbians. Why is one form of straights writing about gays of the opposite sex less valid than the other? Discuss.

3) How would you expect most writers to feel about being told what they should write by random individuals? Flattered?

(frozen)

[batboy126.livejournal.com]

"You know that Erastes is a woman who writes gay historical romances. Given that this upsets you, why do you bother to read her LJ?"
Erastes friended me, apparently at random, so I friended her back. Therefore her entries appear automatically on my LJ. She wrote that she adds new people to her friends list periodically in order to keep things fresh, so I assume she's open to varied opinions, rather than wanting everyone to automatically agree with everything she says.

"I notice that you say that you are speaking of a specific genre called M/M, and not of other forms of literature. This would seem to imply that you have no objection to straight males writing about lesbians."
It doesn't imply that at all. I'm speaking about the M/M genre because that's what was being discussed here. Although it might be fair to say that I have less business representing lesbians. They can and do speak for themselves.

"How would you expect most writers to feel about being told what they should write by random individuals?"
I'm not telling anyone what they should write, much less expecting them to stop treating gay men as sexual fetish objects because of anything I say. I was trying to encourage them to consider how their writing affects some of those people they choose to represent -- real gay men, as opposed to the much more congenial imaginary ones. That subject doesn't seem to spark any interest.

[vashtan.livejournal.com]

It's in London ... so I'll go. Should we meet?

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I shall be embarrassed at how fat I am, but yay! Yes!

[vashtan.livejournal.com]

Don't worry. I'm not thin, either. :)

(frozen)

[tharain.livejournal.com]

I guess I just don't understand why you're griping about it. I mean, we've been writing about het people for centuries. It's rather like Noel Coward bitching about Mary Renault's books, then going out and writing yet another comedy of manners about (nominally) heterosexual people. I don't mind, long as they get it right, and some women do.

And some men don't. I rarely read gay male fiction, because most of it's either unbearably earnest (coming out stories), unbearably cliched (hottie little go go boy with big dick sleeps with everything before finding twue wuv, then continues sleeping with everything 'cause hey, they're open about it), or unbearbly angsty (Oh, teh GAY teh GAY). It's just kinda tedious, and often not very good writing.

If the women get it right -- and in this case, in Romance Novels, it's a whole different type of "right" -- then it's fun. So who cares, Edith?

(frozen)

[batboy126.livejournal.com]

"And some men don't." I agree with you there; they're often preachy and boring. Even Edmund White, who I know I'm supposed to love, is dull and pretentious, and his characters are hard to care about, even when they're on their deathbed.

But we're not talking about novels, comedic plays, or anything of the sort. M/M fiction is a different category of writing. The name says it all: it's about two men getting it on, whatever plot devices are used to pad it out. Could you write a 'M/M' which contained no sex, or in which the two Ms are brothers or just friends? There would be no point to it. But that wouldn't be such an issue if it weren't for the sheer amount and intensity of interest in gay men's love lives by straight women. Frankly, it's just plain creepy.

I'm bothered by portrayals in fiction, over the years, of gay men as sick, predatory monsters (though maybe I shouldn't mind, since "we've been writing about het people for centuries" and the quality of the writing was often excellent). M/M seems to me like the flip side of the coin. We've gone from being disgusting freaks to being attractive freaks. Not a great leap forward, as I see it.

And don't call me Edith.

(frozen)

[tharain.livejournal.com]

Frankly, it's just plain creepy.

I don't find it creepy, actually, but I do find it baffling, much as I find het men's interest in lesbian sex baffling. So, I just kind of accept that it is a thing that is. Some people are fascinated by it, and so write about it. Those in discussion happen to be women.

Is M/M fiction less unsettling and creepy to you if it's written by a gay man? I mean, is your issue that women are objectifying gay men and making them attractive freaks? Is the objectification of gay men in writing by gay men (basically, wank fiction) somehow less creepy? Let's be honest, we've been objectifying ourselves in the erotic writing field for decades. For me, I frankly find gay erotica written by anyone a bit of a yawn, and just don't read it when it comes my way, if it comes my way. And romance novels -- het, gay written, or M/M fiction by women -- are heavy on the sex bits. I skip 'em, no matter who's boffing whom.

I've been bothered by the predatory freak portrayals, too, but even more by the The Only Good Homo Is A Suicidal or Murdered Homo portrayals. It's the reason I didn't go to see Brokeback Mountain. I thought "They've been portraying that tired old scenario for decades. We don't need another one." I rather prefer the incidental homo kind of thing so rarely seen in fiction. I keep dragging it up, but Cherryh's Cyteen is one of the best of this kind: two of the main characters are lovers, and it's plot critical, and not gratuitous. I like it. When I write, the main characters are gay men, but there's no sex; apparently I'm the only person on the planet who writes gay fiction and never shows dick. Needless to say, I'll never, ever get published. =-D

Okay. Back to work. Lunch is over.

And don't call me Edith.

I wasn't, actually. I was quoting. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

(frozen)

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Well I'd like to jump in here, because it's about time I spoke, but I'm going to close this thread down pretty soon. I'd rather - if there's anything else to discuss, then I'd rather it was done via email, or one someone else's LJ.

Firstly there are plenty of stories which show gay romance without descriptive sex. Why on earth wouldn't there be? There's het and lesbian romance without sex, so of course there's the same for gay romance. In fandom (where I came from) this was coined and invented by gehayi as "genslash" - ranging from pure friendship/platonic love/to UST. Tharain won't have any problems getting published because his writing is lyrical and lush. Hayden Thorne writes gay non-sex and he writes just as well as her and she has just landed a multi-book deal.

Secondly, I'm not a straight woman. Not that that's any relevance to anything. I don't stomp up to other writers and insist to know their sexual persuasion. You can get into trouble for that. You could get arrested for that.

But we're not talking about novels, comedic plays, or anything of the sort.

I thought we WERE talking about novels, because that's what I write (mostly) - novels. Granted I do write short stories (published 20 plus and counting with no rejections) - but I don't write them for women - they are for publication in gay wank mags and books.

Correction: They aren't published as women as the target audience. They are published for men. (although of course women buy them, just as straight men buy books and magazines portraying lesbians)

I don't WRITE them for anyone except myself and for what the publisher wants. If the publisher wants sex on a cruise ship or cowboys or vampires or blue collar workers, then that's what he gets.

When it comes to novels then I write entirely for myself. Granted I started to write gay historical romance because no-one else seemed to be doing it since Vincent Virga and I thought there must be a gap in the market and I was pleased to be right. But when it comes to what happens in those novels, I COULD write bang bang bang formula straight out of the Harlequin checklist but I don't.

I DON'T write m/m - as far as I'm concerned that is something that I left behind in fandom. What I write is historical romance, with homosexual protagonists. I write HISTORICAL novels, with the emphasis on the history and a passion for getting the details as right as I can get them. I'm not interested in writing the level of crap historicals you see all over the place written by people who don't know (or care) that tomatoes weren't around in Viking times, or that tea couldn't be in Roman Britain. If I don't try to get the details right then I insult my reader.

I write gay historicals because I think that there are a lot (billions) of stories to tell - and they aren't all sad. And my books have sex scenes in them because - well - doesn't just about every novel have sex in it, and hasn't every book since Chatterley? That being said, my sex scenes are becoming more veiled as I (hopefully) improve as a writer.

If you find my writing "just plain creepy" then I don't (as others have said) understand why you are hanging around here. Don't get me wrong - I'm quite happy to have you around, I have only banned one person that I can remember - but there comes a point when I ask why? I don't expect people to agree with me - and anyone who's been around a while knows that I encourage healthy civilized discussion but when my writing is described as "just plain creepy" I sort of take umbrage.

Have you actually read any of it?

[erastes.livejournal.com]

BOOTS! *CLINGS*

Yes, but don't bring cabbages. Or old tomatoes.