RWA censorship?

[erastes]

Thanks to EREC for bringing this to my attention.  Apparently Affaire de Coeur had much promotional material removed from the "goody room" at the Romance Writers of America conference. It turns out that many other people also had promotional stuff removed completely and no-one knew where it had vanished to.  And, surprise, surprise, this is what AdC say about the people whose material was missing "Among this group were the alternative lifestyle authors as well as some of the other groups who might not walk the traditional path."

Hmmmm.   Perhaps one or two instances of purloined (hell, lets call a spade a spade shall we?) STOLEN material could be put down to catty behaviour of one author who dislikes another (and yes, amazing as it is to hear, this sort of thing goes on!!*gasp*) but on this scale?  I don't think so.  I am therefore swayed to AdC's supposition that RWA were censoring the displays because heaven forbid that the Romance industry gets to find out the insidious lie that Romance is not limited to WASP heterosexuals.  "I'm convinced it is done by parties who feel that they have the right to edit and control what all participants see."

AdC reports that action had been taken in their case the next day, but it's not good enough, imo.

I'm sure we all remember Laura Baumbach's experience at the Romantic Times convention last year when her promotional poster and all of her promo was "confiscated" (sorry, STOLEN) by the Hyatt or Romantic Times because it "offended the public" (where the public should not have been anyway.)  The poster of a half clad man (on his own) was no more offensive (less so, in my eyes) than the biceps bulging half naked men on most hetero authors' covers.

So we are one year on and it looks like nothing much has changed, in fact it's got worse, as it appears that it's not just gay literature that's being targeted here.

I was going to blog yesterday about the RWA award results because once again - not only is there still no category for GBLTQ Romance (or heaven forbid the revolting phrase "alternative lifestyles" - because one chooses to be gay. Or black) but there are still no writers getting into the finals. Is this because people aren't entering?  It's hard to tell; I know that Laura Baumbach attended and someone from my flist, but can't remember who?  I'm told that some of the finalists (and perhaps the winners) had some ménage-a-trois aspects but.. well, don't get me started. Please. I've nothing against MaT, believe me, but - well. Just don't get me started.

I admit that I haven't joined the RWA. Partly because of obvious reasons - I don't live in America for a start and I haven't been on holiday for more than 10 years, let alone have the spare cash to be able to jaunt to the States once a year.  But I (and I know this is a concern of several of my peers) think that if I WERE to join, I would likely be completely ignored? I'm not saying for one minute that my books would win any awards on their merit, but would they even be given a chance or would they immediately be discarded, unread, unjudged simply because of their subject material?  Probably.

But then again - how can we raise the profile within the very organisation that should be opening its mind to more than WASP het sex, if we DON'T join en masse, and if we don't start pushing ourselves forward in large numbers?  It's a real dilemma (for me, at any rate).  I feel a little impotent being over here in Blighty (where we have nothing at ALL along the lines of these conferences, our "literary festivals" are generally invite only and only big writers get invited.  There aren't even many literary festivals where you can rent a table for promo). I admire Laura greatly because she continues to pay her own money on expensive adverts in Romantic Times despite the fact they refuse to review her books, and she continues to go to these conferences despite that m/m is considered beyond the pale and impossible anyway because - as a wit said earlier - "a human and tiger can have a romance but two men can't."

Perhaps, then as The Macaronis and The Brit Writers have discussed, it's time for US to organise something in Britain.  Some kind of authors' conference where ANYONE was welcome, no matter what genre they write. Something along the lines of the American template - a room with writers to sign and giveaway goodies, and a bit of a knees up in the evening.  Hell, we we could even have some awards, although who the hell would want to judge them, I don't know.

It would be scary to do - but a lot of these conferences start very small - I read recently that one had started up and the first year it had 20 people arrive and now it takes 100's of applications every year.

Comments?

Comments

[reddwarfer.livejournal.com]

I'm continually disgusted by censorship. And it's always under the guise of "in the public's interest" when it's really "eliminating a seemingly undesirable element." I think if you organised something, it would be great. Lots of times the only reason things change is because people force them to.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I think that's right. Things have to start small - but they have to START - that's the most important thing!

[essayel.livejournal.com]

The Hay Festival started small in a tent in a field and now you can't get accommodation in Herefordshire or Gwent for that week!

I think it would be worth doing - maybe just a day where the authors can get together and plot and plan and decide whether they want to campaign or not.

But then I'm a lazy reader who would just love to be able to wander into Waterstones in my lunch hour and buy whatever I wanted. I'm not the one who'd have to man the barricades even in the unlikely event I plucked up the courage to submit one of my stories for publication.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

It would be fun just to have a get together - even if it's just for authors!

[marquesate.livejournal.com]

I have long said that Britain sadly seems to be the lapdog of the US and in far more areas than one might think.

I'd be happy to provide my expertise in running a conference (albeit little time, but alas at least experience) if folks actually want to go ahead. Granted, I've only ever organised academic conferences, but it can't be that diffrent to herd a gaggle of writers & readers compared to a gaggle of scholars & researchers, aye? ;-)

Britain has WONDERFUL writers, why oh why do they have to publish in the US where their Britishness is being grated away and where they are changed into clones? And why indeed not be all-inclusive?

Brits are difficule to motivate for any kind of conference or convention -I have to warn you, the UK costume con in one victim of that - but it is worth a try if a committee is willing enough.

(edited coz I really can't type, it seems)

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I'm encouraged by Sectus, actually. It was a fan run event, by people with little experience in doing anything like that and it was a huge event which got national publicity. Sadly the 2009 event has had to be cancelled, but it sold out before it folded.

Your expertise would be very welcome! I'll keep you posted!

[alex-beecroft.livejournal.com]

I'm definitely up for that. I have no expertise in organizing anything but I'm more than willing to try.

What I did do yesterday was go into one of the bookshops in Cambridge which has a 'crime writers' night once a year and say 'would you be interested in a 'romance writers' night to go with that? They gave me a contact number to call, which I was going to do once I'd put the idea to the Britwriters.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Hooo! That would be good. is only 60 miles from here!!

[elisa-rolle.livejournal.com]

The menages you mentioned (and I believe you are referring to our little conversation) are not books in the "official" RITA awards (the awards of RWA), but among the titles for the Passione Plume Awards, the contest helds by Passionate Ink. Passionate Ink is a Special Interest Chapter of Romance Writers of America for erotic romance writers. It's an online chapter with members from all over the world. Sometime a writer from Passionate Ink arrives to the main award, like Angela Knight or Sylvia Day in the past. From what I understood, Passionate Ink doesn't divide heterosexual romance from gay romance, and so, for example, in 2005 A Bit of Rough by Laura Baumbach was in the Contemporary category; last year, The Courage to Love by Samantha Kane was in the Historical category and Enthralled by Laura Baumbach in the Paranormal; this year Nothing To Lose by Mechele Armstrong (menages M/M/F) was in the Contemporary, At Love’s Command by Samantha Kane (menages M/M/F) in the Historical, Tailspin by Denise Rossetti and The Lovers by Mechele Armstrong (menages M/M/F) in the Futuristic. Elisa

[etaknosnhoj.livejournal.com]

Yes, but do you know how much work it was for the PI chapter to even get set up? RWA don't like erotica. There are letters all the time in the RWA magazine from conservative authors disgusted by the het sex they come across in books--anything slightly kinky and they're practically calling the police. One author somehow linked gay sex to pedophilia (I don't know what sort of dictionary she has).

PI and its authors have campaigned for an erotic romance category in the Ritas--to no avail. RWA responded by saying that all heat levels are welcome in all categories (even Inspirational? Ha, ha, HA), which completely misses the point, as I think they know. Erotic romance isn't romance with extra sex, it's romance where the sex is integral to the plot and characters. It's its own category, and doesn't deserve to be judged alongside more mainstream romance.

(Can you tell I entered an erotic this year and got nowhere near the finals? Actually I got three blazingly fantastic marks, and two from the prude dept. I'd shrug my shoulders, except this book won PI's award last year, and several before it was published too).

With attitudes like that, there's little wonder RWA won't even think about a GBLT category. Unfortunately, the conservative voices are too loud. It's such a pity they have to worry so consistently about who to include--because that just means making a second list of who to exclude.

Incidentally, the RWA's British counterpart, the Romantic Novelists Association, have never done anything silly like define romance (especially after seeing the mess RWA made of it!). I don't know any GLBT authors there, however...doesn't mean there aren't any, I just don't know of them.

[alex-beecroft.livejournal.com]

I just noticed that you'd volunteered to be a reviewer for AdC. I volunteered for the same thing about six months ago and have yet to be given a single book to review. I think they must have forgotten about me.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I nagged 'em.

:)

[seraphim-grace.livejournal.com]

It's disgusting utterly and totally disgusting
I agree with you, even if i could rush to america once a year for a convention I wouldn't for that, I could hit yaoicon instead

there's no reason we can't set one up ourselves, hire a hall, share the cost between a few of us or have a small entrance free to cover costs and then have everyone hit a bar afterwards, there are plenty of cheap hotels, we fangirls have often done that, hired some cheap holiday accomodation in the ass of wales off season and had a conference all by ourselves.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

That sounds good - and I'm sure it would grow in popularity as we went on.

It's good that people are interested! Halls are pretty cheap to hire and gawd knows there are ton of them around!

[aphephobia.livejournal.com]

That disgusts and angers me, but it hardly surprises me.

I don't think it hasn't occurred to a lot of the men running the publishing companies and thus having pull in events like this that there are plenty of people who enjoy gay romance-- it's just that it goes well against the status quo. Women's (and minorities') reading (and sexual) material is still determined by the straight rich white men at the of of things. They don't want gayness (or blackness, or anything-else-ness) represented, so they act like it doesn't exist, and then shuffle it into "alternative lifestyles" as though it's somewhat *gasp* odd, and there's something "not normal" about the people who enjoy it. We're not your average public like the people who like het porn or the straight men who watch Girls Gone Wild, we're some specialty group that's a bit strange. And there aren't even that many of us so we're easy to ignore or not market anything to. (Excuse the sarcasm here, I'm seething.)

I don't find heterosexual porn (or faux-lesbian porn created for straight men) at all interesting. Already, the whole world is a big straight lovefest and IMHO, we've seen everything because it's in every movie, every sitcom, every book and every commercial. (Maybe this is why I'm fine with gay or otherwise "unconventional" romances yet straight romance is really off-putting-- though I'm fine with messed up straight-couple love stories which don't end happily...)

Fuck: it's just mindblowing and it akes me furious. It's not like they're just ignorant or old-fashioned-- that seems extremely aggressive. :/


As for the conference, I'd be up for that if i was actually a writer. *sighs*

[lee-rowan.livejournal.com]

Most sci-fi conventions aren't made up of sf writers or moviemakers or actors--they're mostly fans. And as far as I can tell, the groundswell of women reading m/m came out of media fandoms and fan-fiction (Starsky/Hutch, for instance.)

I don't think m/m cons should be writers-only. In fact, I think the only people excluded should be those who come in to harangue or threaten.

[valarltd.livejournal.com]

I haven't joined RWA because I don't give money to homophobic organizations.
I don't believe in "change them from within." The membership of any organization is just a source of income to those at the top.

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

Bravo, Angela!

I don't think anyone who writes gay romance should support RWA or go to their damned conventions--what's the point, if they're just going to away all the materials so that they can pretend that gay romance doesn't exist? Romantic Writers of America doesn't deserve anything except a hell of a lot of bad publicity...and undying contempt.

The writers of gay romances should found other, more accepting conventions. Raise the standards in the industry--God knows it could use that!

ETA: Corrected because, in my fury, I got the name of the organization wrong.

[joyful-molly.livejournal.com]

Again?! Just how dense are these RWA people? I already blew my top about the "Baumbach-Affair" last year. As far as I'm concerned, we can all do well without "associations" like the RWA. I also heard from other authors how shabbily they've been treated; there's a pattern.

The term "alternative lifestyle" gives the mindset behind such organisations and events away. Mind you, if they don't want to have any GBLT literature, fine. But they should be honest about it then and deal with the fact that people might form an opinion about them based on that statement. But nooo, they feel it's perfectly fine to cash in on the authors they seem to dislike so much. Up theirs, I say.

I'm all for "doing our own thing", and I'd definitely support it. Unless it's "British only, please", which I find just as annoying as "only Americans, please". There are so many people writing books in English who don't have the required passport.

[lee-rowan.livejournal.com]

Just how dense are these RWA people?

the old Star Trek phrase, "Solid neutronium hull" comes to mind...

[angelabenedetti.livejournal.com]

That's really outrageous. :(

What I'd love to know, and I hope someone who's there finds out and tells us, is whether the removal of the material was an official action, as it was in Laura Baumbach's case, or whether it was some individual or private group who took it upon themselves to play thought police on behalf of everyone else. It'd still be outrageous either way, but institutionalized outrageousness has a much longer reach. [scowl]

Angie

[lee-rowan.livejournal.com]

It's never "official." It's more along the lines of "will no one slay this troublesome priest..?" and no one can ever seem to find the "outraged civilian" who supposedly complained about the m/m material. It's homophobic bullshit.

[girluknow.livejournal.com]

I would think starting up a new and inclusive organization, which would eventually be MUCH larger and a lot more fun than RWA and other cliquish groups run by closed-minded, faint-hearted, bigoted neanderthals who have apparently altogether lost the idea of what romance is all about, would be more satisfying and productive in the long run.
And that is my convoluted sentence for the day.*g*

[alex-beecroft.livejournal.com]

I think we should too, I just don't have the organizing ability or time to do it!

[haydenthorne.livejournal.com]

Huh. I'm half-tempted to organize a GLBT-only romance writers conference and blatantly exclude het romance writers. Then we'll see how some of their contingent feel about being shoved off, the prissy hypocrites.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

"We have checked your back catalogue and one of your characters has sex with a person of the opposite sex. I'm sorry, but I think you will not fit into the demographic of our convention. YOU PERVERT."

:)

[lee-rowan.livejournal.com]

Travel costs are only going to go up ... so I'm wondering if it would make sense to see if there are tech-savvy peeps who could set up internet links for a gathering that has two branches -- somewhere in the UK and somewhere in the US? (I'm in Canada, so I'm not politicking for one or the other, I just think this would make it possible for more folks on either side to participate. Exchange members would be fun, too...

[angelabenedetti.livejournal.com]

For that matter, I've heard of conferences run completely online, with panels in chat rooms (and captures archived later) and uploaded hand-outs and socializing on bulletin boards. Not quite as much fun as seeing people in person, but several orders of magnitude cheaper.

Angie

[mongrelheart.livejournal.com]

Wow. Whoever is censoring the displays -- the RWA itself or some "concerned" third party -- how revoltingly gutless and underhanded can they be? Not to mention the irony of writer(s) trying to shut other writers up. Blech!

[lee-rowan.livejournal.com]

There are always control freaks. I've had potshots from a twit who seems to resent my being married f/f and writing m/m. "You should write what I SAY you should write because that's the RIGHT stuff and what you want to write is WRONG..."

It's moronic. And it's always some idiot control freak with the Best of Intentions.

[vashtan.livejournal.com]

I'm willing to help.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Hurrah! Thanks, hun

[clarelondon.livejournal.com]

I'm online in the middle of Athens and limited for time but count me in with any plans! I'll read this post properly when I get home next weekend.

The RWA thing appalls me. Not that I want to be militant or anything - the whole core should be that these things are inclusive - but I'm in favour of the occasional positive discrimination.
^___^

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Excellent! Enjoy your holiday!

[lee-rowan.livejournal.com]

It occurs to me that Affaire de Coeur being targeted is a really encouraging sign ... the RT/RWA old guard is feeling pressed. Yes, I know, they are two different groups, there are a lot of glbt-friendly writers in RWA, the erotic writers in RWA have many of the same problems, etc... nonetheless, the power in both groups has been in the hands of many of the same people for a very long time. RWA sets the standards for a "real" romance writer, RT decides which books are 'appropriate' for review. In essence, they were the sole arbiters of what was made visible to readers all over the world.

A nice setup for them, isn't it? They can claim they aren't discriminating because they're completely openminded when it comes to taking anybody's money--readers can see ads for m/m--but anyone who wants to see a review before buying will only see the "right" books--any book that fits their formula (m/f hea) will get a review if the author buys ad space for it.

Does it sound like RT is on my skunk list? There's reason--they didn't even admit, in writing, that they wouldn't review m/m until my publisher pressed them for an answer after I'd bought a share of an ad for Ransom and the other (m/f) books in that ad were duly reviewed. Up to that point, it was the policy that didn't care to speak its name.

I haven't seen many m/m reviews in AdeC, either, but apparently that's changing. If they're visible enough to be targeted by bigots, that means they're becoming a visible alternative to the status quo. That's got to be good.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Oh ouch, I didn't know that you had been stung with the "we'll review your book if you place an ad" clause. That was how I found out about the RTs in the first place because there was a god awful stink over a man who'd paid for advertising space and then was refused a review in breech of his contract. He never got any redress and I think that RT had to then come out and say "we are not now reviewing m/m at this time" or something - but I still don't think it's in their contract.

I would consider joining RWA for the whole undermining thing, but I wouldn't consider paying for advertising even if it meant that my books were at least featured in the magazine. I don't have that sort of money to piss away and I doubt that it can possibly be cost effective in terms of royalties.

RWA--preaching to the choir

[ruth-sims.livejournal.com]

It's why I have never joined RWA. It's expensive...and for what?

Here are some thoughts I had after reading this.

1. Has there ever been a petition sent to RWA? A petition managed to keep a gay Iranian kid from being sent back to persecution. If it could do that, maybe it could at least get up RWA's nose.

2. Such a petition could be brought to the attention of one of the publishing news magazines, none of which I can afford to buy, but I think there are some available online. A news story in one of them would be embarrassing to RWA.

3. Since a certain publisher is going to be launching a new series of gay romances next year, this RWA situation should be brought to their attention. Do I hear the word publicity?

4. I assume RWA is charging the exhibitors. If they're also sanctioning the removal of their products, isn't that false and downright criminal...like stealing?

There's surely something we can do besides preach to the choir.

Ruth
www.ruthsims.com

Re: RWA--preaching to the choir

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I certainly agree about expense and merit, Ruth. I feel exactly the same way about EPIC - which I've never understood the point of other than to rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars in membership fees and entry fees to their awards and seem to do nothing at all. Granted the EAA doesn't do anything constructive - although I will weigh in on arguments and plagiarism matters with my official hat on which is more than EPIC will do - but the EAA is free.

I think it might be worth sending an email asking them to add a GBLT category to their awards - and then if they refuse, then seeing if we can get a petition together - as they are bound to say that it's pointless and there aren't enough sales. I am quite sure that it's bounded by cowardice and they are terrified of the backlash from the Fundie Right if they have awards which celebrate gayness. In the same way that Joss Weedon got actual hate mail when he had Willow become bisexual in Buffy.