RWA again

[erastes]

I made a post for a submission call yesterday on erotic_authors, referring to a writing competition being held by one of the RWA chapters, NEORWA (north east ohio)

http://community.livejournal.com/erotic_authors/94348.html

I asked them:

1. Do the entrants have to be:
a. a member of NEORWA?
b. a member of RWA?

2. Is it heterosexual only?

And this is the answer I got to question 2. WHY am I constantly disappointed when I get this sort of response?

2. There is no specific statement about heterosexual or not. However, this is an RWA contest, I'd honestly have to say that most of the judges may not go for non-heterosexual, especially in any category except Erotic or First Declaration of Love.

This call was posted on Redlines and Deadlines, too. Which is the blog for Ellora's Cave.

Comments

[the-sea-to.livejournal.com]

Bah.

Something must be done. Please get JX accepted, published, and win the Booker prize.

:)

[upstart-crow.livejournal.com]

*sigh*

It makes me want to write romances so I can become a judge for this kind of thing and then be all, "Heterosexual? Boo!" ;)

[alankria.livejournal.com]

I love how gay people are only okay if they're sex objects or just discovering/beginning to explore their sexuality. Established romantic gay partners? OH GOD WHAT IS THIS WEIRDNESS.

[jessewave.livejournal.com]

especially in any category except Erotic or First Declaration of Love.

What does this mean "First Declaration of Love"? "Erotic"? MM romances are erotic.

I noticed that EC did not offer any MM titles AGAIN on Friday - of the 8 new releases there were 6 het romances and 2 menages which they listed as "gay/menage" so clearly they are moving in another direction.

[norton-gale.livejournal.com]

Lame. Isn't gay romance supposed to be the fastest-growing genre in romance?

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

It means that RWA classes gay fiction as a) primarily sexual/erotica or b) about the first time that a man tells another man or a woman tells another woman that he or she is attracted/is in love.

Please note that RWA doesn't want anything involving gays in long-term relationships. Either it's the de-sexualized first realization/first admission of attraction and/or love (which makes gays safe and un-shocking), or it's nothing BUT sex (which reinforces the stereotype that gay relationships are mainly based on sex--and that also reinforces the idea that things like marriage and adoption are wrong, since gay relationships can't be founded on love).

Or there's the menage idea that EC and so many other romance publishers use, which features two guys and a girl. As a rule, the two guys are madly attracted to each other, and often have been before the book started...but then here comes this woman. And she is so fantabulous that she can even make gay men want her. Often, the gay guys can't even get it up if she isn't in bed with them. Don't you just love the lessons there?

a) No one is REALLY 100% gay.
b) Homosexuality can be fixed.
c) Homosexuality can and should be fixed by the person of the opposite sex in the threesome. All lesbians can be turned by the Power of the Penis; all gay men can be converted by the Valor of the Vagina.
Corollary 1: It's not possible for a threesome to be male/male/male or female/female/female.
Corollary 2: If you can't turn a gay man straight, obviously you're not good enough/sexy enough/etc. as a woman.

There are times I just want to thwap the entire industry over its collective head.

[jessewave.livejournal.com]

Well I did give them a "thwap" recently with my post about the fact that we, the M/M readers, were being deluged with menage books and we were either going to start re-reading our old M/M books or we were going to buy from "gay friendly" pubs. Here's a link to the post if you care to read it
http://tinyurl.com/b3er58

I did a wrap up as well and here's that link (I don't think Erastes would mind since she contributed)

I think Erastes should enter just to confound those bastages.
http://tinyurl.com/csqtb2

[suryaofvulcan.livejournal.com]

Nothing to do with writing or publishing, but coincidentally Daniel Leary talked about the idea that gay =/= romance on his valentine's day vlog at After Elton this week:
http://www.afterelton.com/blog/brianjuergens/mores-for-gays-video-blog-vlog-25-surviving-valentines
(it's only in about the last minute or so of the video, but I thought what he was saying was really interesting)

[kittymay.livejournal.com]

Oh, come now! We all know that doesn't happen in real life! *SIGHS*

[valarltd.livejournal.com]

Erotic means there's explicit sex as opposed to closed doors.
First declaration is just that: the first I love you of a couple.

If I had anything ready, I'd send 'em gay werewolf detectives for the paranormal.


In Ellora's defense, people have to WRITE the m/m romances. And it takes about 2 years to get one through the editing process. You're only allowed to have 3 books in process at any time.

They do the release schedule by some arcane ritual probably involving chicken blood and unholy alignments of baleful stars. If there are 32 books ready in any given month, there may only be one or two ready that are m/m. Remember, you're looking at stuff sumbitted in late 2006, early 2007.

And there is an m/m coming on the 25th. (which means Naomi and I can send them our next story)

[valarltd.livejournal.com]

RWA is interested, at the national level, solely in protecting their hegemony. Like any other professional group.

Hence redefining e-publishers as vanity publishers, shutting out GLBT writers, and all the other shenanigans.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Fat chance. Can you imagine the scandal! But she hasn't got a dick!

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Or the talent, but that goes without saying.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Catch 22. You'd have to write hetero romances to get IN.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I'm boggled at that myself. BOGGLED.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Not all are, of course - there are many m/m books which aren't erotic. I know that mileage varies on this, but it's the reason I don't like the term "m/m" - because everyone thinks that its automatically erotic. I mean, i know i do write erotic, but there are many books in gay romance that arent.

Many editors are using the excuse of "we just can't get the m/m - we'd love it, but we aren't getting it." I suppose part of that can be due to the fact that there are a lot of publishers--most writers seem to be happy to stick with their publisher-and not as many writers to go around. I don't think that's ECs rationale though, sadly.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I think so, from figures I saw a little while back. But of course it's WRONG!!!!!!!! Only m/f is romance. /sarcasm.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

You have to be unpublished to enter, sadly - or I'd enter too. For all the good that would do me.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Thank you for that link - it was interesting - and very true.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I would enter, but I don't qualify, you have to be unpublished in book-length form.

[the-sea-to.livejournal.com]

I can make you one out of plastecine.

[the-sea-to.livejournal.com]

Bollocks.

Remember, I've read JX. So I KNOW what I'm talking about.

[the-sea-to.livejournal.com]

arcane ritual probably involving chicken blood and unholy alignments of baleful stars

*sends chickens*

[the-sea-to.livejournal.com]

I don't think DRM is erotic really. Nor Vashtan's Return on Investment. ROI is JUST a good story.

As is JX.

*hides*

[stacia-seaman.livejournal.com]

I entered a chapter contest a while back with a f/f story. One judge gave me super-high marks. Several gave me good marks. And the final judge gave me all zeroes in the "hero" category. Had that judge's scores been thrown out as discriminatory, based on the scoresheet that accompanied the judging results, I'd have made the final round.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

That's DISCRACEFUL!!! (but unsurprising...)

[stacia-seaman.livejournal.com]

I thought it was actually somewhat positive, in that the other judges gave it a fair shake. I was going to polish up another MS and submit it to some contests this year. I reckon the only way things will change is if these judges are forced to deal with same-sex storylines.

[lee-rowan.livejournal.com]

Better than average chance. It's a damn fine book.

[lee-rowan.livejournal.com]

Oh, you can join. You just can't compete.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

That's true, but no, i meant to be included onto the judging panel.

[lee-rowan.livejournal.com]

Do you? I wonder how the panels are selected.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm only guessing, but judging by their prejudice in general, I can't see anyone writing gay fiction being welcomed to the higher echelons.

[norton-gale.livejournal.com]

That makes sense from a business perspective, though not particularly fair.

[angelabenedetti.livejournal.com]

Erotic means there's explicit sex as opposed to closed doors.

I think this is part of the confusion on both sides, because no, having explicit sex doesn't automatically make a book erotic romance or erotica. There are bazillions of mainstream het romances from NY publishers which have very explicit sex scenes, including oral and occasionally (one Jo Beverley novel comes to mind) toys.

A "sweet" romance is where the doors close. A "sexy" or "spicy" romance is where they don't. An erotic romance is a whole different level, where the plot itself revolves around some sexual issue or conflict, requiring a lot of focus on sex while the conflict is resolved. But a lot of people don't get this, and too many publishers don't bother to sort things out either, adding to the chaos. So when someone -- including someone working in the industry -- says "erotic" there's really no way to tell what they mean at this point. :/

Angie