*DISGUSTED*

[erastes]

Romantic Times have denied the application for a M/M discussion panel.

Obviously MEN don't have the right to be romantic. I bet if Sarah Waters was a guest speaker they'd allow her to talk.

I'm furious. I'm going to email www.romentics.com and have a moan.

ETA: GO HERE AND VOTE FOR M/M romance being a Big Turn On.

Comments

[janedavitt.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link! I joined, voted in their poll, posted and pimped in my LJ.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Good for you! I saw your comment, we really need everyone from Torquere, ERWA and everything else to go, not only to vote, but to make a comment.

I was planning to add myself as an author once I got my ISBN number for Standish, but as things stand right now, I'd probably be rejected.

I can't believe that level of prejudice.

[janedavitt.livejournal.com]

It's deeply sad but I think it comes down to the fact that they see romances as being for women and women as into het romance only.

Odd, as Judith Krantz books, written in the 70s to 90s and HUGE bestsellers, generally have a strong f/f themed relationship and quite often a m/m one, too, running alongisde the admittedly mainly-focused on m/f relationship.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

grrr.

And I had prejudice entering a historical writers critique group recently because of my subject matter, when the best (imo) historical writers have already dealt with it far better than I can do, O'Neill, Renault, Plaidy, etc etc.

*fumes*

[janedavitt.livejournal.com]

I think it's a knee jerk reaction; or maybe they missed the hugely slashy subtext in a lot of the older romances? Heyer, for instance?