What is male/male romance, and how is it different from gay romance?
That’s a question I’ll be tackling as part of my research agenda for the next year. In the past, I’ve tentatively defined the male/male romance as a narrative that focuses on the romance between two or more men that has been written by women, usually in the expectation that its primary audience will be other women. By contrast, gay romance would be a narrative that focuses on the romance between two or more men that has been written by men, usually in the expectation that its primary audience will be gay men.
These definitions suggest two to four possible points of differentiation: the author’s gender and, perhaps, sexual orientation, and the target audience’s gender and, perhaps, sexual orientation, if one assumes hetero/homo binarism.
Of course in reality we know that things aren’t that simple. Men write and read male/male romance, women write and read gay romance, and sexual orientation doesn’t fit neatly into straight/gay categories. The m/m timeline I’m developing on this site includes lesbian and gay male writers, as well. Moreover, it’s quite likely that as the male/male romance niche grows increasingly mainstream — as I think it will — more overlap in authorship and readership will occur.
A third possible means of differentiating the genres might be to examine literary style. Are there any differences in the dominant themes or characterizations in male/male and gay romance? An analysis of cover art might also be interesting, to see whether any differences might be noticed across the two genres.
Finally, a fourth possible means of differentiating the genres might be to examine the works’ marketing strategies. Are there any differences in the way male/male and gay romances are marketed? Shelved? Or are those issues moot in a genre largely populated by ebooks?
As I’ve considered my definition of m/m romance, I’ve looked for associated research. Unfortunately, scholarly work on the subject is still sparse — almost all of it pertains to slash and boys’ love, rather than original m/m popular romantic novels. On the bright side, however, m/m romance writer Josh Lanyon offers plenty of anecdotal and personal information about the m/m genre in Man, Oh Man! Writing M/M Fiction for Kinks & Cash.
Lanyon’s book is both a primer on “how to write a novel” and a focused look at the male/male industry. Lanyon, whose works currently make up a significant portion of my Kindle collection, writes,
The essential difference between M/M fiction and all other gay genre fiction is that regardless of the genre — mystery, military, paranormal, historical — the romantic relationship between the two male protagonists is going to be of paramount importance. All M/M fiction is romantic fiction (2008:6)
And, he adds about romance in particular:
The stand-out thing about M/M versus gay romantic fiction is that there’s a distinct sensibility to M/M fiction. In effect, it’s gay men in love and making love versus gay men fucking. It’s about sensual and evocative details. It’s about the choice of language. It’s about emotions rather than mechanics. (2008:8)
Lanyon also rounds up a number of definitions from other writers and publishers. One publisher noted that m/m romance is often written by women and “most of our audience is straight females but we have a solid contingent of gay readers as well” (Harte in Lanyon, 2008:12). Another added, “[r]eaders who are reading M/M fiction aren’t reading gay fiction. It’s two different types of books” (Scognamiglio in Lanyon, 2008:12). Yet others commented that they make no differentiation between m/m and gay fiction.
Of course, it’s possible that general recognition that m/m and gay audiences are somewhat different has grown since 2008. For example, a 2009 article by Gendy Alimurung in the LA Weekly noted that “most readers of gay-romance novels are — like most readers of straight-romance novels — women who devour 300-page stories of men falling in an out of love with each other, all the while having abundant, glorious and oh-so-graphic sex.” Similarly, a 2010 discussion of the genre by Devon Thomas in Library Journal defined m/m as “gay romantic fiction mostly written and read by straight women. Featuring traditional romance conventions, including mistaken identities, star-crossed lovers, and happy endings, these stories show both physical and emotional intimacy between men.”
Lanyon thinks women found m/m fiction first due to their exposure to slash — and, I’d add, boys’ love — but that more gay men are now discovering and reading it. Gay men may be more likely to pick up a m/m romance because, despite any differences that may exist in style and target audience, these romances are being shelved and marketed by third-party distributors as gay romance. A 2009 Baltimore City Paper article by Heather Harris noted that both Borders and Barnes & Noble quickly moved Alex Beecroft’s False Colors from the romance section to the GLBT section of their stores, and Amazon dropped it, along with a number of gay titles, during the April ‘09 “Amazonfail” incident. It seems unlikely that this shelving preference has changed, although there’s probably a research project there waiting to be undertaken.
The m/m romance genre has continued to grow and gain recognition. In December 2010, Thomas’ Library Journal article called m/m romance “one of the hottest growing segments of the romance genre,” and just a few months later, in February 2011, Elio Iannacci reported in The Globe and Mail that “Amazon’s Kindle has had such success with the genre that the e-book site has tripled its ‘m/m’ stock since January, 2010.”
The genre isn’t without its controversies, however. In February 2012, an Oklahoma chapter of Romance Writers of America raised a flurry of discussion among m/m romance writers when it refused to accept m/m submissions for its “More Than Magic” contest. The contest was later closed with an apology note stating, “We recognize the decision to disallow same-sex entries is highly charged. [...] We do not condone discrimination against individuals of any sort.” The queer community also holds some skepticism toward a genre written largely by self-identified straight women. Victoria Brownworth, in Lambda Literary, writes critically that m/m romance is “about reinterpreting gay male relationships for heterosexuals in a fashion that is fetishistically sexual and which thus can be accepted–because it is ultimately negative [...] When we give straight writers the power to say we got our own relationships wrong and they know better, we are embracing our own oppression. That’s at the core of M/M writing–not the queer gaze but a distorted gaze.”
Yet Lanyon believes m/m fiction has an advantage over gay fiction because, he writes, “while many women readers are likely to be disappointed by the lack of emotional intensity in much of gay genre fiction, there’s a great deal to appeal to gay male readers in M/M fiction” (p. 13). Similarly, a 2009 article in Lavender Magazine suggests that m/m romance may be popular because “M/M relationships do not have the same gender stereotypes as straight relationships. There can be much more to these characters, and they don’t need to fit into typical female and male roles. The story really can go anywhere, with no social or expected boundaries—enticing to both the writer and the reader.”
All of this brings us back to the question I asked at the beginning of this article. Is there a difference between m/m romance and gay romance? If so, what difference does that difference make? A 2010 article by Lizzy Shramko in Lambda Literary put the issue well: “How does a genre of fiction that is exclusively centered around homosexual love, and largely written by and for explicitly straight writers and readers challenge the typical notion of what LGBT fiction is? Perhaps more significantly, how does it problematize the mutual exclusivity of homosexuality and heterosexuality?”
Those are the kinds of questions I hope to tackle, and that I hope other scholars may be tackling along with me, over the next year or two. I welcome your comments, responses, and suggestions.
Works Cited
Alimurung, Gendy. “Man on Man: The New Gay Romance … Written By and For Straight Women,” LA Weekly (Dec. 16, 2009). <http://www.laweekly.com/2009-12-17/art-books/man-on-man-the-new-gay-romance/>. Accessed Feb. 19, 2012.
Brownworth, Victoria. “The Fetishizing of Queer Sexuality. A Response,” Lambda Literary (Aug. 19, 2010). <http://www.lambdaliterary.org/features/oped/08/19/the-fetishizing-of-queer-sexuality-a-response/>. Accessed Feb. 20, 2012.
Harris, Heather. “Zipper Rippers: Women Write Gay Male Romance Novels for Women,” Baltimore City Paper (June 17, 2009). <http://www2.citypaper.com/arts/story.asp?id=18234>. Accessed Feb. 19, 2012.
Iannacci, Elio. “What Women Want: Gay Male Romance Novels,” The Globe and Mail (Feb. 11, 2011). < https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/valentines-day/what-women-want-gay-male-romance-novels/article1902774/>. Accessed Feb. 19, 2012.
Lanyon, Josh. Man, Oh Man! Writing M/M Fiction for Kinks & Cash. Albion, New York: MLR Press, 2008.
Lavender Magazine. “Male/Male Romance Novels Flourish Trangressions and False Colors are Recent Examples.” (Aug. 13, 2009). <http://www.lavendermagazine.com/uncategorized/malemale-romance-novels-flourish-transgressions-and-false-colors-are-recent-examples>. Accessed Feb. 19, 2012.
Romance Writers Ink. “RWI Magic Contests.” <https://rwimagiccontests.wordpress.com/>. Accessed Feb. 19, 2012.
See also Dear Author’s report on the contest: <http://dearauthor.com/features/industry-news/monday-news-and-deals-2>. Accessed Feb. 19, 2012).
Shramko, Lizzy. “Can M/M Romance Challenge the Definition of LGBT Lit?” Lambda Literary (Aug. 18, 2010) <http://www.lambdaliterary.org/features/oped/08/18/mm-romance-queer/>. Accessed Feb. 19, 2012.
Thomas, Devon. “Bodice Rippers Without the Bodice: Ten Male-on-Male Romances for a Core Collection,” Library Journal (Dec. 16, 2010). <http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/newslettersnewsletterbucketbooksmack/888366-439/bodice_rippers_without_the_bodice.html.csp>. Accessed Feb. 19, 2012.
See also:
Wilson, Cintra. “W4M4M?” Out (Aug. 17, 2010). <http://www.out.com/entertainment/2010/08/17/w4m4m?page=0,0>. Accessed Feb. 19, 2012.
Excellent article!, with great cited works.
As the author of “THE HADRIAN ENIGMA: A Forbidden History” (2009, Amazon, B&N, iBookstore, etc) about the true historical relationship of Rome’s emperor Hadrian and a Greek youth Antinous, the issue of “gay romance” versus “m/m romance” looms high. Historically, Antinous died under obscure circumstances, so there’s no HEA (happily ever after) resolution typical of most m/m romances .. except there are sufficient hints in history to suggest he may have died in some form of noble self-sacrifice. I have used these clues to weave a suitably honorable resolution consistent with recorded history, which places the novel with a foot in both the gay and m/m “romance” genres, complete with occasional moments of True (m/m) Love and Pure (gay) Lust. It seems to have worked for many reader opinions.
M/M has numerous problems. The first is that the plot is ALWAYS the same. Two guys are thrown together, but they can’t be together, but they want to be together, but fate pushes them apart, but their love brings them back together, they have sex, and live happily ever after. The writing is to say the least formulaic and contrived. It’s Big Mac writing not fillet mignon.
Gay romance (unlike M/M which is predominantly written by women for women) is much more male driven and more the way guys actually are. Men are not into rose petal strewn beds and warm towels for afterward.
Gay realism is the genre I prefer. Gay realism has a plot independent of romance but the characters are gay. Romance may happen but a happily ever after–as all men know–is not a guarantee.
The trouble is, Matthew – that “romance” as a genre, and to be able to call itself a romance with any publisher – a book MUST have a HEA/Happy for now ending or it can’t BE called a romance. These romances you mention which don’t, aren’t actual romances, they are–at best–gay love stories, gay fiction. Romance writers are bound by years of tradition laid down by the hetero market and the publishers who have been pubbing this stuff for 100 years. So “guy meets guy+conflict+resolution” is always going to be the backbone of romance because that’s all the publishers will allow.
Ergo: Maurice: Romance, The Charioteer: Romance. Junction X: Love Story
I find historicals more rewarding and challenging to write because of the “how the hell am I going to get these Regency guys into a satisfying ending when there’s blackmail, life imprisonment and hangings on the horizon?” and if I can do that without breaking history in the process then I feel I’ve accomplished something.
(In the post where you say, “In the same month an Oklahoma chapter of Romance Writers of America raised a flurry…” it reads as if you’re referring to Feb 2011 instead of Feb 2012.)
I read somewhere that hetero romance novels featuring Asian American heroines are rare, therefore Asian American females read less what would be considered strictly “romance,” and instead more what is considered Asian American fiction with a love story in it.
Then I read Erastes’ comment above, qualifying how gay romance mustn’t deviate too much from a formula hashed out over 100 years of hetero romance publishing if it hopes to get published, and therefore what Matthew reads (gay fiction with romance) isn’t actually “romance,” but gay fiction with a love story in it.
Hmm….
I think it’s worth teasing apart what exactly “romance” refers to because the term seems loaded with a lot of power dynamics and exclusions. I can see why people (namely gays/lesbians) think there’s exploitation going on, even if they readily admit that a straight woman can realistically write about two gay men.
In terms of demographics, although English-speaking boys’ love consumers who are male are at about 10%, we know that in Japan, BL is barely consumed by males at all because gay males there have their own dedicated manga. It’s also the case in America that gay males have their own dedicated fiction that often includes romantic elements. Thus, my sense is that M/M and gay romance aren’t interchangeable because they have established audiences that aren’t 100% female vs 100% male, but are more like (85% female/15% male) vs (85% male/15% female). Perhaps somewhere down the road it’ll even out gender-wise, but I think we’re still at least a few years away from that.
Personally, I find myself drawn more to books written by gay men as opposed to M/M romance that sometimes reads like, but more often looks like a hetero romance novel, just with two guys instead. Perhaps an analysis of covers would be appropriate.
PS: I tend to think of the phrase “gay romance” as including F/F — like how “gay marriage” isn’t just about men.
Actually, I do like what comes out of Blind Eye Books (gay fantasy) who I’m attached to because they’re local. So, I guess it’s not that I prefer male authors for my gay male stuff; I’m just not into strictly romance, which is what a lot of M/M is about. (Okay, enough about me.)
(Thanks; I’ve edited the post slightly to clarify the date!)
Genre romance does generally require a happy ending. But in m/m or gay romance, it can be ‘happy for now.’ You don’t often get Happy Ever After, especially in historical. And if you read Erastes’ Transgressions, you’d see that it’s barely even that, but I don’t want to post spoilers.
One of the interesting things about gay romance or m/m is that a lot of the conventions of het formula are discarded — and that tends to turn off the readers who demand formula (one example being the absolute fidelity between the One True Pairing once they’ve met–that isn’t necessarily true in life or in m/m.
Please don’t analyze the covers. The covers are the work of publishers and their market-research studies, and often have nothing to do with what’s inside. Authors are more or less required to wax enthusiastic about the covers as part of their promotional responsibilities, but the cover is more often a matter of gritted teeth and resignation. I do love most of my Cheyenne Publishing covers because designer Alex Beecroft gets it that the cover should reflect the story. (I left one publisher because, after they asked what I wanted and I said “anything but naked torsos floating in space,” they gave me naked torsos floating in space. Above a ship.)
I think generalizing about the audience proportions of “gr” vs “m/m” is tricky, too. I think that is far more a matter of a particular author than the whole category. Look at Cheyenne’s ‘romance’ page: http://www.cheyennepublishing.com/romance.html
About half the books are by men, they have happy endings, they are romance–but they are not formula by any means. And – neither are the ones written by women.
Some of the ‘teasing apart’ may require a second look at the automatic disrespect given to any book categorized as “romance.”
When I look at Cheyenne, what I see is a self-defined LGBT press that also solicits F/F content. My sense is that only LGBTs presses have an interest in F/F, whereas dedicated M/M presses are hetero women’s communities with a minority of LGBTs. (This is why an analysis of the “floating torso” covers, which seem to similar to het romance covers, would be important, I think.)
LGBT writers who find homes in M/M presses do so partly because big presses are very choosy with LGBT fiction. With the explosion of M/M, LGBT writers can find larger readerships more easily and who doesn’t want a larger readership?
The situation reminds me of a gay club here in Seattle that now attracts a lot of straight couples. The club won’t refuse them because it’s money, and the extra cash exists because of growing understanding, acceptance of gay people, plus a sense that gay spaces are “fun.” Still, the gay folk are like, “What happened to our space?” and now they populate the club less than they used to. Obviously, an M/M press works differently as a space of shared/differing interests than a club, but in what ways?
One way is that, yes, it’s probably wise at this point to think of every M/M author as having a different readership. But I still think there’s something “het” going on in the M/M world and the lack of F/F content is just one example. Not that “het” is bad, but when a gay club is mostly populated by straight people, I personally have trouble thinking of it as a gay club. When a “gay [male] romance” convention is mostly populated by straight women, I scratch my head. Not that I haven’t attended Yaoi-con a few times myself, but then that’s called Yaoi-Con and not Gay Manga-Con.
A difference that makes no difference IS no difference. The only difference I perceive between m/m and “gay romance” is that some people object to the fan-fiction origins of m/m, and m/m has become yet another handy tag to use to sneer at women writing about men. And while Josh Lanyon’s book has apparently reached many readers, he never consulted with contributors to make certain their words were used in the context of their original intent. That book is one writer’s opinion, nothing more.
I’m awfully tired of the constant refrain that m/m is written by and for straight women. Of the four writers tapped by Running Press for its M/M series — which, I contend, ignited a great deal of jealousy that fueled Lambda’s ill-considered decision to ban heterosexual writers — two of us were bisexual, one a gay man, and only one a woman in what could be considered a conventional relationship.
Yes, there are some awful, badly written, poorly characterized gay romances – show me a genre in which all books are equally well-written, and I’ll make a salad of their pages. I think the notion of defining m/m vs gay romance ought to give you material for at least one dissertation, because it’s the sort of question that will never have any definitive answer. What is the “perfect” romantic dinner? Each reader and each writer forms her or his own definition. I’d rather read a good story, and to hell with what anyone calls it, than worry over an endless, unanswerable conundrum. I guess it’s fun for those who enjoy such gymnastics…
And while Josh Lanyon’s book has apparently reached many readers, he never consulted with contributors to make certain their words were used in the context of their original intent. That book is one writer’s opinion, nothing more.
Well, hardly that. It contains a host of interviews with authors and publishers and editors. Not one word was altered and nothing — not one word — was taken out of context.
It’s not like I asked tricky or complicated questions. The questions were things like…define the difference between m/m and gay romance. There’s no twisting of words or trying to fit slanted information to fit my agenda. What would my agenda be? It’s a book about teaching writers to publish in a particular market. Yeesh.
Has the make up of the m/m audience changed in two – three years? Yes. Certainly it has. Many more men are now reading and writing male male romance than when I published Man Oh Man.
But the market is still primarily made up of women writing male love stories. That’s neither bad nor good, it’s simply the reality. ALL romance is primarily written by women.
No matter how hard someone wishes to argue against the idea that m/m is any different from general gay fiction, the fact remains that one of these two things is not the same. I’ll leave it to others to determine what those differences are. But if male male romance was exactly the same as gay fiction, than there would be no such term as m/m romance. It’s not like I came up with the term. It existed long before me.
I dislike the term m/m – always have – and choose not to use it unless absolutely necessary. To me, it has the taint of fanfiction on it where it was nthe normal thing to do to put the types of pairings on the intro to your story in case anyone didn’t want to ew read about the f/f cooties you may have slipped in along with your m/m. Sadly, somewhere along the way it has now become synonymous with gay romance, and I feel that m/m is generally more chicks with dicks than I would expect gay romance to be. Putting these labels on things, and saying “men probably prefer… and women probably prefer…” simply limits what people will even consider reading. How many emails I’ve had from gay men (ranging from closeted teens and marines to out and out leather daddies) which say “I’d not read a gay historical before – didn’t even know they existed but I’m hooked now” I can’t begin to count. Perhaps–and I’ll only concede PERHAPS–that there are mainly women reading it, but perhaps that’s because women are generally more vocal about chatting about what they’ve read. However, 99% of those emails I have from my readers are from men, and when I go to sites like Jessewave Reviews there is a healthy core of dedicated men who read it.
All these people who seem determined to shove gay romance into one corner or other are not writers of it. As far as I know all the writers of the genre DON’T write with the expectation of their audience being one gender or another. I don’t. That’s not to say I didn’t. In fact I got into writing gay romance for one reason and one reason only. I looked around and saw that there wasn’t any.
And I thought: Surely to goodness gay men want romance and that mythical HEA just as much as everyone else? All the gay men I’d ever known in my life have been complete romantics, after all and it seemed incredible to me that there wasn’t more than a handful of it out there. This was in 2004/5/6 and on Amazon I found a mere handful of stff, Lee Rowan’s Ransom, Pearson’s The Price of Temptation and a few others. If you remember, which you may not, there were so few publishers willing to take it on at the time, a couple called Scott and Scott actually started their own gay romance line called Romentics.
So I decided to write Standish and hoped that gay men would pick it up, I was delighted to find that yes they did, and that –BONUS!– women were reading it too.
Yes, I’ve read formula gay romances. I’ve read a LOT more formula het romances. There are good and bad in every single genre, including the hallowed LGBT lit. But I’ve also read some “m/m” that made me stop and think about the concepts within, that has made me want to smash my keyboard in jealous fury of the prose contained and that have rip-roaring plots AS WELL AS a well-rounded romance and HEA.
My attitude is – when my mother asked me “when are you going to stop writing ‘that stuff’ and write literature?” I’ve always considered that there’s no reason why my writing can’t be romantic AND literature. or at least, that’s the plan. Not there yet.
Thank all of you for the insightful comments and insights; it’s especially great to see reactions from writers whose works are on my shelves and in Kindle app! As I did with BL manga and am currently doing with steampunk, I come to this research question as a scholar-fan and writer.
The same “written by and for straight women” definition is often used to describe boys’ love manga, but surveys of Italian-speaking and English-speaking fans around the world showed that 13% (Italian-speaking) and 11% (English-speaking) of respondents were male, and 38% (Italian-speaking) and 53% (English-speaking) of respondents self-identified as something other than “heterosexual”(see http://www.participations.org/Volume%205/Issue%202/5_02_pagliassotti.htm). I’m expecting that the demographics are similarly complex for m/m fiction readers, assuming there *is* any way to differentiate m/m from gay fiction. As the replies show here, there’s still some debate over that among readers and writers. What I haven’t seen yet is any specific research on it, which is what I hope to contribute to the discussion.
The issue of whether there are any quantitatively or qualitatively identifiable differences aside, the sociopolitically critical view of m/m also needs addressing. BL manga has had to deal with the same criticisms (e.g., http://intersections.anu.edu.au/issue12/lunsing.html). Is there a form of fetishization, exploitation, or exoticism of gay men going on in these genres, consciously or not? I don’t think I’m the right person to address this question — I don’t feel qualified to do so — but I’d love to hear *someone* address it.
I hope this discussion continues, and I invite any of you who might be interested in contributing an essay or perhaps a regular column to this blog to contact me at my name @ gmail dot com.
I don’t think all this has a yes-or-no answer. Few things dealing with human emotions ever do.
I’m sure some writers are fetishizing, quite consciously, because gay guys are “so cute together.” That’s a quote! I’ve read some godawful stuff written by (presumably) het women who have no clue whatsoever what it means to be GLBTQetc. I don’t know why publishers buy this stuff–presumably because they can sell it. For every gourmet,there are thousands of people eating at McDonald’s.
Many readers of genre romance want what my wife calls “The Two Bears”– that is, the formula romance where lovers overcome obstacles to be together. The need for a satisfying ending drives many genre stories—for instance, in detective fiction, a writer who cheats the reader out of a solution or refuses to give clues so that the reader can work out the puzzle is risking a loss of readership for not playing fair. Many readers of erotic romance read solely for the pleasure of satisfying their appetite for a particular flavor of fantasy. That’s true of het, gay, and lesbian romance and erotica.
And.. what of it? Not every romance is Pride and Prejudice. There’s a tremendous diversity of motive for why people read or write anything. I think the spotlight has been turned on gay romance because, heavens to betsy, WOMEN are writing it. Mr. Darringer’s disdainful post is a prime example of that–the notion that men alone realize that real-life is not all happy endings? Sink me! I know several het women who read romance because their own experience has told them that the only HEA they’ll ever get will be between the covers of a book.
I’ve had letters from gay readers who assumed I was a gay man because what I wrote rang true for them. I also read a post in an Amazon discussion posting in which a gay man was indignant over reading a book, enjoying it, and later finding that it was written by — how dare she — a woman! He actually said he felt betrayed! Which, I think, says a great deal about the ability of a woman to write a male character, and quite a lot about that reader’s own mysogyny.
When men write women and write them well, they are applauded for their sensitivity. When women write men and write them so that it strikes a chord, they are criticized for daring to transgress upon territory they should not comprehend.
That’s rubbish. Good writing is good writing, and the label stuck on is nothing more than a tag someone chooses to attach. I think that the discussion of tags, and “exploitation,” is something that’s always going to be answered both yes and no. For myself, I write the stories I enjoy reading, and as a bisexual female I think gender roles and the expectations that go with them are overrated and insufficient to describe the diversity of human sexuality and human experience.
I recognize that the academic mind wants to define, clarify, and catalogue. But I think when this scrutiny is applied to a body of work still in its formative stages, it’s likely to have the same effect as attempting to autopsy a live cat. It isn’t going to do the cat any good.
The difference between gay romance and m/m romance is that the term “m/m romance” is used as a way of saying “written by women and therefore second rate,” or “written by women and therefore exploitative.”
Is there anyone out there who says that men are not capable of writing literature, with female main characters, that appeals to women, or shares essential truths of the human condition? No, there isn’t. But if women attempt to write about men, suddenly it’s a case of “oh, they must be doing it in a special feminine way. They’re probably only doing it for other women anyway and therefore can be safely ignored by anyone interested in actual humans.”
I’ve read critics of m/m romance saying “you can tell it was written by a woman, it’s fetishistically all about the sex,” and other critics saying “you can tell it was written by a woman – it’s all hearts and flowers and no sex.” I’ve read plenty of m/m romance written by men which was full of weeping and swoony declarations of true love, and plenty which was porn from page one, but no one points this out because that would spoil the equation: “written by women = bad” (in whatever way the critic thinks is bad, even if those ways are mutually exclusive).
Really, in this day and age, why are we still segregating authors by their sex? I thought we’d got over all that nonsense with George Elliot and James Tiptree Jr. Clearly the battle against gender essentialism never goes away, not even in the one place where being a little genderqueer ought to be easiest.
Re: m/m “used as a way of saying ‘written by women and therefore second rate,’ or ‘written by women and therefore exploitative.’” — that’s a very intriguing way to look at the genre label. I’d like to read more exploration of that issue, or talk about it more with readers, writers, and critics….
To clarify, I’m not saying that m/m romance written by straight women can’t be exploitative. I think that’s a legitimate concern as well, and one that all writers of m/m fiction ought to be aware of and working against. But the perception that it is a genre written by women for women is like the academic belief that slash fanfiction was a genre written by women for women – it looked accurate when it was made, but it wasn’t. Since then lots of people of every gender, sex and sexual orientation have spoken up to say “we’re here too.” And I think that’s the case with m/m romance as well.
I don’t think it does anyone any favours to pretend that the whole situation is not much more complex than it looks, and that being so, I really object to the way some people do seem to reduce it to women writers = bad fiction. There are excellent female writers of m/m and there are some male writers who produce books indistinguishable from the kind of stuff that gives m/m a bad name. I just advocate judging people by their work rather than their sex.
I describe my writing as gay fiction or gay romance because that should be understood by anyone. M/M romance is a term that often has to be explained. However if someone else wants to call my stuff M/M romance I’m fine with that. After all, I write about men and their interaction with other men, as opposed to M/F or F/F.
I treat the two labels as interchangeable, although they appear to have arisen from different sources. As some have pointed out, M/M is a term that grew out of slash fiction, a genre that I know nothing about.
I agree with others who have said ‘why worry about the label, just read the stories’!
By all means label a story according to its subject matter, and rate it according to its quality, but please don’t label or rate a story according to the gender or sexuality of its author.
In my experience you can’t tell the sex or sexuality of the writer of well-written gay-themed fiction – but badly-written stories betray the viewpoint, prejudices, world view and sexual identity of the writer throughout. It’s a gross stereotype, but poor male writers fail to express the emotions of their characters, and poor female writers write their male characters as weepy and hormonal.
This is still a young genre, and some of the early entrants in the field have set a high standard, much higher, I think, than the average standard of ‘straight’ romance. It’s had a great start, and I for one hope to see it build and establish itself. For the writing community to fracture at this early stage over something as inconsequential as what to call the genre would be a disaster.
Bravo, brother bear!
I really do have to say that I think a lot of the hostility toward m/m is simply the same tired old battle. Romance fiction and romance writers don’t get a lot of respect. Sure, romance outsells every other genre, sure it’s read by college professors and academics as well as married housewives and women who live with their parents and/or cats, and yet I hear these same silly cliches about m/m romance as I have heard for many years about heterosexual romance. It’s all chicks with dicks, it’s all the same…blah, blah, blah.
It’s intellectual snobbery, and it is ignorant and offensive.
I’m not sure why this is a discussion that inevitably devolves into anger and fear on the part of so many, but it does. Every time.
I write mystery. I write action-adventure. I write romance. I write the best damn male male romance out there. And I’m not ashamed to say it.