Thanks...and a Drinking Game
First of all, I'd like to thank you all for helping angevin2. She bought food yesterday and has some money for bills now, so she is hoping she'll be okay until the administrators of her community college pay her.
On to other topics. Rolling Stone recently interviewed another friend about her writing and the genre she writes in. The interview did not result in an article, as she believed it would, but a paragraph--and, as is typical of this topic, one written with a sneering and dismissive tone.
It has gotten to the point where the writers of this genre--many of whom are friends of mine--need a drinking game about interviews. So here, folks--have one.
DRINKING GAME FOR INTERVIEWS WITH M/M WRITERS
If the title says something the genre being written by straight women, take a shot.
If the title says something about the genre being porn written by straight women, take a shot.
If the writers being interviewed are not, in fact, straight and have said so in public elsewhere, take two shots.
If the writers being interviewed told the reporter that they were not straight and that, in fact, there are a number of gay men, lesbian women and bi people of either sex who write both m/m and f/f romance as well as straight people, take two shots.
If the reporter listened to this with every evidence of fascination, take two shots.
If the above info about the authors and the genre still didn't make it into the article, take three shots.
If the reporter not only does not report that the writers are not straight but also actively lambastes them for being straight women writing in this genre, take four shots.
***
If the reporter states in the article that m/m romance and m/m porn are the same thing, take a shot.
If one of the writers points out that there are, in fact, few to no sex scenes in his or her work, take a shot.
If the reporter insists that it's STILL all about the porn, take two shots.
***
If fanfic comes up, take a shot.
If m/m romance is stated to have started with Kirk/Spock stories in the 1970s, take a shot.
If the existence of gay pulps and gay lit prior to the popularization of slash in fandom are completely ignored, take a shot.
If the fact that "slash" itself did not originally mean that a pairing was homosexual in nature is ignored, take a shot.
If the reporter knows nothing about fanfic, take a shot.
If the reporter describes fanfic in condescending and dismissive terms despite knowing nothing about it, take two shots.
***
If the reporter did not do the research about the topic, take a shot.
If the reporter appears to be quoting previous articles that also got the topic wrong because those reporters didn't do the research either, take two shots.
If the reporter poses as an expert on the subject just the same, take three shots.
If the reporter ignores the information offered by the writers who write in this genre, take three shots.
***
If the reporter is dismissive of the writers being interviewed for being women, take a shot.
If the reporter is dismissive of the writers being interviewed for being women who write about men, take a shot.
If the reporter expresses the belief that women should not be writing about men, take two shots.
If the reporter expresses the belief that women should not be writing about anything but women, take two shots.
If the reporter has no problem with the converse situation--that men have been telling and writing stories about women for tens of thousands of years--take three shots.
If the reporter can't see that he or she is applying a massive double standard, take three shots.
***
If the reporter or a critic of the article insists that there must be some deep psychological malfunction that makes women want to write in this genre, take a shot.
If the reporter or critic utterly ignores the fact that there are many men who write in this genre, take a shot.
If the reporter or critic, again, does not make the same assumption about men who write about women, take two shots.
If the reporter or critic fusses about the lack of female protagonists in m/m romance, a genre characterized by having two male protagonists, take two shots.
If the reporter or critic expresses the notion that women must be writing about gay men out of deep self-hatred, take two shots.
If the writers being interviewed are asked why they write in this genre and words like "empathy," "the transformative power of love," and "a fascinating era" come up, take two shots.
If the reporter or critic either does not report this or sneers at the writers and insinuates that they are in deep denial, take three shots.
If the reporter or critic implies or states outright that m/m romance is exploitative and/or purely fap material, take four shots.
***
If this article is published online, take two shots.
if this article is published in a gay publication, take three shots.
If this article is published in a mainstream publication, take four shots.
If this article is being presented as "positive," despite overwhelming amounts of patronage, condescension and inaccuracy, take four shots.
If the reporter or a critic is shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you, when the writers do not like how inaccurately they've been portrayed in the article--finish the bottle.
On to other topics. Rolling Stone recently interviewed another friend about her writing and the genre she writes in. The interview did not result in an article, as she believed it would, but a paragraph--and, as is typical of this topic, one written with a sneering and dismissive tone.
It has gotten to the point where the writers of this genre--many of whom are friends of mine--need a drinking game about interviews. So here, folks--have one.
DRINKING GAME FOR INTERVIEWS WITH M/M WRITERS
If the title says something the genre being written by straight women, take a shot.
If the title says something about the genre being porn written by straight women, take a shot.
If the writers being interviewed are not, in fact, straight and have said so in public elsewhere, take two shots.
If the writers being interviewed told the reporter that they were not straight and that, in fact, there are a number of gay men, lesbian women and bi people of either sex who write both m/m and f/f romance as well as straight people, take two shots.
If the reporter listened to this with every evidence of fascination, take two shots.
If the above info about the authors and the genre still didn't make it into the article, take three shots.
If the reporter not only does not report that the writers are not straight but also actively lambastes them for being straight women writing in this genre, take four shots.
***
If the reporter states in the article that m/m romance and m/m porn are the same thing, take a shot.
If one of the writers points out that there are, in fact, few to no sex scenes in his or her work, take a shot.
If the reporter insists that it's STILL all about the porn, take two shots.
***
If fanfic comes up, take a shot.
If m/m romance is stated to have started with Kirk/Spock stories in the 1970s, take a shot.
If the existence of gay pulps and gay lit prior to the popularization of slash in fandom are completely ignored, take a shot.
If the fact that "slash" itself did not originally mean that a pairing was homosexual in nature is ignored, take a shot.
If the reporter knows nothing about fanfic, take a shot.
If the reporter describes fanfic in condescending and dismissive terms despite knowing nothing about it, take two shots.
***
If the reporter did not do the research about the topic, take a shot.
If the reporter appears to be quoting previous articles that also got the topic wrong because those reporters didn't do the research either, take two shots.
If the reporter poses as an expert on the subject just the same, take three shots.
If the reporter ignores the information offered by the writers who write in this genre, take three shots.
***
If the reporter is dismissive of the writers being interviewed for being women, take a shot.
If the reporter is dismissive of the writers being interviewed for being women who write about men, take a shot.
If the reporter expresses the belief that women should not be writing about men, take two shots.
If the reporter expresses the belief that women should not be writing about anything but women, take two shots.
If the reporter has no problem with the converse situation--that men have been telling and writing stories about women for tens of thousands of years--take three shots.
If the reporter can't see that he or she is applying a massive double standard, take three shots.
***
If the reporter or a critic of the article insists that there must be some deep psychological malfunction that makes women want to write in this genre, take a shot.
If the reporter or critic utterly ignores the fact that there are many men who write in this genre, take a shot.
If the reporter or critic, again, does not make the same assumption about men who write about women, take two shots.
If the reporter or critic fusses about the lack of female protagonists in m/m romance, a genre characterized by having two male protagonists, take two shots.
If the reporter or critic expresses the notion that women must be writing about gay men out of deep self-hatred, take two shots.
If the writers being interviewed are asked why they write in this genre and words like "empathy," "the transformative power of love," and "a fascinating era" come up, take two shots.
If the reporter or critic either does not report this or sneers at the writers and insinuates that they are in deep denial, take three shots.
If the reporter or critic implies or states outright that m/m romance is exploitative and/or purely fap material, take four shots.
***
If this article is published online, take two shots.
if this article is published in a gay publication, take three shots.
If this article is published in a mainstream publication, take four shots.
If this article is being presented as "positive," despite overwhelming amounts of patronage, condescension and inaccuracy, take four shots.
If the reporter or a critic is shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you, when the writers do not like how inaccurately they've been portrayed in the article--finish the bottle.