My, how things have changed
RT Book Reviews: It's Raining Men: Tackling The Torrents Of Male/Male Romantic Fiction Flooding The Market
I'm rather surprised to see a five page article on m/m romance (with a blurb about f/f too) in RT Book Reviews (Romantic Times, once upon a time). Just a few years ago, I ended my subscription to the magazine once I learned that while they'll take ad money from publishers of same-sex romance, they refused to do any reviews.
I'm not sure if this article is a sign they'll be including reviews in the future, but they do have a nice recommendation list. I've read quite a few of them, but some are new to me. I'll have to check one of my friend's copies of the magazine at our next book club meeting to see if there are reviews. One author makes a comment in the article about it's an appropriate genre for RT to review, but that doesn't mean they're actually going to do so.
There are ads for m/m fiction amongst the pages (which looks like a scan from the magazine), which include cover art. Nothing terribly racy, but IIRC, they didn't allow cover art to be in the same-sex publisher ads in the past. I figured out about the "no reviews" rule after I noticed an ad, I think it was for Torquere Press, in which all you saw was two sets of feet peeking out from under the covers. It took a second look for it to click they were both male feet, but apparently for others that saw it, freaked out and complained, and the no review rule was spelled out in a later issue.
I decided it wasn't worth keeping my subscription, even though it's a good quick reference for upcoming titles in many genres and I could definitely use it for my work. Their reviews are usually a blurb of the storyline, then the opinion of the reviewer, and they're very short. If they're going to review m/m and f/f stories (they'll already review threesomes if there's a woman in the middle), I may resubscribe.
Though I don't agree with the author who says m/m erotic romance could be lumped under the general erotica section. That implies all m/m romances are in the erotic category, and that's definitely not the case. There may be sex in some of the books, but just because it's same-sex doesn't make it erotic. Quite a few I've read are no more racy than the average m/f romance novel. I'd prefer a m/m (and f/f) review section, with old-school "heat" ratings so people can find their preferred mild or spicy books.
If they did decide to lump them together by subgenre with standard m/f stories, such as historicals or paranormal romances, then I think they'd need to use the ♂ and ♀ symbols (and the combo version I don't have ASCII code for) similar to what AO3 uses to indicate what the reader can expect. I think that would be a lot riskier for them to do, to be honest, because a lot of their readership might ignore one section, but wouldn't if the reviews for same-sex stories are scattered throughout. Pick your battles and all that.
I'm rather surprised to see a five page article on m/m romance (with a blurb about f/f too) in RT Book Reviews (Romantic Times, once upon a time). Just a few years ago, I ended my subscription to the magazine once I learned that while they'll take ad money from publishers of same-sex romance, they refused to do any reviews.
I'm not sure if this article is a sign they'll be including reviews in the future, but they do have a nice recommendation list. I've read quite a few of them, but some are new to me. I'll have to check one of my friend's copies of the magazine at our next book club meeting to see if there are reviews. One author makes a comment in the article about it's an appropriate genre for RT to review, but that doesn't mean they're actually going to do so.
There are ads for m/m fiction amongst the pages (which looks like a scan from the magazine), which include cover art. Nothing terribly racy, but IIRC, they didn't allow cover art to be in the same-sex publisher ads in the past. I figured out about the "no reviews" rule after I noticed an ad, I think it was for Torquere Press, in which all you saw was two sets of feet peeking out from under the covers. It took a second look for it to click they were both male feet, but apparently for others that saw it, freaked out and complained, and the no review rule was spelled out in a later issue.
I decided it wasn't worth keeping my subscription, even though it's a good quick reference for upcoming titles in many genres and I could definitely use it for my work. Their reviews are usually a blurb of the storyline, then the opinion of the reviewer, and they're very short. If they're going to review m/m and f/f stories (they'll already review threesomes if there's a woman in the middle), I may resubscribe.
Though I don't agree with the author who says m/m erotic romance could be lumped under the general erotica section. That implies all m/m romances are in the erotic category, and that's definitely not the case. There may be sex in some of the books, but just because it's same-sex doesn't make it erotic. Quite a few I've read are no more racy than the average m/f romance novel. I'd prefer a m/m (and f/f) review section, with old-school "heat" ratings so people can find their preferred mild or spicy books.
If they did decide to lump them together by subgenre with standard m/f stories, such as historicals or paranormal romances, then I think they'd need to use the ♂ and ♀ symbols (and the combo version I don't have ASCII code for) similar to what AO3 uses to indicate what the reader can expect. I think that would be a lot riskier for them to do, to be honest, because a lot of their readership might ignore one section, but wouldn't if the reviews for same-sex stories are scattered throughout. Pick your battles and all that.