What's going on with #yesGayYA

[cleolinda]

I have been writing (good) and having health issues (bad), so I've been quieter than I would have liked. However, before I can get to a number of other things, we have a publishing kerfuffle to discuss. Yes, another one. It's gotten pretty bad.

The short overview from the Guardian: YA authors asked to 'straighten' gay characters: Authors say

Comments

[deepfishy]

Thank you for putting this all together.

[utsusemia]

Thank you! I really appreciate you taking the time to sort through all the comments and posts and put this together. It's really helpful

[cleolinda]

Yeah, the only "evidence" that the original post was false is an assertion that "none of it is true," really. As Jane pointed out, it's also inconsistent, which is telling. And honestly, yeah--the "let him come out in later books" part is the crux of the issue to me. Either you had a conversation about minimizing the character's sexuality or you didn't, and it's clearly separate from the POV issue, which at least is an appropriate technical critique.

[fireflygirl]

Either you had a conversation about minimizing the character's sexuality or you didn't, and it's clearly separate from the POV issue, which at least is an appropriate technical critique.

First of all, thank you for an incredible post, but this line of thinking throughout the debate has bothered me. Because this is one of those ways that homophobia can creep in insidiously and be rationalized as a 'technical critique'. We can always say "well, I'm not having you remove this character due to his/her sexuality. It's for another, technical or stylistic reason." Even though those technical or stylistic reasons can be purely subjective. But the result is the same and, looking at the pathetic industry numbers, I'd say that this excuse has been used repeatedly (and probably not even consciously) to erase queer characters.

[cleolinda]

Yeah. That to me is why the question of "Did you discuss the sexuality on its own?" part is so important, because it's unambiguous. I'm sure critiques hiding under a veneer of technical craft have been used to erase queerness, but that's the thing--it's hard to prove someone else's intent, and even harder in a she said/she said situation. If you give me a transcript or a publicly posted comment, I can put my close-reading grad-school glasses on and start looking for contradictions or inconsistencies (oh, wait, you can keep the character if he's not gay!), but if there's no hard record, it's all completely subjective, "We can never know the truth!," etc. So what I'm saying is, I agree with you, but the very insidiousness of that kind of thing is why less ambiguous points are necessary to make your case.

[rhoda_rants]

I've been hearing about this for days--both sides of the argument--and thank you, thank you so much for bringing all the fallout to one place for our convenience.

As a YA writing bisexual (not exactly closeted, not exactly out either), I often wonder how prominent to make my LGBT characters, or how relevent to make their sexuality to the story, and whether I'm writing them this way to fill a certain quota or because it's actually right for the story.

And that's before wondering what will happen once I finish edits, synopsis-writing, and work up the nerve to submit the damn thing.

[ericadawn16]

Can I have a link for your books?

I'm thinking of doing a follow up post of where to purchase GLBTQ YA books.

[rhoda_rants]

lol--when I sell one, sure! I am still deep in the Query Letter Hell process of the writing game at the moment, and haven't progressed further than a "Thanks, but this isn't for us" yet. In the meantime, thanks for the add. I'm "boosting the signal" myself shortly. :)

[noelleleithe]

Excellent job here. Glad to see it all laid out. I've known Rachel through mutual fandom friends for over a decade, and I lean strongly toward her version of events.

My main questions about the agency response are the same as yours: Was the agent who wrote it directly involved in the negotiations or working off the word of people who were? And did the agency's lawyers approve the post? Because it makes me think of words like "libel."

[cleolinda]

I don't know about the post itself, but the "hoax" tweet was so casually libelous that my patience with the whole business just snapped. Not that the poster was intentionally malicious, but it was just such a sign of how badly misconceptions were snowballing.

The post itself--I'm with Jane, there is no lawyer who would have approved that, and even Rose Fox wrote that she suggested an "alternative" statement. Which I'm guessing was like, please, hand me the rope you are about to hang yourself with, I can't watch you do this.

[noelleleithe]

I'm picturing some attorney in an office somewhere with comic book style steam coming out of his/her ears.

(BTW, in the interest of full disclosure and just 'cause I'm not sure who knows the connection, I'm @shallowend on Twitter.)

[cofax7]

there is no lawyer who would have approved that

indeed not! It was a deeply unprofessional and potentially libelous post to make.

And, at the risk of engaging in ad hominem attacks, I would point out that at least some of the individuals accepting the agency's word at face value are characters you just don't want as your advocates if you're trying to assert progressive credentials.

[plazmah]

This is the best summary I've read on this subject, thank you for this.