Saying Yes to Gay YA (and its authors)

[lady_schrapnell]

Probably everyone knows what the subject line refers to, but for any who might not, Sherwood Smith and Rachel Manija Brown posted their experience with an agent who offered to take their co-written YA novel *with* conditions, on Genreville. Many other spec-fic authors came forward telling of similar experiences with manuscripts containing gay

Comments

[asakiyume]

Well said

[lady_schrapnell]

To me, the proof of Sherwood's and Rachel's good faith comes from all the discussion they had--well, especially Rachel had--on her blog (all without naming names) about the experience and how they felt about it and what to do about it.

I totally agree. The only reason I didn't mention those posts is that they were friends-locked, and anyone who'd read them would have seen what you saw. (And of course, anyone in that situation would have already known that they're NOT the types to whine about not finding representation, or exploit a very distressing situation!) I wanted to avoid basing what I said on these posts that *aren't* available for all to read.

[asakiyume]

*nods**

It's frustrating: their very discretion means there's nothing public to defend them with. Except, as you say, their record of past behavior.

*sigh*

[lady_schrapnell]

Your one line statement sums it all up perfectly.

[steepholm]

I clicked on that agent's response before reading your comments on it, and exactly the same things leapt out at me. The tendency to see in HUGE LETTERS the sexuality of a protagonist (however minor a factor it may be in the plot) as making it a "gay book" or a "straight book" is not good, any more than it would be if it were being identified as a "black book" or a "white book" purely on the skin colour of one of the POV characters. And the assumption that, naturally, straight people will only want to read about straight people, is insulting in no less than 29 different ways (don't ask me to list them). One corollary is that, most readers being women, women must be protagonists in a significant majority of published books, right

[lady_schrapnell]

And the assumption that, naturally, straight people will only want to read about straight people, is insulting in no less than 29 different ways (don't ask me to list them)

No fear, as those ways have been going through my head ever since reading the "De-gaying YA" post!

Thanks for calling this 'more solid', though I don't think your post was bluster at all - and you have a deserved reputation in this field, so using it as much as you can in a case like this is hardly self-indulgent.

[breathingbooks]

I thought the agency's post was in poor taste overall due to the bit about writing quality and the accusation of exploitation, but what was perhaps worse was the comments. In the absence of one party having recorded the conversation, there is no solid proof. People may of course form judgements based on the logic involved, their knowledge of the parties in question (I have a hard time believing Sherwood would outright lie about something like that; people who know the agent may think differently), etc, but there were so many comments to the effect of, "Well, if Party B says it's a lie, clearly they are magically right!" And just... headdesk.

[lady_schrapnell]

It is very difficult to attempt to look at all that's been written as if I didn't know Sherwood's character, but as you say, some of the commenters seem to have gone from "Nobody except the three people involved can know what was said in the conversation" to accepting the party making personal accusations of lying and exploitative behaviour with astonishing speed (and depressingly little critical thinking).

[abject_reptile]

Did one of these POVs include the gay character in question? Yes. Is it because he was gay? No. It’s because we felt there were too many POVs that didn’t contribute to the actual plot.

*dies*

[lady_schrapnell]

Perfect userpic!

[intertext]

Methinks the agency doth protest too much.

Very well argued post. It's so frustrating when an issue like this comes down to one (or two) person's word against another, and that credibility seems to come from "power." If anything, one would think that Sherwood and Rachel have more to lose; thus, why would they lie about this? But I wish, as asakiyume wrote, that the discussion had focussed on the issue.

[lady_schrapnell]

But I wish, as asakiyume wrote, that the discussion had focussed on the issue.

Yes, and it was so clear from the Genreville post that Sherwood and Rachel had not named the agent/agency in question precisely because they were trying to bring the issue to people's attention.