*Or stuff-that-I’ve-been-thinking-about-which-needs-to-come-out-of-my-head-and-will-probably-make-no-sense-to-anyone-else-but-me-and-is-also-likely-to-cause-offense-to-people-oh-well-I’m-closing-my-blog-so-fuck-it
One of the main issues which gets raised in the m/m romance community from time to time – and inevitably causes a wankfest whenever it does – is the fact there are a heck of a lot of heterosexual women writing this fiction about homosexuals.
The whys of this as well as the reasons for the genre appealing to straight chicks has been flogged to death and, while I do think this is worth the occasional revisit, especially for those new to the genre, it is not what I want to talk about in this post.
Nor do I really want to explore the possibility and/or probability that a number of these so-called heterosexual women may not fit as nice and easily into these sexual and gender identities as some may think or, perhaps more pointedly, would like to think. That is another topic in itself.
Instead, I’d like to try to put words to something that has always intrigued me, which is the notion that there is – or might be – a legitimate way to writing m/m romance.
Now I’m not thinking about techniques, style, blah, blah. Rather, I’m talking about the belief some people have that the m/m romance written by gay male authors is more authentic than those stories by heterosexual women.
Interesting, yes?
I have to admit I find it fascinating there are readers who prefer the stories by men because they believe these give them a ‘real’ experience.
I think part of my interest in this stems from my work in the history and heritage field where the concepts of legitimacy and authenticity in relation to original sources and ‘the evidence’ are matters I engage with on a daily basis.
It has also given me an understanding that these issues are not as straight forward as they seem. Indeed, they can be ambiguous at the best of times and absolutely fraught with ginormous stake-filled pits of agonising doom at their worst.
Besides the whole ‘who can/should write who’s story’, which has been discussed frequently in historical and similar discourses and is an argument that scares me shitless so no going there or else, implying there is a right and wrong way to properly writing – and reading maybe?? – m/m romance is, I think, a slippery slope.
What do I mean by that exactly? I guess what I’m trying to say is to be wary of assumptions when it comes to such positions/stances because they are not always as simple as you might think.
Still not sure what I’m getting at?? Well, let me throw a couple of questions at you…
In this time of internet anonymity, can a reader really assume a male persona means the author is definitely a gay man who will offer them a more genuine story?
If a woman has had sex with a man and has even pegged him, does that mean she honestly understands what it’s like to have gay sex?
Why can’t a female author use her own experiences of discrimination to help her empathise and portray homophobia and bigotry?
Beginning to see what I mean? Doesn’t seem so black and white, does it.
Then there is that bottom line for a lot of readers, myself included, which is who gives a fuck who writes it as long as it’s convincing and enjoyable!
Of course, we, in turn, can be seen to be dismissive and marginalising GLBTQ authors and readers in what is essentially a genre about them and their communities.
Yeah.
And people think this lovey-dovey stuff is all about unicorns spewing rainbows and butterflies farting.
Geezus.
What a minefield m/m romance can be.
Also, I wish I wasn’t Libran cos this post made my head hurt.
The end.
Sharing's not the same as plagiarism is it? Just checking.
Kris + Books = Good. *Sometimes*. 