![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
megwritesSo, the agency that was being referred to in the article that started #YesGayYA has said that the authors (Sherwood Smith and Rachel Manija Brown) were lying about their article and that (direct quote): "these authors have exploited the topic."
I've read both, and while I can't know the precise words said in these conversations, I can say that I'm more than a little suspicious and unconvinced by anyone who's defense is this statement:
The thing is, it's not enough to say "oh, but we also wanted these straight characters reduced/cut out/etc" and then think that it's enough. Because it feels a lot like the intention argument and the "but I did this to a [insert privileged group] person, too!" arguments I am beyond weary of.
There was a damn good point made, and it's obviously been missed.
The original article was not about saying these particular people were terrible, specific queer hating bigots and summoning the great gay hordes to burn their houses down. The authors both made very carefully sure to keep everyone anonymous and the article was pretty stripped of any identifying information.
As far as I read, the point was only to use that incident to start a larger discussion, to bring attention to a proven, systemic failing in the U.S. publishing industry. A problem that has very much to do with the choices (however motivated or intended) being made by agents, editors, and publishers.
It was about pointing out that there is a fundamental lack of diversity. Fact. Not just because people are actively saying "no, we must have no gay characters, for we think they are evil!"
The kind of skewing and fucked up heterocentrism in our society and our literature here in the U.S. are not always that obvious. It isn't just about the howling, blatant Orson Scott Card-level type kinds of prejudice. And if you're only interested in addressing queer hate and queer erasure when someone starts saying GLBT+ folks should be put in jail? Just go away from me. I don't even want to deal with you.
The problems in our society are ever so much more subtle and intersectional and pervasive. It's about a system that doesn't recognize that we need to make an effort to value GLBT+ characters and POV's enough to make them a priority. It means recognizing that because the playing field between straight and queer ISN'T equal, steps need to be taken to overcome that.
Which translates, practically, to being aware that cutting a straight character or their POV and cutting a queer character/POV are not the same act. That one has significantly more impact than the other. Because you cut a straight character (all other things being equal, intersectionally speaking), the straight kids of the world are no worse off. They've got about a million billion other books to turn to if they want to see heterosexuality represented and brought to the fore.
You cut a queer character/POV? You're taking something away from an already too small pool of resources and literature available. You're taking away (or keeping away) something from those who already don't have enough.
Maybe you did cut the character because the novel was crowded, or want to erase a bunch of backstory that included all the information that this character was gay, and maybe you very much thought you were doing it for purely literary, editorial reasons.
It doesn't change the effect of your actions.
Oh, and by the by? Fuck yes, asking anyone to edit a novel in such a way that any reference to the character's queerness is lost really is turning a queer character straight. Part of that subtle heterocentrism I was talking about is the fact that straight is default, especially in literature and in current culture.
Right now, as things stand, people are assumed straight in media unless they come out as queer and take out a billboard announcing their queerness along the highway where they lead their own little Pride Parade in a big rainbow clown car with the words "JUST QUEERED!" and a bunch of tincans trailing behind it. Because straight is still our default, still the majority.
I know because I basically have to tattoo, "Yes, still queer as hell!" on my forehead because I'm a cis woman married to a cis man which apparently means that I can't be anything but heterosexual right. Apparently I need to have references available for everyone non-dude person I've been with or been in love with in order to have my queeritude verified.
The problem is systemic invisibility, and when you make someone's queerness invisible by taking out all references to it, even if you truly make that decision for other reason? Is still erasing a queer character. And doing that (for whatever reasons and with whatever intents) in an industry where queer invisibility IS A BIG DAMN PROBLEM is not something you need to turn around and try to defend yourself from.
Part of stopping this problem isn't just telling everyone to jump onboard the Rainbow Bandwagon and say nice things about GLBT+ kids and books and crap. Part of it is making the effort - the regular effort - in the course of normal, every day work to stop and think about these things. It means taking five damn minutes to sit down and remind yourself that your industry has a problem, that you're part of that industry, and that when you're looking down at a book where you're about to chop away the queerness of a character (no matter why you're doing it), that you need to stop. You need to remember all these things you've been saying and then actually apply them.
Which means you need to be sitting there at your desk, aware of it, and saying, "Huh, well, there really is a need for more positive GLBT+ characters and POV's, so maybe I should try to hang on to this character/POV as much as possible and find ways to keep their queerness visible rather than just hacking it off as if it's all the same."
Defensiveness doesn't fix that, because it just teaches you how to fend off any criticism when you don't take those five minutes at your desk and end up putting another straightened/de-queered novel on the market.
Oh, and btw, I'm none too happy with this addendum from the former agent (Colleen Lindsay) who hosted the defensive post on her blog:
Because it's totally impossible for more than two or three agents to have a similiar bias or devaluing of queer characters in an industry that clearly and statistically is suffering from A SYSTEMIC (IE - INDUSTRY-WIDE) PROBLEM OF UNDERREPRESENTING QUEER CHARACTERS. Obviously, it must be just the one agent over there who's causing all these queer books not to get published. It can't be that it's something shared among several agents that would cause SEVERAL AGENTS to take the same problematic actions. It's not like that's sort of the definition of systemic or anything. (Please note this entire paragraph has been said in sarcasm).
Did you ever think that part of the problem is that you're in an industry where people aren't questioning each other's decisions and instead taking too much on good faith? Why is it that with no other facts on hand, you just tend to assume that an agent - being an agent - will have been fair and had good, justifiable reasons for their actions?
Especially since I can trot out not just the linked stats from Malinda Lo, but also other stats about race, class, gender, and other kinds of representation which clearly show that as a group, y'all are not making good, fair, justifiable decisions and that you're getting really obnoxious, oppressive results.
I just don't see how these reactions are changing the way that the U.S. industry acts or how this means these folks are part of the solution and not the problem.
Because this isn't just about writers not WRITING queer stuff. It's about the fact that a writer can write all the queer characters and queer books they like, but those books don't make it to the shelves unless agents, editors, publishers and bookstores put them there and let people know about them. (Well, save self-publishing and other venues, that is.)
Setting yourselves up and justifying in post after post that people NEED agents (and editors/publishers) because they're gatekeepers who do quality control to keep bad, unreadable books off the market and then getting defensive when people, after analyzing the results of your gatekeeping, start talking about the individual choices that factor into the larger results? Is hypocritical on a lot of levels.
Or: you do not get say "oh we didn't want the gay character's POV for X, Y, Z reason, not because of queer hate!" in response to an article about the lack of GLBT+ representation in your industry and then tell me it's just business or that your reasons even really matter when some kid is sitting there and sees that for everyone one book about then, there are TWENTY or THIRTY about the straight kids.
ETA: For the sake of accuracy and fairness, it should be noted (as is stated here) that the agent who made the defensive post, Joanna Stampfel-Volpe, is not the agent in question who had the discussion with authors Sherwood and Brown. Rather, Joanna Stampfel-Volpe was merely an agent speaking on behalf of the agency.
I've read both, and while I can't know the precise words said in these conversations, I can say that I'm more than a little suspicious and unconvinced by anyone who's defense is this statement:
Our second bit of editorial feedback was that at least two POVs, possibly three, needed to be cut. 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.
The thing is, it's not enough to say "oh, but we also wanted these straight characters reduced/cut out/etc" and then think that it's enough. Because it feels a lot like the intention argument and the "but I did this to a [insert privileged group] person, too!" arguments I am beyond weary of.
There was a damn good point made, and it's obviously been missed.
The original article was not about saying these particular people were terrible, specific queer hating bigots and summoning the great gay hordes to burn their houses down. The authors both made very carefully sure to keep everyone anonymous and the article was pretty stripped of any identifying information.
As far as I read, the point was only to use that incident to start a larger discussion, to bring attention to a proven, systemic failing in the U.S. publishing industry. A problem that has very much to do with the choices (however motivated or intended) being made by agents, editors, and publishers.
It was about pointing out that there is a fundamental lack of diversity. Fact. Not just because people are actively saying "no, we must have no gay characters, for we think they are evil!"
The kind of skewing and fucked up heterocentrism in our society and our literature here in the U.S. are not always that obvious. It isn't just about the howling, blatant Orson Scott Card-level type kinds of prejudice. And if you're only interested in addressing queer hate and queer erasure when someone starts saying GLBT+ folks should be put in jail? Just go away from me. I don't even want to deal with you.
The problems in our society are ever so much more subtle and intersectional and pervasive. It's about a system that doesn't recognize that we need to make an effort to value GLBT+ characters and POV's enough to make them a priority. It means recognizing that because the playing field between straight and queer ISN'T equal, steps need to be taken to overcome that.
Which translates, practically, to being aware that cutting a straight character or their POV and cutting a queer character/POV are not the same act. That one has significantly more impact than the other. Because you cut a straight character (all other things being equal, intersectionally speaking), the straight kids of the world are no worse off. They've got about a million billion other books to turn to if they want to see heterosexuality represented and brought to the fore.
You cut a queer character/POV? You're taking something away from an already too small pool of resources and literature available. You're taking away (or keeping away) something from those who already don't have enough.
Maybe you did cut the character because the novel was crowded, or want to erase a bunch of backstory that included all the information that this character was gay, and maybe you very much thought you were doing it for purely literary, editorial reasons.
It doesn't change the effect of your actions.
Oh, and by the by? Fuck yes, asking anyone to edit a novel in such a way that any reference to the character's queerness is lost really is turning a queer character straight. Part of that subtle heterocentrism I was talking about is the fact that straight is default, especially in literature and in current culture.
Right now, as things stand, people are assumed straight in media unless they come out as queer and take out a billboard announcing their queerness along the highway where they lead their own little Pride Parade in a big rainbow clown car with the words "JUST QUEERED!" and a bunch of tincans trailing behind it. Because straight is still our default, still the majority.
I know because I basically have to tattoo, "Yes, still queer as hell!" on my forehead because I'm a cis woman married to a cis man which apparently means that I can't be anything but heterosexual right. Apparently I need to have references available for everyone non-dude person I've been with or been in love with in order to have my queeritude verified.
The problem is systemic invisibility, and when you make someone's queerness invisible by taking out all references to it, even if you truly make that decision for other reason? Is still erasing a queer character. And doing that (for whatever reasons and with whatever intents) in an industry where queer invisibility IS A BIG DAMN PROBLEM is not something you need to turn around and try to defend yourself from.
Part of stopping this problem isn't just telling everyone to jump onboard the Rainbow Bandwagon and say nice things about GLBT+ kids and books and crap. Part of it is making the effort - the regular effort - in the course of normal, every day work to stop and think about these things. It means taking five damn minutes to sit down and remind yourself that your industry has a problem, that you're part of that industry, and that when you're looking down at a book where you're about to chop away the queerness of a character (no matter why you're doing it), that you need to stop. You need to remember all these things you've been saying and then actually apply them.
Which means you need to be sitting there at your desk, aware of it, and saying, "Huh, well, there really is a need for more positive GLBT+ characters and POV's, so maybe I should try to hang on to this character/POV as much as possible and find ways to keep their queerness visible rather than just hacking it off as if it's all the same."
Defensiveness doesn't fix that, because it just teaches you how to fend off any criticism when you don't take those five minutes at your desk and end up putting another straightened/de-queered novel on the market.
Oh, and btw, I'm none too happy with this addendum from the former agent (Colleen Lindsay) who hosted the defensive post on her blog:
FACT: Both these writers already have their own agents. At least one of those agents reps YA books. So what does it say when the respective agents for both these well-established writers advise them to find a different agent for the book in question because neither of them wanted to rep it themselves?
It tells me that homophobia was most likely not the reason that this book has thus far not found representation.
Because it's totally impossible for more than two or three agents to have a similiar bias or devaluing of queer characters in an industry that clearly and statistically is suffering from A SYSTEMIC (IE - INDUSTRY-WIDE) PROBLEM OF UNDERREPRESENTING QUEER CHARACTERS. Obviously, it must be just the one agent over there who's causing all these queer books not to get published. It can't be that it's something shared among several agents that would cause SEVERAL AGENTS to take the same problematic actions. It's not like that's sort of the definition of systemic or anything. (Please note this entire paragraph has been said in sarcasm).
Did you ever think that part of the problem is that you're in an industry where people aren't questioning each other's decisions and instead taking too much on good faith? Why is it that with no other facts on hand, you just tend to assume that an agent - being an agent - will have been fair and had good, justifiable reasons for their actions?
Especially since I can trot out not just the linked stats from Malinda Lo, but also other stats about race, class, gender, and other kinds of representation which clearly show that as a group, y'all are not making good, fair, justifiable decisions and that you're getting really obnoxious, oppressive results.
I just don't see how these reactions are changing the way that the U.S. industry acts or how this means these folks are part of the solution and not the problem.
Because this isn't just about writers not WRITING queer stuff. It's about the fact that a writer can write all the queer characters and queer books they like, but those books don't make it to the shelves unless agents, editors, publishers and bookstores put them there and let people know about them. (Well, save self-publishing and other venues, that is.)
Setting yourselves up and justifying in post after post that people NEED agents (and editors/publishers) because they're gatekeepers who do quality control to keep bad, unreadable books off the market and then getting defensive when people, after analyzing the results of your gatekeeping, start talking about the individual choices that factor into the larger results? Is hypocritical on a lot of levels.
Or: you do not get say "oh we didn't want the gay character's POV for X, Y, Z reason, not because of queer hate!" in response to an article about the lack of GLBT+ representation in your industry and then tell me it's just business or that your reasons even really matter when some kid is sitting there and sees that for everyone one book about then, there are TWENTY or THIRTY about the straight kids.
ETA: For the sake of accuracy and fairness, it should be noted (as is stated here) that the agent who made the defensive post, Joanna Stampfel-Volpe, is not the agent in question who had the discussion with authors Sherwood and Brown. Rather, Joanna Stampfel-Volpe was merely an agent speaking on behalf of the agency.
