One step forward, six steps back (Say Yes to Gay YA)

[pameladean]

sartorias and rachelmanija have an essay up on Genreville (a site well worth the attention of readers of sf and fantasy in general) about sending a collaborative YA fantasy novel to an agent and being told that the agent would represent and expect to sell it if they would just remove a gay viewpoint character, or make the character, at least apparently, heterosexual -- one suggestion was that, should the series the book is part of be a huge hit, the character could be revealed to be gay later on. Ugh.
I am frankly astonished that anybody should have such an experience in 2011, but that just shows my naivete, and my enormous good luck in having an editor who told me that the same-sex relationship in my forthcoming novel was one of the things she liked.
The article is set up so that other authors who have had similar experiences can comment pseudonymously if they like. I am curious but alarmed to see how many more writers have had this happen to them.
Pamela

ETA: The agent not named in the original Genreville post has responded:

http://theswivet.blogspot.com/2011/09/guest-blogger-joanna-stampfel-volpe.html

sartorias and rachelmanija have responded in turn:

http://rachelmanija.livejournal.com/969918.html

And Malinda Lo, who has published YA novels with gay characters, produces some statistics, which demonstrates that really, there is a serious problem here:

http://www.malindalo.com/2011/09/i-have-numbers-stats-on-lgbt-young-adult-books-published-in-the-u-s/

Having known sartorias for the better part of 25 years, and having known rachelmanija for a much shorter but non inconsiderable amount of time, I am inclined to look askance at the agent's version of events.

Comments

[pameladean]

I think I know what you mean. If it's all implicit and done with coding and plausible deniability, one starts feeling as if one is inventing the problem, and there is nothing to get hold of or to fight, just a general sick sense of wrongness.

P.

[juliansinger.livejournal.com]

Yep. And having no solid ground to stand on, to use a different metaphor.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

I have invented the term "collaborative clusterfuck" elsewhere for this type of situation. Pretty much everybody is behaving relatively rationally, perhaps a bit conservatively, but of course people's livelihoods are on the line. Or, possibly, there's a rhinocerous in the corner that nobody is bringing up. (In this exact case, the two authors who started this with their public statement are NOT behaving a bit conservatively, they're pushing fairly hard for their (and my) preferred outcome, at some risk to their careers. But I'll bet quite a few other authors have accepted some pressure against gay YA protags.)

It's hard to know where to start, and pretty much everybody so far seems to have either some rationality, or at least plausible deniability (lots of the questions are hypotheticals on which reasonable people can differ). Unless there really IS a rhinocerous, there's nobody who can solve the problem (no single actor). General raising of consciousness is probably useful, if among the most wearing things to work at.

[pameladean]

Not that many authors would even have to accept the pressure, though I expect some did. They'd just refuse and the agents would represent somebody else who didn't have those pesky gay characters. There are lots and lots and lots of aspiring writers and comparatively few agents and publishers.

I think Sherwood and Rachel are not just trying to raise consciousness, but to get people who would welcome gay characters to specifically say so, which seems like a step beyond, and, if anybody will do it, should improve the situation a great deal.

P.

[juliansinger.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think that's the basis behind the links on the books going to Amazon. The Tanuki (and hence Rachel) can then track books purchased. (As the financial aspect of the getting people who would welcome gay characters to specifically say so.)

("...it's over there because I'd like to be able to tell how many purchases result, and I can't do that via click-throughs any more because of a sales tax dispute between Amazon and the state of California," she says in one of her posts.)

However, I think if that's what she's doing, then I think it should be stated more explicitly in the post on Tanuki_Green's LJ. For one thing, people might then deliberately purchase stuff that way.

[rachelmanija.livejournal.com]

You're correct. I'll put up a note to that effect; I just forgot.

[juliansinger.livejournal.com]

Cool.

(I'd've just emailed you about it, but a) it only just re-occurred to me during that comment, and b) I don't imagine a random email would necessarily do much good.)

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

Yes, they clearly are; I was talking about possible broader actions to really improve things. And not saying that's the only thing at all; it's the only simple and clear thing, but rather wishy-washy.