Smart Bitches Trashy Books | All of the romance, none of the bullshit.

Thanks for the SB commentary on this important subject.  (I used to buy RT off the newstand for a short while back in the 90s, until I realized that they never seemed to rate anything below a three, and a three was pretty much “take this out to the burn barrel with tongs.")

That Betty person who emailed you is a hoaxer, doing nothing but trolling. She trolled over at Karen Scott’s earlier, claiming she was behind all of this, then (it appeared) quickly made a few sock puppet posts along the lines of “Betty, you so fuuuunny!”

This whole thing is incredibly disheartening. I posted earlier about the importance of reader blogs and tried to avoid much of the RT letter situation but boy, it just keeps getting wierder and wierder.

But as a Gay man could I really care what RT or RWA thinks about me? no…

Do I care what that old bat wrote in Karens blog? no…

See, this has nothing really to do with me because most Gay people could give a flying fuck about RT or RWA or hell eBooks for the most part.

You want to know what twists me beyond my usual known cranky bitterness and makes me want to do nasty evil things things to those guys till they pass out from the horror of people laughing at them at the next convention.

They did this to a fellow woman writer named Laura Buambach… of all the saints I know. A person who has been nothing but supportive, and nice, and calm, and caring, to a crazy fucked up asshole gay guy like me since day one.

I want their ass on a paper plate with fries please.

I am sure that I will get crucified for this, but my understanding as to why Gay Romances are reviewed in the RT is because it is believed that the audience that buys RT is not interested in Gay Romances.  I don’t think that is homophobic.  I think that is a business decision.  RT is a fan-zine and is responsive to their fans and if their fan base isn’t response to Gay Romances I don’t see it being irresponsible to not put forth time, money, and effort into reviewing man on man love books.

Thanks for leaping into the fray, SB’s.  The past few days have left me scratching my head, wondering what the hell is going on in romanceland?

And that massive “thunk” you hear is all the heads hitting the desks of the hard working romance writers, editors and publishers who’ve been trying for years to get across the ideas that 1. We’re professionals and 2. Romance readers and writers don’t want to be treated like little girls (or boys) in need of protection from the big bad real world.

I think “Wow” just about covers my reaction perfectly.

Sigh.

I was waiting for you Smart Bitches to post about the RT kerfluffle.  Being an author of m/m romance, I’m relieved I didn’t waste my money or my time going to Houston.

Jane,

I saw that comment by Jules Jones that was upset over RT and their practice of not reviewing Gay Romance.

But… I think most people, at least me, were more upset over Laura Baumbach’s mis-treatment by RT (as a group) at the convention where they sold her space to promote Gay Romance and then backed out of it last minute without even common decency and respect to notify her.

That is pretty bad. I honestly have no problem with RT or RWA or anybody in the business stating they are homophobic and their readers are conservatives so no Gay Romance whatever.

But… when you sell something and make promises you have no intention of keeping. Then their fearless leader ranted and wailed about Karen’s harsh review causing suicides and how woman writers should always be supported.

That to me is more then just a loony moral hypocrite, that’s a liar and needs to be addressed.

Yeah I read about Baumbach’s treatment on another blog (I’ve been browsing for an hour and my head is spinning with all the crazy flying about) and just couldn’t believe it.

If they were going to be scabs about the whole thing and homophobic, then give the woman her money back.  At least THAT much the group could do.  But no, doesn’t seem like they even offered her that much.  Which is shitty business practice and can get them a legal suite (although I have no idea… it just seems that way since they didn’t fulfill their part of their contract).

Who cares if not everyone likes gay erotica or romance?  Not all romance and erotica flips my Bic or fills my twinkie… so what?  Just that it’s out there and available should have people shouting “AMEN!” And the arrogant little twats whining about a BLOG bringing people’s joy down then backing an institution that spits all over someone else’s choice in “joy"… yeah.  I hate hypocrisy.  It gets my panties in a wad.

I honestly don’t know what to think about the RT convention issue.  I was told that Laura was offered a full refund of her convention fees even before she came because she was so upset over her book not being reviewed even though she was told that the book would not be reviewed if she bought ad space.

I haven’t talked to Laura and I am really conflicted on this issue.

Well seems Jules Jones got the same thing pulled on him too by the same group of people.

I think I would go with Laura’s tale simply because I would not spend that type of money to go there and be treated like dirt.

~And that massive “thunk” you hear is all the heads hitting the desks of the hard working romance writers, editors and publishers who’ve been trying for years to get across the ideas that 1. We’re professionals and 2. Romance readers and writers don’t want to be treated like little girls (or boys) in need of protection from the big bad real world.~

And then some.

Funny--I posted earlier that RomanceLand had gone crazy.  It has. 

There was a comment on Laura’s blog about this being a problem with space in RT.  Huh?  So, if say...ten more straight romances came up for review…

Something isn’t making sense.

I’m pretty sure Jules is a woman, Teddy.

Hypocrisy angers me as well. On one hand, you have a crazy new age-y message preaching sisterhood, positivity and solidarity among women. On the other, we have a woman who owns a small publishing company, who doesn’t deserve the same treatment as others because her romances are m/m? Okay, the magazine doesn’t review those stories, but if they accepted her fees for the convention, they were obligated not to discriminate. So is the Hyatt, for that matter.

Or does it not qualify as romance, harking back to that old and ridiculous discussion regarding the need to define the genre. Is RT saying love isn’t love unless it’s breeder-based? That pisses me off.

Teddy Pig,

I’m not upset about RT not reviewing gay romance. My view has always been that people who don’t like it shouldn’t have to read it, so long as they don’t try to stop other people reading it, and I was saying that back in my fanfic days when some of my fellow slash fanfic writers were being… intemperate… towards anti-slash people who’d simply said that they’d like slash on fic sites labelled so they could avoid it. So as far as I’m concerned, if a fanzine doesn’t want to review m/m, that’s their decision.

What I don’t like is the way RT has pulled a bait-and-switch on gay romance writers. There was a period when RT had material posted on its website which led authors to believe that a review would follow as a result of buying ad space. My view of that was not coloured by what other m/m writers had said, because I hadn’t seen anything about it. I’d simply wandered over to the website to have a look at the advertising rates, and found something that made me go “huh?”, because it felt to me like a strong suggestion that reviews would not happen unless you gave them money. I’m actually out of science fiction culture, not romance culture, and there’s a very strong feeling there about “Money flows towards the author”, so I took note of this as a possible red flag. I wish now that I’d taken a copy of it.

Some time *after* this, I heard stuff about RT refusing to review m/m books that had been advertised, but refusing to refund the money for the ad. And that the people involved had not been told ahead of time that they were excluded from the “buy an ad, get a review” system.

That’s what I object to—the taking of money under false pretences.

(And I’m a Kinsey 0 woman—Jules is used a nickname for both men and women in the UK, and I had no idea when I started writing that it’s seen as male-only in the US.)

Just to let you all know...it’s a full moon today.  I’m just saying.

As usual, the SB have summed it all up perfectly....  “Ghurk?”

Well, sorry for the flub.

See, I am just a ignorant Gay man who has not been around long enough to know all the writers.

But you know what.

I am getting the feeling most of the time I can comfortably side with the writers. Especially when I am getting the feeling they have to deal with some real slime covered nut jobs.

S’okay, Teddy, you’re far from the first and I doubt you’ll be the last. :-) It did make me go “what on earth?” when I first started getting the “he” references, because I started in fanfic, where it is assumed that anyone writing slash is female until proven otherwise. Because there are an awful lot of women out there reading and writing m/m romance…

...my understanding as to why Gay Romances are reviewed in the RT is because it is believed that the audience that buys RT is not interested in Gay Romances.  I don’t think that is homophobic.  I think that is a business decision.  RT is a fan-zine and is responsive to their fans and if their fan base isn’t response to Gay Romances I don’t see it being irresponsible to not put forth time, money, and effort into reviewing man on man love books.

This is what Carol Stacy had to say on Ms. Baumbach’s blog about why RT takes money for ads from M/M authors, but doesn’t post reviews:

My decision is based on my “print” readership and the fact that the majority of my “print readers” are not interested in m/m books at this time.

Will someone explain to me how this jibes with the fact that RT publishes many, MANY reviews of ebooks every month, specifically in the erotica section? I’m clearly missing something.

Seriously. I think I’ve missed a point here, somewhere.

I have heard from several people on your post who are saddened by what they read today. One person mentioned has offered her resignation. Another is contemplating suicide. Is that what you intended for your blog? Do you want this on your conscience?

Okay, I’m a newbie here on Smart Bitches and I’m certainly not a published writer or very experienced in the romance business. But please excuse me if I call bullshit on this in a BIG way.

One thing I do know about is fanfiction and online fiction. I’ve been in the communities since I was twelve, and I know a bit about interaction and online warfare tactics. And this tactic is an old, familiar one.

Sometimes an author is unable to take the criticism leveled at them, and they move into passive-aggressive warfare by trying to make the critic feel guilty. I’ve even known a few who posted messages pretending to be someone else, reporting that the criticized author had been driven to suicide by the MEEEEAN comments from the critics. I have never encountered a case where such extravagant claims turned out to be true; it’s the equivalent of throwing a temper tantrum, which most mature people don’t do over Internet critique. Such threats usually come from fourteen-year-olds.

Whoever the commenter is, Kathryn Falk or just a dedicated troll, they feel the need to shore up their position by making their critics feel guilty--thus striking back without actually being forced to answer any difficult questions. If there really was nothing to the criticism, then this poster would be able to say as such, and to show why. All the fluff about sensitive feelings is a way of avoiding the question, which really makes me think something is up.

Undisclosed conflict of interest much?  I knew RT was always hawking one thing or another when I was reading it late 80’s/early 90’s.  Did Falk own stock in Fabio?  Blue-green algae? She reminded me of the neighbor who used to sell Mary Kay/Starlite Vitamins/what have you.  I used to drive by my own driveway if I saw her out.

I had also heard that buying ad space would greatly enhance a book’s chance of being reviewed.

You’re so right about the “thunk” of hard-working romance authors’ heads hitting the desk. You’re also dead on about other Ellora’s Cave authors watching in awe and horror. This one certainly is. Oh, and you forgot to mention the “thud” as our jaws hit the floor.

Bad reviews are a part of the business, and this is a business. Professional authors know that. We expect some lukewarm reviews and even some bad ones. Not everyone’s going to love our babies the way we do. Once we turn a book loose on the world, it’s a product and open to critique the way any other product on the market is.

What has my head reeling is the firestorm that followed those reviews, not to mention the lengthy, rambling, eyeball-burn-inducing response from Ms. Falk and the follow-ups to it.

All the vitriol, the negative energy, the astonishing meanness on display has totally astounded me.

I may have to give up my treasured self-image as a confirmed cynic. I never would have guessed those reviews would spawn such a blazing firestorm of reaction.

I truly sympathize with Lauren and respect how she stood up for herself in Houston. Makes me wonder if all of this will have blown over by Nationals, or if this is just the beginning of a very active Summer of Asshattery. I have a difficult enough time convincing my friends and family that my chosen profession, within the particular genre of romance, is legitimate. Widespread knowledge of behavior like this would only make mine a more difficult task.

I had also heard that buying ad space would greatly enhance a book’s chance of being reviewed.

I know crap-all about getting an eBook or such reviewed in RT, but don’t they pretty much review all the print romances from the major houses as a matter of course? I didn’t buy an ad and I was reviewed.

Of course I have been told via the gossip vine that if I bought an ad I’d get a better review. Don’t know if there’s any truth in that either.

Wow. This trainwreck is certainly interesting. And, as I said elsewhere, every time this subject comes up, I find myself wondering if people in other genres get their panties in a knot over bad reviews the same way people in romancelandia do.

I also think this stuff does need to be discussed, and I appreciate the blogs I read (including this one) because y’all don’t pull any punches, and interesting things about the state of the romance genre are discussed.

Aaaand now I’m going to bed, and I’ll just pray this made sense to somebody.

May I say Holy C-Cup Mantitties, Batman?

Thanks to insomnia, I went and read the origin of Romance Wank™: Round #348294.  [Of course, labeling anything in the romance genre “wank” amuses me so much more than, say House or Grey’s Anatomy.]

But this is nothing less than wank, though it makes anything in fandom wank look like fluffy bunnies and sunshine.

FALK: “Anyone who thinks this kind of dialogue on a blog is valuable is truly sick in the heart and the head.”

...A case of heart burn and a head cold?

Well, I was at RT and I can tell you that everything Laura said was correct.  The whole conference was buzzing about her unfair treatment.  Especially when there were other m/m authors who were allowed to set out their promo items.  I personally believe that the excuse the Hyatt gave Laura was a pile of shit but what else could you expect from a state that has outlawed dildoes and vibrators? 

I also know that it didn’t stop RT from advertising Laura’s books on a giant videoscreen.  AND she had to inform people who were buying her books just exactly what they were buying (as if they didn’t already know). 

But sadly, this is also the nature of the beast.  Of course they were going to take her money.  Businesses have very few scruples when it comes to making money.  And in all actuality, if they had known that the Hyatt was going to take down her stuff, I doubt that that they would have taken her money only to have to give it back.  It doesn’t make any business sense. 

What was cowardly and wrong was the fact that they stood by and allowed the Hyatt to do it.  They should have stood by Laura and defended her right to have her promo items with everyone else. 

But if I can defend RT (or at least their convention) I will say that aside from this, the convention was amazing.  I had the best time and I will definitely go again.  It’s a chance to be surrounded by not only other authors like at nationals, but readers and booksellers as well.  The convention is open to everyone. 

And I think that there is a lot to be said for a place where you can be surrounded by people who are into what you are.  Why do you think Trekkie and ComicCon conventions do so well? 

I don’t read RT and never will.  I don’t take stock in book reviews just like I don’t in movie reviews.  I read what I like.

I still want to know who the ‘insensitive’ author of ‘sensitive books’ that ‘makes millions but still lurks around the Internet because she has a tremendous need to be in control’ is?

Would many authors make that much, or can we work out by a process of elimination who Ms Falk feels such compassion for? (Does Nora have anything to confess? Is all her thoughtful participation just a cover for an attempt to gain dominance over romance readers and muffle all dissenting voices? Enquiring minds...)

Got to say, the more I read this letter, the more I enjoy it.

I just have to add a little something about the “Gret Stet of Texas.” If you ever have the opportunity to buy aides d’amour in Austin, I highly recommend the experience.  There’s nothing like shopping for an educational modal or a personal massager.  And Forbidden Fruit is such a treat of a shop.  Ah, dear old Austin.

I still want to know who the ‘insensitive’ author of ‘sensitive books’ that ‘makes millions but still lurks around the Internet because she has a tremendous need to be in control’ is?

Mememememe!  Oh, pick me!  I so want it to be me.

... mostly for the millions.

Hey, I may be insensitive and controlling, but I’m as money-hungry as the next insensitive controlling bitch.

~(Does Nora have anything to confess? Is all her thoughtful participation just a cover for an attempt to gain dominance over romance readers and muffle all dissenting voices? Enquiring minds...)~

I have been unmasked. And yes, YES, one day I will rule over all Romancelandia.

Pleeeeeeze, pleeeze, pick me!  I want to make millions!  Everyone will assure you I’m an insensitive bitch!  Just ask my family!  Really, I can be insensitive with the best of them!

Ohmigod, all those exclamation points!  Tony’s bad habits are catching!

Marianne, I knew at once who had to be the author who makes millions but “still lurks around the Internet because she has a tremendous need to be in control.” Who but Nora could Rule The Blogosphere without even having a blog? That is why we respect her so much and the long-distance mind control of the Oompa Loompas is so successful.

I puzzled for long seconds over “we all hurt unless we are heatless.” I thought maybe it was a shout-out to the paranormal craze, or a recognition of English winters since she is Lady of Barrow, but then Jane kindly put a [sic] after it in her post and cleared up the mystery.

It is a bit frightening, though, that a person with this (lack of) command of the written word, not to mention these, well, let’s call them “ideas” about how publishing and business in general should work, has so much influence.  Ouch.

Reply to Jane:

I’m sure this has already been said but RT were told, in no uncertain terms that 56 percent of people polled WERE interested in m/m romance and would buy the magazine if it reviewed it!  Instead of taking this as a sound business pointed (which any sane business identity would) they decided to say “Oh Poot we got the wrong result, probably because all those gay loving writers joined in”

Which was rather the point of the poll!

So their constant insistence that it “wouldn’t be a sound business proposition” is complete nonsense

And even so, why not do a trial run on the website?  If they don’t have a reviewer one is easily found, and if no-one is reading/buying the books from direct links at the end of the trial period then all of us will shut up and agree with RT.

RT may not like to admit they are homophobic but they ARE - no matter much they pretty it up with business jargon.

Either one embraces, or one excludes, and the more one excludes, the more prejudiced one appears.

And one last point re: RT and writers of gay m/m erotica and romance.  If they’re not going to review, they shouldn’t take their ad revenue and publish m/m ads.  If they’re so worried about their poor little readers, advertising should be included in that ban.  But no, let’s take the money of the m/m writers and publish their ads, but then not review them because our readers aren’t interested in reading about that kind of stuff.  They just want to look at the pretty pictures.  Or not.  Or something.

I want to know when the reader bloggers are going to set up their own conventions?

Seriously. I’m sure there must be a few people with experience setting cons up who would help, and I know quite a few writers who would go…

It’s interesting that all of you have ignored the part of my post that said WE DID PUT LAURA’S MATERIALS OUT (sans the poster) despite the hotel’s objection.

LAURA DID PARTICIPATE in our Book Fair equal to any other author there and had the ability to display whatever she wanted.

LAURA advertises (i.e. spends her money with RT) with full knowledge that at this time we will not review m/m books.

WE OFFERED HER A FULL REFUND to the convention and she opted to attend--her decision.

When I wrote the post on Laura’s site I knew I would be attacked but I wrote it anyway because I wanted to get the facts correct.

Carol Stacy

December is calling for the real BitchCon!

Erastes, I quite enjoyed the official comment Carol Stacy left on Laura’s blog. My favorite part was where she said, “I have gay friends...”

LAURA advertises (i.e. spends her money with RT) with full knowledge that at this time we will not review m/m books.

So here’s an idea, oh brilliant one, instead of allowing your staff to treat people like shit why not just tell everyone you are a homophobic organization and NOT TAKE THEIR MONEY.

Fan organized conventions work in a lot of other genres.  Or whatever happened to Second Life?  Have a virtual on-line convention.

Let’s be fair.

If I refused to accept advertising (as one of your bloggers suggests) from authors who want to promote their m/m books in RT I would be attacked for that too.

Carol Stacy

“...this is just the beginning of a very active Summer of Asshattery”

Oh, Lovelysalome, I hope so...I find asshattery so entertaining. Though I have to say, I could not get through all of Falk’s entire rant - I just couldn’t read that much bullhonkey at one time. I am, however, considering saving her post as a wonderful example of hyperbole and oxymoronism.

Part of me feels I don’t deserve to comment here - I have never read RT. Besides, I take more stock in comments made by readers in their blogs than by reviewers in ad-funded mags.

“And yes, YES, one day I will rule over all Romancelandia.”

One day?  In my book, you already rule.  Not just over Romancelandia, but in general.

Carol,

You’re absolutely right. It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t kind of world. Put in m/m ads and you’ll get crap from fundamentalists. Don’t put them in and you’ll get guff from people like me.

The only thing you can do is be consistent and remain true to your values. The problem I have with all of this is that you don’t seem to stay steady. If you take Lauren B’s money at RT then you treat her like any other customer and defend her against the slings and arrows of the outrageous Hyatt. Make a stink on her behalf.

The other way to stay consistent is to take down ALL the nekkid people and not just the gay ones. You’re going to have to do stuff like this or face even more bad publicity. I gotta say I don’t envy you this situation.

M/m isn’t going away. You said that m/m isn’t what your readers want (the yoga and NASCAR thing) when in fact many have said they do. It’s ROMANCE and you’re Romantic Times. They really do go together. 

The showdown time is here, or will be soon. You’re going to either have to take a real stand and stop taking money from m/m authors for ads or embrace the genre and make sure the writers get the same treatment as every other author. Otherwise the issue is just going to keep haunting you.

Maybe you can come up with a stronger, more convincing argument that the way RT is doing business with m/m authors is fine, but I haven’t seen it so far. 

Kate, a once (and hoping to be future) advertiser.

First of all, Ms. Stacy, I was a “commenter,” not a “blogger.” Candy and SB Sarah are the “bloggers” on this particular blog because they own the blog and are the only ones who can post real posts, as opposed to just comments.  I blog on two other (very respected) romance blogs, but I only comment on this blog.  You and Ms. Falk need to get your terminology correct before you dive into the blogging fray.  I think some of the confusion about Ms. Falk’s letter may now be explained.  When she writes “blog” she actually means “comment.” Got it.

Second, yes, you would get flak for discriminating against authors of gay m/m erotica.  But at least we would know that RT is honestly discriminatory and leave it at that.  Right now, your policies are completely hypocritical.  You let authors of gay m/m books advertise (and presumably the ads are for your readers as well as to earn money for the magazine--I know when I bought RT many years ago, it was for the ads more than the reviews), but you then refuse to review their books because you claim that your readers/subscribers would not be interested.  I’m sure there are a lot of readers/subscribers who are not interested in Inspirational romances.  But you know what the ones who don’t read Inspirationals do when they read RT?  They page past the Inspirational reviews.  Ditto erotica, which you DO review.  All the readers who don’t like erotica probably just page past the erotica reviews, perhaps shaking their heads at the perversity, but they exercise their own intelligence and choice and ignore the reviews.  Why can you not allow your readers/subscribers to do the same with m/m books?  It’s really an interesting process of reader choice, you see.  Readers already know what they want to read.  Or maybe more accurately, they know what they DON’T want to read.  Trust THEM to know what they do or do not want to read, rather than deny them the opportunity to discover something new if they’re open to new experiences.

Oh, but excuse me.  You’re not fully denying them that opportunity, because you allow authors of gay m/m erotica and romance to advertise.  You’re happy to take the writers’ money, but not validate their choices and YOUR readers’ ability to make their OWN choices by reviewing the books you already advertise.  Right.  Got it.

Honestly discriminatory or hypocritical?  Which would you prefer?  How about you just let your readers decide for themselves?  Or might they choose an option you feel they shouldn’t?  A little bit paternalistic, no?

And if RT stands behind Ms. Falk’s comment (see, a comment, not a blog--Ms. Falk is by no means a blogger) on Karen Scott’s blog (see, Karen’s the blogger there), then you SHOULD review gay m/m erotica and romance because it’s written and published largely by women writers and women-owned publishers.  Aren’t we supposed to support all women authors and women-owned and -run publishers?  Oh, right, not if we don’t actually approve of their stories.  Sorry--forgot.

oops I meant m/m reviews, not ads. You already do take their money for ads.

*applause* You articulated my own thoughts on the matter perfectly, Sarah. Thank you.

Or, if I were a teenage boy who played too many video games, I’d say…

PWND!

I’m beginning to feel like Pollyanna with my posts, but I have got to say this...direct your anger where it belongs. The hotel pulled the material. RT is not the moral watchdog--they are a magazine--a business trying to make a profit. They recognized ebooks when no one else would. They promoted erotic romance before anyone else recognized us as a bonifide genre, and while they did not step up to the plate on this issue, they are not the ones who deserve our anger...change does not happen in the blink of an eye or even overnight. It happens slow and steady, but it takes longer when you piss off the very venue that could help validate the genre. I write M/M and get reviews--some good, some bad. A lot of other authors do as well, and more and more women are becoming comfortable enough with the stories they love, to speak out publicly. Remember when almost ALL erotic romance was available only in ebooks? We’ve already come a long way in a short time, but you’re pushing a genre that is still taboo in a large portion of our country, and expecting everyone to welcome you with open arms just isn’t realistic, yet. Just because we and our readers, recognize the validity of romantic relationships, no matter the sexuality (or even the species!) of the protagonists, not all of America is as open minded. We are writing about something considered a mortal sin by a large segment of our society. I think the hotel and whichever staff created this issue should be castigated, but I honestly believe you’re dead wrong in blaming the staff members of RT. They worked their butts off to put on a terrific convention--they were NOT prepared to deal with an issue as volatile as this.
RT is a business. The convention is a business, but it’s also a wonderful place for authors and readers to meet. RT did not pull Laura’s promo material. The hotel staff did. If you’re going to get angry, direct your anger at the ones who created the flap in the first place.

Bloggers who have no idea of the work it takes to be an author and a publisher in today’s competitive market should not be welcome on board. And if you check into the sales of some of the people you’re “dissing” don’t be surprised to see they sell well, or is that the reason they are the object of your disaffection?

Some people in our community do make more money and gather more acclaim but there’s a reason—they are more in touch with the readers and they are more positive.

They possibly work with positive energy at what they love. Fanaticism is the key to success. Publishers support winners and sales figures determines who stays and who goes. This isn’t personal, this is business.

Primarily, successful writers do not dwell on rage and anger and others’ discomfort. Personal attacks are not fodder or successful people but spring from the opposite personality type—the loser displaying her anxieties and insecurities, the very things that holds her back from building a strong writing career.

As much as the procrastinating part of my brain (running at about 95% right now) would love a discussion of “The Secret,” I keep getting drawn back to this part of Falk’s letter, not only because of all the internal contradictions, but also because it locates my initial sense that part of this is an old school - new school clash.  NOT that there aren’t plenty of people in both camps, or who don’t see a conflict, but the more I think about this, the more I see Falk firmly ensconced in a distinctive cultural paradigm. 

Now we could point to innumerable examples, I think, and many survivors of “the good old days” of Romance who would dispute Falk’s sisterhood of (IMO passive aggressive) politeness, but that one small sentence Fanaticism is the key to success struck me hard:  Falk comes right out of that cultural context in which Romance is all about fans, not about readers.  It’s the same thing that made AAR so hated and that invites nasty emails to PBR.  It’s a perspective that sees Romance authors as a cut above the rest of us slobs, as glamorous and special and worthy of unquestioned respect and admiration.  It’s a perspective that is, IMO, far, far less about the books than about the personalities, personal relationships, and afternoon tea with cream scones and half-naked Fabios and De Salvos.  I think Falk’s frustration with these whippersnappers raining on her idealistic image of Romance may even be strangely analagous to my own frustration that Romance is now more than industry than a genre (even though the context and the substance are very different).

Someone has posted numerous times on Karen Scott’s blog, talking about the early days of Romance community building, basically saying that us whippersnappers don’t appreciate the blood sweat and tears that went into building the community they now see us tearing down.  And as much as I disagree that there’s a tearing down (IMO it’s an evolution and an expansion), I kind of understand where she’s coming from.  It’s like Anna Campbell said on Michelle’s Buonfiglio’s blog:  that to diss all those so-called bodice rippers is to dismiss not only the roads they opened in the genre that newer authors can travel unmolested, but also the complexity and depth of some of those old books (I’m paraphrasing and embellishing).  Perhaps there’s a standard generational split here, even if it doesn’t precisely line up around the ages of actual readers and authors. 

Not that I think Falk’s letter was most of the things she was preaching—too many pots and kettles there for me to buy into the diatribe at even the most basic level.  And if I were Carol Lynne, I’d be horrified that my name was linked to someone who invoked suicide so casually (and that goes double for the person to whom Falk was supposedly referring).  Personally, I’m not someone who is real comfortable with the casual use of “fucktard” and the like.  But hey, those are the wages of sin, or free speech, or whatever—NO ONE is a captive audience to a blog, and using hateful language in response to what one perceives as hateful language levels the moral ground immediately, IMO. 

Mostly, though, I think what we’re seeing in Falk’s letter is the (heh) romanticization of the “good old days” of Romance, although the tone and tenor of the letter leads me to suspect that those old days probably somewhat resembled these new days, which, in the end, is neither bad nor good.

Yo, howdy, Kate D! *waving*
I agreed with you 100 percent until I read C Stacy’s answer to Lauren B in Lauren’s blog. The non-supportive attitude was very clear.

She has offered Lauren’s money back--good! But it’s clear from the tone of that letter RT should never have taken the money in the first place.

Kate R

I think the hotel and whichever staff created this issue should be castigated, but I honestly believe you’re dead wrong in blaming the staff members of RT.

I blame the RT staff members for three things:
1.  Taking the hotel’s side initially ("they were banned because they were on boxes” was an obvious lie; “they were banned because they were too dirty” was another, given the examples of dirty het romances cited)
2.  Never saying to the author “This is wrong, we don’t support the hotel’s behavior, and we’ll tell them so.”
3.  Making followup comments ("Some of my best friends are gay”; “I don’t know why you keep buying ads and attending") that make it clear that RT is part of the problem.
The hotel may well have set off the problem, but RT supported their decision, rather than doing their possible to ameliorate it.

“If I refused to accept advertising (as one of your bloggers suggests) from authors who want to promote their m/m books in RT I would be attacked for that too.”

“The convention is a business, but it’s also a wonderful place for authors and readers to meet. RT did not pull Laura’s promo material. The hotel staff did. If you’re going to get angry, direct your anger at the ones who created the flap in the first place.”

“Sharon Murphy, RT staff...said it was thought that it was more risque that anyone else’s.”

Sorry but RT backed the hotel not the “non-gay” woman writers they “swear” they so stridently support.

People are you getting this at all? RT is discriminating against non-gay women writers just like you for writing books they do not like.

That is called censorship!

Caught with their pants down they deserve the kick in the butt they are getting.

Sure, Hyatt may have probably. could have possibly, remotely even, complained about a promotion going on IN THE CONVENTION AREA but the “RT staff” never apologized, never informed Laura directly until she confronted them, and then basically through highly questionable statements came out in support of discrimination of homo-erotic material as they now publicly admit they do with their reviews.

As I stated before, it’s fine if they want to publicly admit they are a homophobic organization even though they are only discriminating against non-homosexual people they continually say they support.

They should change their business to be above board with their prejudice and not accept money from writers and organizations they will not support.

They worked their butts off to put on a terrific convention--they were NOT prepared to deal with an issue as volatile as this.

This begs the question—why the hell not?

M/M romance in the Heart o’ Texas...yeah, virtually impossible to see THAT trainwreck coming. And far, FAR too much to expect that someone in charge would consult the Hyatt staff about exactly what they could expect to be found in “promo alley,” and ask if there would be any repercussions.

And seriously—M/M romance is currently selling like crazy at most epublishers who offer it. I know it consistently dominates the “Top Ten Bestseller List” at Amber Quill Press, even though AQP began releasing it only relatively recently, and continues to release more “het” romance than M/M.

The trend is looking very much like erotic romance did a few years ago, when you could only find it at epublishers—AND RT WAS REVIEWING IT. That pissed off some readers, too, if I recall. They got over it or they quit buying the magazine, but not in significant enough numbers to keep RT from giving erotica/erotic romance its own section. The argument that there’s not a big enough audience for this sub-genre seems disingenuous, at best.

In light of K. Falk’s recent ravings on the vital importance of “sisterhood” and supporting publishers, editors and authors, RT needs to pick a position and go with it. It’s either “we won’t review M/M work because we’re afraid of offending our Red State readers” or “we are supportive of romantic fiction in all its forms, and we trust our readership to pick and choose what makes them happy within our covers and at our convention.”

Playing both sides against the middle isn’t working for anyone.

“LAURA DID PARTICIPATE in our Book Fair equal to any other author there and had the ability to display whatever she wanted.

LAURA advertises (i.e. spends her money with RT) with full knowledge that at this time we will not review m/m books.

WE OFFERED HER A FULL REFUND to the convention and she opted to attend--her decision. “

Hi my names Carol Stacy,

I get away with treating women writers like Laura Baumbach here or even you like dirt because you keep buying ad space in my magazine and attending my functions.

SO I feel absolutely no compulsion to change my highly suspect business practices or to stop cherry picking the books you write to promote based on conservative narrow minded and prejudice values because you let me get away with it.

Neener neener

I want to know when the reader bloggers are going to set up their own conventions?

Seriously. I’m sure there must be a few people with experience setting cons up who would help, and I know quite a few writers who would go…

I sure as hell would.  Hanging out with other authors and fans I’ve met online?  That sounds AWESOME.  Someone, please please pleeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzeeee do this.

RT’s verbal contortions would be funny if they weren’t so pitifully transparent.

The space RT rented at the hotel was not public space. It was RT space--and RT had the right to say whether a picture of a man lying alone in bed, tastefully covered with a sheet, was offensive.  My bet is that the mysterious “businessmen” who supposedly complained--what were outsiders doing in the convention area, anyway?--was actually one of the homophobes in RT itself, and probably someone high enough up to give instructions to the hotel.

RT’s refusal to support a member’s right to display material that was considerably less explicit than many other posters and covers makes it obvious that they gave approval for the takedown order.  Let’s be real.  If that same picture had said, everywomansfantasy.com instead of manlove.com, nobody would have given it a second glance--except maybe in admiration. He is awfully pretty.

The customer service guy’s behavior makes me wonder if he had been told by some official of this big-money event that they had a troublemaker who had to be put in her place.  C.Stacy’s irrelevant litany of grievances against Laura Baumbach, in her post on LB’s site, surely suggests a longstanding grudge that had nothing to do with the content of the poster, or the other materials that were taken.  LB says one of the promos was for a mainstream book that wasn’t m/m at all--it just had her name on it. The Hyatt didn’t know anything about RT’s history with Laura Baumbach.  Why would they take her non-m/m promos?

If I were a customer service rep stuck between a cash cow and one person doing something the paying customer didn’t like, I’d probably at least apologize to the person being shafted before I walked out--his manners left a lot to be desired--but if the person running the convention asked the guy to enforce RT’s restrictions with his ‘manly presence,’ he was stuck being the heavy, Gonzales shilling for Rove. Just following orders.

Maybe he had his own prejudices.  Maybe not. If he had actually been representing the Hyatt, he had a written policy to follow.  The Hyatt website shows a strongly-worded diversity-friendly policy statement. It will be very interesting to see what the Hyatt’s investigation turns up on this mess...because from what I’ve read on other blogs, they are going to look into the incident.

I think the Ladies of RT are simply cheesed off because they have had a long and tremendously lucrative reign as the unquestioned queen bees of What Is and Is Not Romance, and they’re getting peevish at having their dictates questioned by people who want to get what they’ve paid for and who aren’t willing to follow Mommy’s rules. First the erotica writers, now the gays--dear lordy lord, what is this world a-comin to?  Life, liberty, and the pursuit of a man’s back passage?  Mercy sakes!

In the short term, this means a struggle, but every step toward civil rights is a struggle.  In the long term, RT will either evolve to serve the readers’ demands, or new publications will spring up in the void.  Decay is just a part of the composting cycle, after all, and heaven knows there’s enough manure for an acre of rose gardens.

My personal wish would be to see everyone who writes or publishes m/m, even if it’s just a small part of their catalog, withhold their advertising from RT for one financial quarter, as a way of demonstrating just how much real, show-me-the-money support there is for m/m romance.  As Teddy Pig points out, as long as they’re still sucking in the money, they have no reason to change their head-where-the-sun-don’t-shine behavior.

It will have to be dollars and cents that decide this issue. It’s clear that appeals to fairness and common sense are a waste of time. Censoring m/m romance in this dishonest way makes as much sense as the behavior of a local Muslim dude who walked into the supermarket a couple of years ago and attacked the wine and spirits aisle with a baseball bat.  It went against his religion, you see--an affront to his core beliefs--so God gave him the right to attack it.

Or not.

Note to Carol Stacy:  Darling, “Some of my best friends are Jews-Negroes-Gays-Martians, but I wouldn’t want my sister to marry one,” is a really creepy way to pretend you are not prejudiced.  You might not have been aware of this, but before you stick your whole leg in your mouth again, you need to understand that you will never convince anybody but another bigot that this particular phrase excuses discrimination… It’s a red flag that says: BIGOT WARNING! and it has never fooled anyone but the people who uttered it.

If you don’t believe me, ask any African-American.  Or one of your “best” gay friends.

I agree that RT either needs to accept ALL genres of romance or NOT take revenue from m/m writers.  They’ve been walking a thin line between discrimination and hypocrasy.  It’s time to take a stand, either way.

However, I will point out that at the convention, other m/m romance authors were able to set out their promo items without comment.  Jet Mykles had bookmarks featuring two men embracing with hands on ass and Torquere Press had a huge display. 

I don’t why Laura was singled out and I think that RT did her a great disservice in not backing her up.  And I think it is totally appropriate to confront RT on their practices.  While they had no control over what the Hyatt chose to do, I think their treatment of Laura afterward is more the issue.

I just got off the phone with Jo Carol, one of the RT organizers. This entire mess was caused by a miscommunication. The hotel management asked that the BOXES stacked at the end of the tables be removed--it so happened Laura’s promo was sitting on the boxes. One of the RT volunteers misunderstood the directions, saw that the promo was all “manlove” and ASSUMED she was being asked to remove the stuff because it was gay related, and that’s what she told Laura. Wrong. It was because the boxes were stacked illegally in violation of the fire code.

Kate Laura’s already explained that is not true…

“First Sharon tried to blame in on the promo being on boxes and not the table but I pointed out that EPIC promo replaced my promo and was currently still on the boxes, so the placement was NOT a legitimate issue.”

RT replaced her promos with someone else’s.

My my my… are you sure RT is a business? I mean, with executives, and experienced staff members and everything? Are you sure this isn’t their first convention? Because after reading through all of these posts and subsequent comments, I have some real doubts.

First of all, boo Hyatt. To those commenters who are asking why this discussion is not focused on their actions, I think it’s because everyone agrees the Houston Hyatt has an asshat for a CSR. The real discussion is the SHEER stupidity of RT. Now, the decision to run m/m ads and reviews aside, they were RUNNING the convention which means they are responsible for what goes on. If the hotel had a problem with a display, then it was RTs job to take care of it, and if they’ve done these before and if they’ve been in business for long, you would expect it to have gone very differently. Perhaps something more like:

“Laura, I am so sorry, but the hotel has had some objections to your poster and would like you to take it down. This area is a public area of the hotel, so we have to allow it. Can we help you take it down? Do you have another poster we can help you put up in it’s place? We really are so sorry.”

And even if they didn’t mean it, she would have felt better, the hotel would have gotten what it wanted, and RT probably would not have the beheamoth (sp?) of a PR problem that it does now. It’s called diplomacy. You’re a romance convention in the most vociferously conservative state in the union. You will probably need some of it.

And considering all of that, and the fact that I, a lowly graphic designer who doesn’t know the first thing about writing or publishing or selling a book, knows that, you would think that RT does too. And if they do, then after looking at Carol Stacy’s comments, the conclusion I draw is that they felt Laura DESERVED what happened. The whole “we warned her that she was wasting her time” argument seems to me like they stood aside on purpose just so they could now say “see? we tried to tell you”. THAT is asshatish. It also leaves me scratching my head (Ghurk?) because what does the Hyatt’s opinion have ANYTHING to do with the RT readership and their opinions? I just don’t see how the hotel’s behavior illustrates that Laura was wating her time by attending the convention. I mean, the attendees didn’t demand the poster be removed.

Anyone interested in a little PR consulting? I know a magazine that could use a little help…

I asked Jo Carol about that--the volunteer did NOT realize the boxes were the issue. She thought the promo was and pulled it, but she didn’t move the boxes and the EPIC stuff went back on top of them. They were moved later when Jo Carol finally realized what had happened. The volunteer thought it was an issue about gay-related promo, but that wasn’t the issue at all. I’ve got a deadline so I’m not going to post here anymore, but I really hope everyone is able to move beyond this...RT is not homophobic, the hotel did not pull gay related promo. They merely asked that the boxes be moved, something that was totally misunderstood by a volunteer whose incorrect comments and assumptions caused this whole mess.

Kate before you go can you say something to explain Carol Stacy’s comments?

Is that too much work since you seem to be more interested in spin doctoring.

The ‘belief’ may be a business decision but what is it based on.  I buy RT and have for years because I read all genres of romance, mainly mm but also mf mmf ff etc.  How many times do they have to tell me they don’t want my money before I believe them.  This many (somewhere between 20 and 30 at a rough guess).

FROM THE COMMENT SECTION AT LAURA BAUMBACH’S BLOG

For the Record…
I have tried to reach Laura several times today to discuss this and she has not returned my phone calls and probably won’t.

For the Record (Promo Items at the RT Convention)…
Promotion Lane where Ms. Baumbach’s promotional items were displayed was in fact in a “public space” and so RT had no say in what the hotel decided to do.

For the Record…
After the hotel took down the poster and removed the promotional items we (RT staff) returned the items to promotion lane in a different spot sans the poster. So we did support the author despite our responsibility to comply with the hotel.

For the Record (Regarding RT’s Policy to not review m/m books in RT)…
Ms. Baumbach and I have been through this over and over and over again.

My decision to not review these books has nothing to do with being homophobic. Some of my best friends are gay and in fact several attend our convention and have been friends for years and I love them dearly.

My decision is based on my “print” readership and the fact that the majority of my “print readers” are not interested in m/m books at this time.

As I have explained to Ms. Baumbauch if that readership changes in the future so will my policy to review this type of fiction.

This is a space consideration AND a business decision. If you will forgive the analogy: one does not cover yoga in a NASCAR magazine if you get my drift.

It’s that simple.

For the Record (Regarding Advertising)…
When the issue of Ms. Baumbach advertising and not getting a review of her book came up months before the convention we offered her a full refund for her convention fee and her participation at the faery Ball. She refused and said she was OK with our decision.

For the Record (Regarding the Book Fair)…
Ms. Baumbach was included in the Book Fair along with every other author. She was treated like every other author i.e. she was seated alphabetically with the “Bs” and we ordered her books for her to sign the same way we ordered every other small press and e-book author’s books. I have no idea how many books she sold but “For the Record” she was included.

For the Record…
The Book Fair was in a “private space” (unlike Promotion Lane which was in a public space) so her poster and/promotional items were allowed.

For the Record…
No one sid the Hyatt does not welcome gays. The Hyatt was responding to their guests who objected to the poster who were passing by the poster because Promotion Lane was in a public space that was in the path of the way to the parking lot. Please don’t skew the facts.

My Personal Comment…
What boggles my mind and I cannot understand is why Ms. Baumbach continues to spend her money with my magazine and our Booklovers Convention when we are stating in no uncertain terms that we do not believe that she is reaching her target audience. Why not avoid these conflicts and look to other magazines and or organizations to spend her money where she could sell more books and expand her readership. Why does she insist on advertising with RT and attending the convention?

Carol Stacy
Publisher of Romantic Times BOOKreviews magazine and organizer of the RT BOOKLOVERS CONVENTION.

“one does not cover yoga in a NASCAR magazine if you get my drift.”

So Carol Stacy thinks that there is nothing Romance related in Gay Romance.

As a Gay Man I do not think she is “my friend” or would I want her professing to be “my friend”

Oh and Kate Douglas make sure and ask Jo Carol about that too.

You know mis-communication on a comment section and such. After your deadline is over and you know.

Getting old. My god, everybody knows RT does NOT appreciate gay or lesbian romance. They are a fricking private business who are allowed to choose what they promote.

Being a writer of gay, het and lesbian, I will never give money to RT. Why? That should be obvious. I don’t give a damn that they don’t allow any other romance besides male/female. Not my problem. It isn’t going to impact them until their readers stop subscribing to this nonsense.

It’s gone around the blogs that RT is unscrupulous enough to accept money then balk and refuse m/m. Throwing money away on an organization that is known to treat gay and lesbian writers like shit is not going to get my money. I’ll save it for EPIC, Saints and Sinners, and Gaylacticon.

Sorry, but cramming opinions down RT’s throat as about as acceptable as RT trying to cram theirs down mine.

Is RT relevant? Not a damn bit to writers of gay and lesbian romance.

But Shayne did you see Carol Stacy just plainly said “she” is not homophobic her “readers” are.

I am not attempting to shove anything down her throat.

Well ok, maybe denial of fact.

You caught me!

Is RT relevant? Not a damn bit to writers of gay and lesbian romance.

I have to respectfully disagree, Shayne, and this is why:

A fairly large percentage of the readership for M/M romance as released by the most popular erotic epublishers—the ones not geared specifically to the gay community—are the same people who are buying all the “het” erotic romance/erotica from those same publishers.

The overlap is not complete, of course. There’s a percentage that ONLY reads M/M or F/F, and there’s a larger percentage that wouldn’t touch it with a forty-foot throbbing manroot. But the majority of the audience for the M/M stuff put out by, for example, EC, Samhain, Phaze, Amber Quill, etc., is also buying “het” erotica.

Therefore, by refusing to review M/M romance released by the very epublishers RT says they support, they’re not only denying some of the top authors at these very pubs valuable exposure, but denying their own readership the opportunity to read reviews relevant to their preferences.

Yes, you’re right, the company is privately owned and can do whatever the bleep it wants with its magazine. But given RT’s marketshare, to say that it’s irrelevant to authors of gay romance is not entirely accurate.

If this is truly a business decision, it’s not a bad one. Right now, they take the money for ads but don’t have to piss off the bigots by printing the reviews. They’re not stupid. Why stir shit with your Red State readers when you can have the cash anyway?

But the analogy Carol Stacy used? Gay romance is to romantic fiction as Yoga is to NASCAR? Makes me think somebody hasn’t done her market research on this topic, and this is less “sound business practice” than “knee-jerk reaction” to something new and threatening.

Reactionaries in Romancelandia??? The HELL you say.

Teddy,

Yep, I saw Carol Stacy backpedaling her little old ass off. RT is plainly agenda based and not romance based. That’s been very clear for a while.

Sorry. *L* I’m just doubtful getting in her face is gonna help the cause any.  She definitely is NOT listening.

Selah, as an author of quite a few of those Phaze, Samhain, and Torquere books, I know that. It burns my ass. Just like me wondering how RWA will treat the fact that I should be one of their PAN authors because Samhain is one of their accepted publishers.

Pisses me off to no end. I’d love to reach the RT readers, but it goes against the grain for me to give them money because they treat gay and lesbian authors like shit, and think they can get away with it. Admittedly there were other gay authors there who enjoyed RT, and a publisher as well.

I’m glad for them. I’m just not one of those people who have any desire to change RT from the inside out.

Most use the gay fiction doesn’t reach a large enough market. Which we all know is plain out bullshit. Our works sell tops on Phaze. We know the readers are out there. RT and such are just pushing a personal agenda. And it’s a bit much for me.

Selah,

To clarify, I should have said is RT relevant to me?

The answer would be no. While, I may not get the sales that RT could bring me. I’ll live with that. And promote myself and my works through other places that are accepting of gay romance. I would far rather make do with lesser sales. Again I understand not all authors feel as I do.

Shayne,

I support and respect your choice not to give money to a company with practices you dislike.

My only point is that, as a media organ, RT isn’t entirely irrelevant. It has clout, and it does bring sales. Which is why this sucks. Is it the end of the world for gay romance authors? Of course not. Just another hurdle.

But I’m still pissed over the NASCAR/Yoga analogy. Call me a pervert, by all means, but don’t talk to me like I’m stupid.

I think sometimes what lacks too much is mutual respect even if the speakers differ on a matter. 

On the Nascar/Yoga principle: I’d say the speaker isn’t exactly the brightest bulb in the package. Definitely Stacy needs some public relations skills there, or to be replaced.  *L*

You have to admit, it can be funny watching somebody trying to get out of a hole, only to be digging it even deeper. Ahhh...it’s the stuff wank is made of.

My sense of humor at times is a bit askewer.  Uh, yeah.