Green's Hill-Amy Lane's Home - News

Saturday, June 14, 2014

To Thine Own Self Be True...

And This Above All, To Thine Own Self Be True…  Hamlet, Act I, Scene 3

Everybody knows that quote, right?  I mean everybody knows that quote.  But only a small percentage of people who know that quote (a much larger percentage if you read my blog!) know that these words are the most mischaracterized quotation in history.  Polonius wasn't advising his son (as many rebellious teenagers believe) to "be true to himself" to "just be himself" or to "follow his own star" or whatever.  Polonius was telling his son to twist his backbone into a pretzel so that he didn't alienate anybody and would thereby become a consummate liar and politician.

Context is everything.

In a recent article, a number of well known M/M authors including myself were all asked why we, as straight women, wrote M/M romance, and what did we think about claims of misogyny in this genre.

Our answers were, at best, grossly mischaracterized.

But before I get to that, I think I should talk about why I do write M/M romance, and how I do characterize women in all of my fiction, and why M/M is so appealing to me and to a lot of women.  Now, what I'm about to say is going to feel like a re-tread for many of you-- you've heard me say this in interviews and panels, and you've spoken to me in person or on the net, or, better yet, you've read my blog when I've been sounding off on this stuff.

So why do I write M/M.

Well, I don't just write M/M.  I started out writing urban fantasy, and I loved doing that.  I loved writing romance from a female's perspective, and even though it was menage and fantasy, I felt like I'd created a believable, flawed, interesting heroine who was easy to root for and fun to watch grow.

I still feel that way.

But while I still love that heroine--and have been looking for a way to publish another story about her-- I was upset by some of the things said about her.  "She's so vulgar, swearing all the time."  But the guys swore all the time.  "She's such a bitch, going out and fighting like that." But the guys fought for her. "How can the men stand her, giving orders all the time!"  But she was the leader-- Adrian and Bracken weren't leaders.  And she's the warrior-- Green wasn't a fighter.

Oh hell.  How can women still think like this about other women?

But they do.

Now, at the same time I was writing about Lady Cory, I was also writing an M/M romance into her story--in fact, several of them.  Enough so that when presented with an opportunity to write M/M romance full time, I had a fantastic cast of characters screaming in my brain, all clamoring to be let out.

Now people ask me why I like M/M, and when I reply, I give the same answer I gave when I wrote my Lady Cory, with her no-bullshit swagger and her ability to take charge and her terrifying vulnerability:

Because equality is dead sexy.

It was dead sexy between Cory and Green or Cory and Adrian, and it was dead sexy between Adrian and Green.

But writing a Cory in anything but urban fantasy or fantasy is all but impossible-- at least without serious critical repercussions, it is.

See, when I was teaching English, and I taught heroic archetypes, when the textbooks were talking about what made a tragic or a romantic or a Gothic or an epic hero, the writers used the words "noble birth".  I didn't like that term-- Americans don't go for that, and the American Romantic hero often didn't have it, so it just confused the kids anyway-- so I changed the term to "social heft."

And that term-- "social heft"-- makes all the difference in what kind of heroine you're writing.

The fact is, in an urban fantasy world or a fantasy world, heroines can have equal social heft with heroes, and they can look their heroes in the eyes and be taken as dead equals in any circumstance, because the rules of the fantasy world can give them that.  

The same cannot be said for the rules of the modern world.  Look at rape statistics.  Look at wage statistics.  Listen to men talk on the street.  We do not yet have the same social heft--and female heroic archetypes are, by necessity, very different because of that.  (I did NOT SAY lesser-- just different-- and that's another article.)

Does that mean I'm not in an equal partnership myself?

No.

But I'm in an unusual one-- I know that for certain.  The other day I listened to two women talk about how one woman's daughter-in-law didn't pack a lunch for her son, because she was lazy, and how she agreed she needed to give up her job or work less hours to care for her children and her husband.

Yes.  That still happens.

Now, when my husband made much more money than I did, it made sense for me to do that.  We both agreed.  It only made sense.  But now that we're equal wage earners?  He doesn't let me freak out about the house.  He spends as much time caring for the children as I do.  Why?  Because we both agree that we're equals-- not just as wage earners, but as life-partners.  If I ever make enough money for him to quit his job or take fewer hours to take care of the kids, we're both all over that.  

Now imagine if I tried to write that female character into a romance.  Or that male character.  Selling that partnership to an agent or a publisher would probably get me kicked out of the romance department and right into literary fiction--but that's not what I want to write!

The fact that these partnerships exist in real life does not make them literarily acceptable.  Listen to women talk about their partners, and look at divorce stats for women making more money.

Social heft matters in a partnership based in equality--and Mate and I are the exception more than the rule.

So back to misogyny and M/M romance.  I write flawed female characters.  I write women with questionable pasts and promiscuous sexual histories.  I write women who have done their best with their children but it hasn't been good enough, and women who haven't been able to overcome the prejudices of the past to embrace their children.  I also write strong women, and kind women and women who are good mothers and women who are good mothers to their own children but not so nice to their children's partners and women who have gotten abortions and women who have kept the children of their abusers and…

Women very much like the men I write, actually.

Because when I'm writing the male partnership, nobody ever questions that I'm writing two people with equal social heft.  In fact, even when social situation and education makes that impossible, the world insists that it should be, because hey, they're both men.  And given that equality, and the fact that my men are flawed, I am given license to write women who are flawed, and this makes me happy.  I can write real live people.  Or at least people who are real to me.

Now I still get flack, and much of it is almost amusing.  I frequently talk about a book in which two female characters make exactly the same mistakes as one of the male MC's--but they are criticized for being weak and I am criticized for writing weak women.

I don't have the time or emotional reserves to reply to every one of those reviews with the response that I wrote equally flawed human beings-- but it was the reviewer's choice to vilify the women and adulate the man.  But it's true.

So how do I write women-- how do I feel about women in M/M romance?

The same way I feel and write about the men.

We are all flawed, fucked up walking disasters-- male, female, gay, straight, bi, trans, or gender fluid.  We all hurt people on accident and sometimes on purpose and we all crave human connection and we all try so very hard to find redemption and purpose in those human connections and in that ephemeral, amorphous concept of love.

So back to being grossly mischaracterized in an article about misogyny-- some pundit (who probably thought he was being clever) said (and I paraphrase) "Words will tell--taken out of context or not."

Well, A. Context is everything, and B.?

These are my words.  If you're going to attack me, my genre, and my characterization of gay men or straight women or anybody else I create in my own fictional worlds, these are the words I will stand by.

Everything else is hearsay, and I will ignore it.

(And I'd like to thank all of the people who spoke up on FB and other places-- I was almost embarrassed to publish this post because it felt like the people who mattered had already said, unequivocally and without reservation, that my fiction and online presence had essentially refuted everything about the original article that spawned this.  But, well, I'd already written it by then.  And it was a very pretty post ;-)



27 comments:

Janet Black said...

You just proved again that I made a great choice in changing to mostly reading m/m books 18 months ago. So glad that I speak you language, or rather that you speak mine....and do it eloquently.

Janet Black said...

You just proved again that I made a great choice in changing to mostly reading m/m books 18 months ago. So glad that I speak you language, or rather that you speak mine....and do it eloquently.

Janet Black said...

You just proved again that I made a great choice in changing to mostly reading m/m books 18 months ago. So glad that I speak you language, or rather that you speak mine....and do it eloquently.

Mtsnow13 said...

Truer words have not been written And so eloquently.

Thank you for doing what you, and using your words to give us and our children the vision of a future that embraces an equal playing field!

Mtsnow13 said...

Bravo! Said so eloquently, and no way to misinterpret if read IN CONTEXT. I personally am so glad you write what you write and give us the hope through your words of an EQUAL world. Now if we can make it more than fiction, I will be happy.

Cherie Noel said...

I'm going to save this post, and refer back to it when/if I get misquoted. It will help me maintain my Zen, as it were.

Sue Brown said...

Amy, you're a far far more eloquent and classy author than I am. Well said.

Evaine said...

You rock SO hard and I adore you and respect you and think that you are just the bees knees. *hugs tight*

Debra E said...

Well said. It's unfortunate that the authors in that article had their quotes taken out of context and used in a way that misrepresented them and the genre they write in, but it's always nice to see the community come together to offer support.

Poppy Dennison said...

And this is why you are my Amazing Amy. Well said, sweetheart. They can misquote you all they want, but your heart--and your words--will stand the test of time.

Tina Marie said...

You have more class and restraint than any one human should be allowed to possess. Beautifully put.

Carole-Ann Warburton said...

Oh yes! Bravo! Everything here is so true. But then again, this is Amy Lane, who has such a warm, giving persona (as well as a quirky side where she makes us suffer all that angst) who also has a magnificent gift for words - where no-one can misunderstand or misinterpret.

Huge, huge respect for such a wonderful lady.

{{{Hugs}}} XOXOXO

melaniemarshall said...

Well said, Amy. We were talking about something very similar at my DC Metro M/M lunch today. One writer was talking about comments she rec'd about a femaile character she had written in one of her stories.

The comments were along those very same lines "she wrote a bitch, etc...". And she shook her head and said that character was based on someone she knew well. Some women are bitches. Fact of life, should you ignore it in your writing? No. It's not realistic to leave out a segment of the people because they have a less than flattering personality. Or because a group of people don't like its inclusion in their stories.

But you said it much more eloquently. Too bad it's too long to be a bumper sticker or T shirt!

B Snow said...

Well said. And I'm not that sorry it needed to be said, because it is such a good post. It's pertinent to writing in general, and explains why we all like your books so much.

grammy1 said...

I cannot believe I was not there to answer to this Thank God your other believers were. Such a waste of energy. We all know who and what you stand for.

Your Grammy

Mia Kerick said...

Amy-
As usual, I had no idea that this discussion was going on (always writing), but I did manage to find the article in question and I did read your response. All I can say is that you are one of the main reasons I write m/m. I discovered your books and my eyes were opened to another area in romance where beauty lies. Your response to the article is heartening, because who knows whose words will be taken out of contest next. Thank you, Amy, for so much.

Nic Starr said...

Lovely post, Amy. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. xx

Shadowspawn said...

Wonderful response!

T.C. Blue said...

Nicely stated, lady. Well done! :)

Kathy Kozakewich said...

Fantastic post! Very well stated, and an excellent refutation to that "interview" and the many mind-bogglingly, ridiculous responses it engendered.
You also displayed a lot of class, but that's something I've thought before.
Fabulous, classy, and eloquent!

Sara York said...

It is sad that any part of that stupid article was believed. It's obvious they were soundbites warped to form an article that was damaging. Hugs

Kiernan_Kelly said...

Beautifully said, Amy!

ardent.ereader said...

Eloquent, well stated. As a reader I recently discovered MM and I am so happy to have discovered so many fabulous authors in this genre. Your writing is awesome, keep up the great work!

Lisa said...

Amy,thank you for your eloquence. I read the article that spurred this response, and all I can say is that I had to laugh a little bit at the comments from those who don't, or ever intend to, read M/M romance. As usual, it proved that people love to jump on the "how dare you?" bandwagon before making sure they have all sides of the story. The author of that article clearly selected the quotes from her interview that would be the most inflammatory, and more than likely did so to gain a wider viewership of the piece. She succeeded in a spectacular fashion, so kudos to her for playing into the stereotype of yellow journalism.

The fact of the matter is that both male and female authors have written characters I don't particularly like because that's life. I wonder how many of the commenters accused Callie Khouri of misandry for writing Thelma & Louise? How many of them accused the male screenwriters of Black Swan of fetishism?

Reactionary hypocrisy on the internet is always so damn much fun to poke at.

Nicola O. said...

Where would we be without hyperbolic internet overreactions?! This is a well-measured rebuttal and much appreciated.

Aidee Ladnier said...

Thank you so much for putting it all back in context and perspective for us.

Donna Lee said...

Your characters ring true because you allow them to be human. I am in awe of your talent and ability to breathe life into words on a page. They're not characters but real folks. That's a gift.