Do we need a new imprint/genre under the MM umbrella?

3/28/2014

Non-Romances?
Gay Fiction?

Stories where gay love/sex can be present
but they don't fit into the romance box.

Recently, a couple of books prompted me to consider the fact that gay fiction (for want of a better word) needs a better outlet. Some of these stories have gay characters indulging in sex on page, off page, developing deep and long lasting affection and even possibly gaining happiness, but in no way can these stories be considered as “romances”. However they may be stories where love happens.

In some cases, the two protagonists may end up together, but the journey there might be rough.
The story behind the characters might be the issue and the characters just happen to be gay.
It may not tick all the boxes expected of a romance because of the era or society they live in
Their love may have developed without them even knowing that’s what it was.
It is a HFN “Happy for Now” scenario rather than a HEA.

I'm not talking about where characters fall in love and one dies. I believe that is a separate category.

Sometimes those books get published by mainstream MM publishers, eg Edmond Mannings’s “Lost and Found” series with Dreamspinner but under the Bittersweet Dreams line which is marketed as: stories of M/M romance with nontraditional endings. It's an unfortunate truth: love doesn't always conquer all. Regardless of its strength, sometimes fate intervenes, tragedy strikes, or forces conspire against it. These stories of romance do not offer a traditional happy ending, but the strong and enduring love will still touch your heart and maybe move you to tears.

But what if the book has a happy ending but not a "traditional" way of getting there. Or what if there are no "romantic" elements present?

Maybe the ending is ambivalent like A.N. Bond’s “The Dangerous Seduction” ?

They may simply incorporate elements not popular in MM romances, because in many cases, these are stories about love rather than romance.

On some occasions, these books have been wildly popular, but often books like these get poorly rated, which may discourage other readers. Often, the problem has been more about expectations not being met rather than quality of story. Those readers expected a gooey romance and didn’t get it. However other readers might be out there, wanting something different and not knowing where to find it.

Authors do have the avenue of self-publishing, but because they lack access to a publishing houses's loyal databases of buyers, they’re relying on word-of-mouth to sell.

My other concern is that authors who write these stories are being discouraged from doing so because there is no specific outlets for them.

While Cleis and Lethe Press have been publishing these stories for years, when did you last check them for something to buy?

I’m thinking more of current MM romance publishers starting up a separate imprint/genre, which suggests to the buyer: Hey, we think these books might interest you. Because each publisher has a pretty shrewd idea of what kind of books their regulars like. But now and then, a book must crop up on their radar that, if they had this imprint/genre, they could market it to those who want to read outside the traditional romance trope. The adventurous, the brave, the bored, the curious.

I don't think lumping them all under Bittersweet Dreams is enough. No one would classify Dangerous Seduction that way, however "Between Love and Honor" by E.E. Montgomery, fits that definition well.

So the question is:
"Would you buy non-romances/gay fiction from a "romance" publisher if they were clearly identified as such?"

What is the best way to find out?

First up, I envisaged a poll to see what MM romance readers thought about the subject, so I flicked the concept past a few friends for their reactions.

One said: spinning off a new publishing entity makes no sense at all. It would be caught between the m/m publishers and the more literary houses like Lethe and go nowhere fast. But an existing one could a) provide a place for some alternative content and b) manage reader expectations. I think it's fair that they limit those books to stories that have an erotic component and maybe even require that they have some potential for romance within the story. These should be in keeping with their other book lines and not try to go too far away from their base business.”

Another questioned whether a poll was the right way to go, noting that people can, in theory, be right behind an issue but when it comes to the vote or their wallet, they may not follow through. The problem is that polls are always skewed because the people who might be interested are the ones most likely to want to participate.

And polls are difficult things to formulate. Making them meaningful based on what you want to know from the outcome plus, the question and the answers have to be carefully worded to be able to be interpreted without ambiguity.

More feedback to my initial question was: Contemporary drama? Sci-fi? Paranormal? Mystery? Chick lit? All of these genres can have non romance plot lines but if you put them on a romance publisher, yes people will expect romance to be the main theme and feel deceived when it isn't no matter how many disclaimers you put.

But until gay characters go mainstream, how do authors get these books out there? Perhaps a “No Gooey Romance Imprint” could/should contain indicators to show that there is some level of love/sex?

It is a difficult issue and one that Publishers have probably already considered.

Big publishing houses like Harlequin solve it by having a whole string of sub genres. http://www.harlequin.com/articlepage.html?articleId=538

As one person I contacted stated: If you have a good brand that has a loyal following based on a certain expectation (romance/erotica), messing with it is a huge risk. Sometimes it turns out okay but most of the time, change is so hard for people that you end up with loyal people who become less loyal.

A couple of publishing houses have already started up specific YA imprints. Authors use different pseudonyms. So perhaps this is one way to go.

But first, is there a market? Would review sites cover it? Would book groups read them? Is it worth the set up and cost of new email/newsletter databases and forming new social networking groups?

Would it be just as simple to create a list of books on Goodreads?

“Gay Fiction that might appeal to MM Romance readers” or “Gay Fiction without Gooey Romance”

Because that’s the crux of the matter. Are there MM romance readers who might be interested in such books? What is your view on the issue?

19 Comments

Kate Pavelle

3/29/2014 02:06:06 am

I see what you mean. I just lump it under "cross-genre" and make sure that the tone of the book is apparent from the blurb. Genres are artificial divisions, devised for the convenience of traditional booksellers. I think with e-books, and especially with a sample read, we have the opportunity to write what we want and not be hemmed into a traditional box. My writing changed in this respect: I've started to pay a lot more attention to the first chapter to make sure that it not only grabs the reader, but that it also represents the tone of the book as a whole.

A,B Gayle link

3/29/2014 07:06:51 am

You make some very good points, Kate. Thanks.
I have posted this on Facebook and I'm getting some comments from Goodreads which gets this feed. Some people have listed other publishers that already publish gay fiction. There are a few reasons why this isn't getting widely read. Firstly because sifting through these to find something that will appeal is difficult, Secondly because they are still very print orientated, hence their ebooks are there to offset the cost of printing which makes them very expensive $10 and up.
There are some MM publishers that already release gay fiction. Wilde City does. But others like MLR, Riptide could as their readers tend to like edgy and the former have a lot of authors in their stable who write gay fiction now. I feel Dreamspinner would be better off releasing it as a second imprint like they did Harmony Ink.
But these publishers (mostly) keep the price of their books down.
If readers accustomed to reading MM Romances want to wet their toes, they won't want to pay a fortune for a book.
Another comment mentioned Allan Hollinghurst and to me he is an excellent example of the type of book that many mm readers would like but never think of reading because it is not "romance"

Jessie Blackwood link

3/30/2014 06:22:41 pm

Interesting points. I do feel that I want to write stories that don't fit the romance genre but with gay characters, but the story isn't about them being gay. I actually don't want to write mushy romances because that detracts from the plot for me, however if I write that kind of thing it won't fit with most publishers' requirements.

Personally, as a reader rather than a writer, I would be more inclined to read books of this nature as I don't tend to read much m/m fiction without a solid plot and good characters. There are some good romances out there with those elements, but finding it among the rest isn't always easy. It wouldn't matter to me who wrote it, as long as I knew what I was buying.

A.B. Gayle link

3/30/2014 08:47:38 pm

Big hug Jessie!

I was surprised how much I have been enjoying books like Alan Chin's which are more plot and the characters just happen to be gay. I'm hoping that there will be a natural progression of other MMreaders to stories where plot is more important than romance.

stephen osborne

4/1/2014 12:28:12 am

I had one reader complain--quite vehemently--that my books aren't real romances because they don't follow the "rules"of romances. I guess I don't play by the rules.

A.B. Gayle link

4/1/2014 06:58:40 am

Hi Stephen
My commiserations about that vapid response. When I see remarks ike that on reviews about other author's books. I'm never sure whether I shoud jump in and put an alternate view, debating their comment or what. Most often, I slant my review to address points that person made and hope people who read reviews, see both. I don't want to start flame wars or have an innocent author accused of employing their fans to speak for them.
I really think the problem is expectations as mentioned above. The ironic thing is that a large number of MM romance readers escaped from heterosexual romance reading because publishers in that genre had squeezed all the life out of it.
How to address it? Some commentors elsewhere have noted there are publishers out there who release gay fiction, apart from Cleis and Lethe, Wilde City Press has an imprint, Manifold and Kensington release books that don't "conform" to MM trope standards.
But readers are wary still of trying something new. Most are sheep that blindly follow leaders not understanding the consequences of doing that (I even predicted this problem back in 2011 when I reviewed Hot Head).
They need to be led gently by the hand and told: this story is about love (or not) it's not about chocolates and roses.
I think Dreampsinner needs to have a genre/imprint separate from it's Bittersweet line for starters. Even a genre called gay fiction maybe. Or non traditional romances (gad I HATE that word)
And a couple of other publishers (Riptide and MLR) could delve into this realm because they have authors who could and want to write these non mainstream books.
Starting up a new press is not the answer.
The thing that is needed is perhaps a blog site that promotes these sorts of books, that readers can trust to make recommendations. Can say things like if you liked this, try that.
It is the promotion, tagging and categorisation that needs to change.
Otherwise authors (mostly male) who write from the heart, stories that they want to read, that they want to write will become discouraged and give up.
It's happening now and it concerns me.
Every time I see a reviewer complain about the lack of emotional connecton to characters or characters not doing what they expected them to, I see RED!
And one review like that can really dent a writer's will to write, to share their stories. I can attest to that.
The best thing? Keep writing what you want to write, but talk to fellow authors. We need to keep this dialogue going, either to impress on publishers that there is a need to actively DO something or at least network so ways around the current situation can be found.

Jess

4/1/2014 01:10:38 pm

<i>Every time I see a reviewer complain about the lack of emotional connecton to characters or characters not doing what they expected them to, I see RED!</i>

Why? As a reader, it's possible that if I'm not feeling connected to the characters it's because of something to do with me, but I tend to figure it's a failure in the writing and/or editing. I've felt emotional connection with characters who are nothing like me, who I might not even like if I met them in real life.

Heck, I've connected with characters I would hope NOT to meet in real life! But they were so well written, I <i>felt</i> them, felt their hopes and fears and dreams and disappointments. I've cried with them and cheered for them. When that happens, I attribute it to the writer's skill. So why, when that doesn't happen, shouldn't I figure it's a lack on the writer's part?

Similarly, if I say characters didn't do what I expected them to, it's possible my expectations were wrong. But why? Why did I have those incorrect expectations? Was it a failure on my part, as a reader, or did the writer fail in setting up those expectations?

One example: I beta'ed a story in which I perceived a significant emotional angst of the MC's as Chekhov's gun, because the root cause was never revealed (and it never really seemed to go anywhere). It turns out the author had no idea that thread had been woven into the book; it was completely unintentional and will be removed in edits.

But what if that had been a published manuscript? Authors do sometimes create expectations they may not have intended, and do not satisfy, and it's fair for a reader to complain when it happens.

I hate to think a review could dent your will to write, because I love your stories and I want you to write more, more, MORE of them. :) And I will eagerly beta the heck out of every one of 'em. I also hate to think that any review of mine might dent any author's will to write. But I also think a heckuva lot of books could stand to have MUCH better editing before being released to the public. And if paying readers object to being treated like beta readers, that's fair, isn't it?

A.B. Gayle link

4/1/2014 01:52:23 pm

Some people tend to be more analytical, so they don't react the same way as someone who is more emotional. So expecting every setback the character suffers to be followed by deep angst is not real for that character. But you're right, the problem probably stems from the author not setting the character up to show that that is their nature.
Hence, I think readers relate better to characters who are at similar points along this analytical/emotional slider.
But, I hope that as a beta reader you do pull me up on things like that as I do tend to underwrite the emotions.

Kaje Harper

4/1/2014 01:35:33 pm

That sentence hit me too - even the finest literature will get a down-check from me if I don't connect with the characters. I think it's a perfectly valid thing to put in a review. And what leaves me cold may have the next reader sobbing. It's not a statement of great portent, but a legitimate evaluation of the value I personally put on that particular book. Which is what most reader reviews are and should be. And I would hate reviewers to refrain from telling me what they actually think about my books because it might discourage me. Praise is only worth something if there is freedom to criticize too.

The issue of non-romance trope books is a different thing. There is, and for a long time has been, a rich vein of gay literature, that is not primarily romance. This includes both books like Tales of the City, or Dream Boy, and genre fiction in mystery, fantasy, SciFi and the like. The readership for those books is wide, and larger than that of M/M romance. Look at the near-win on Goodreads for the Nightrunner fantasy by Lynn Flewelling. Some of these, particularly mysteries, are coming from the smaller pubs. Consider the Mahu mysteries from MLR, for instance.

The problem arises, I think, when publishers known for releasing M/M bring out books that don't fit their romance mandate, with blurbs that are confusing on non-informative. Since the sole true defining characteristic of romance is progression toward some kind of happier relationship, readers are justifiably disconcerted when that doesn't happen.

It doesn't always translate to poor sales. Look at Andrea Speed's "Bloodlines". My own "Full Circle" (also from MLR, incidentally) is one of my higher-rated books, and sells decently for a novella. At the same time, having a non-romance designation or a good common way of tagging for books that don't fit the romance mold from a romance publisher might avoid some reader disappointment, and the resulting displeased reviews. "Bittersweet" is not inclusive enough.

I don't think this needs to be separated out or have a new genre invented, or a separate newsletter, although I may be mistaken. But just as I might skip over books from a romance pub with intense BDSM, some other reader might skip those with "non-traditional" or whatever the chosen designator is. Others might take the plunge and find they enjoy a broader range than they thought.

A.B. Gayle link

4/1/2014 02:00:48 pm

Hi Kaje, thanks for your input.
I think this comment: "At the same time, having a non-romance designation or a good common way of tagging for books that don't fit the romance mold from a romance publisher might avoid some reader disappointment, and the resulting displeased reviews. "Bittersweet" is not inclusive enough. "
is the best way to go
And Bittersweet doesn't cover some of the formats. The character might be very happy at the end even if not in a romantic pairing.
The issue is hampered by the fact that a lot of classic titles, like those by Alan Hollinghurst, were not issued as ebooks initially and hence slip under the radar.
The major presses that release gay fiction, Cleis and Lethe, still don't tap into the MM market.
It would be great if more readers were bolder and took the plunge. There is already a deep pool out there and hopefuly MM romance has given them a floatation device to help them plunge in.

L. J. LaBarthe link

4/1/2014 05:56:17 pm

As an author, I would LOVE if there was an imprint for these kinds of books. For me, writing the whole of the journey of a story, not just making the romance front and center is what I love to do. I've been told that my books are complex and have so much going on or they're not strictly romances, and that's fair because I don't think of them as strictly romance. But to be able to have an imprint for books that don't focus primarily on the romance would be... I'd find it very exciting, to be honest.

As a reader, I tend to gravitate towards books with complicated, long plots, and usually there's little to no romance. There's characters of every persuasion and that's what interests me to read. When there's romance, the romance is one of many elements that make a good story.

Having said all that, though, I don't know that I could write something without some sort of romantic plot line in it, because I find relationships *of all kinds* interesting to write, and love and romance are great motivators for all sorts of characters.

A.B. Gayle link

4/1/2014 08:15:40 pm

Hi L.J.

Doncha just love it when you hear the criticism "too much plot". Lol.

I'm not sure if you saw the Facebook conversation on this topic, but it seems that a few of the MM Romance publishers do release these sorts of books, but a few people felt they need to be identified better at least, if not promoted better.

Hopefully, this is a step along the way.

cheers
A.B.

L. J. LaBarthe link

4/2/2014 01:24:55 am

Cleiss and Lethe? Or others as well as those two? I confess I did miss the conversation on FB (yesterday was hectic!). I count my blessings with Dreamspinner, who've taken my books and given me a fantastic editor and amazing cover art. I've been very lucky, I know I have, and I'm endlessly grateful.

A.B. Gayle link

4/2/2014 06:01:45 am

The blog has appeared in a couple of places and a few places were mentioned: Julie Bozza mentioned Manifold Press, Iwe mentioned Kensington and of course Wilde City Press already has a separate imprint for gay fiction. Kris Jacen of MLR said they publish some that can't be described as romances, but warn readers of that in the blurb. They already have a number of authors under their wing who write gay fiction, eg William Maltese, Rick Reed.
As I said in response to a comment on the blog in Goodreads, I am starting to think that just tagging something or putting something into blurbs is not enough.
To get Gay Fiction/non romances/love stories or just straight gay fiction more widely read, these can't just be a "warning - no romance". These sorts of stories need to be backed up by reviews/newsletters looking for these aspects and seeing them as positives, not just traps the unwary need to be aware of.
Celebrate the differences.
Market the hell out of the difference.
Jump up on the Mardi Gras float and be proud of being different.
The books are there, readers in the know (like you), know they are there, but a large proportion of MM romance readers almost fear them.
I'd like blogs/reviews to compare books more. Hey, you liked this fluffy romance but why not try this one. It tackles the same subject/is along a similar theme. It may not be all about the romance but it still has a happy end and I think you will enjoy it.

L.J. LaBarthe link

4/2/2014 05:10:47 pm

(In comment to your last comment below.)

I hadn't heard of Manifold Press before, so that's a new one to add to my bookmarks.

I completely agree with the rest of what you wrote--promotion and marketing are definitely key.

L.J. LaBarthe link

4/2/2014 05:09:35 pm

I hadn't heard of Manifold Press before, so that's a new one to add to my bookmarks.

I completely agree with the rest of what you wrote--promotion and marketing are definitely key.

L.J. LaBarthe link

4/2/2014 05:09:43 pm

I hadn't heard of Manifold Press before, so that's a new one to add to my bookmarks.

I completely agree with the rest of what you wrote--promotion and marketing are definitely key.

Dusk Peterson link

11/11/2014 01:16:17 am

"While Cleis and Lethe Press have been publishing these stories for years, when did you last check them for something to buy?"

A week ago? :)

"Other readers might be out there, wanting something different and not knowing where to find it."

A couple of things. One is that Lethe Press has published at least three m/m authors (R. W. Day, Erastes, and Charlie Cochrane). Lethe specifically markets certain books as gay romance, and they're best known, not as a gay literary fiction press (as one of your friends suggested), but as a gay science fiction and fantasy press. Science fiction and fantasy has been publishing female writers of gay love stories since the 1970s. So m/m does find other homes besides romance presses.

The other thing is this: Imagine that, say, you're part of a tiny fandom of some little book, writing your works of fan fiction for your little group. Then the book is made into a movie, and the Internet is flooded with writers of fan fiction based on the movie. Along comes a movie fan who says, "Oh, look - over there are some folks writing stories based on a book that has a similar plotline to our movie. Isn't that neat? Has anyone here heard of this book? No? Hey, guys, come over to our websites and post your fics! Maybe somebody here will want to read you!" However helpful the invitation is, the tendency of the old-timers is to want to growl back, "We were here first, newbies."

So here's my growl. :) Back in 2002, m/m meant slash (fan fiction or original slash). Slash can be any genre whatsoever. Romance storylines are popular, but most of the fanficcers who went pro in the nineties were published by SF/F presses. Not until a few years later did the romance publishers begin snatching up m/m manuscripts left and right, and at the point, the meaning of the term "m/m" was narrowed to refer to a particular genre, namely romance. It's rather like being a fantasy writer and discovering that the name of your genre has been co-opted to refer only to dark fantasy. It's rather discouraging.

But of course you're quite right, the relative lack of publishing options for non-romance writers of gay fiction is appalling. During the same period that m/m romance was on the rise, lgbt publishing was falling apart. And while it's still possible to submit a novel with gay characters to a mainstream genre fiction press or literary press, not many of those manuscripts get published.

Which is why I turned indie. :) I don't have a problem finding gay genre fiction to read - among other things, a lot of original slash is still posted online - but I do have a really hard time finding reviewers who will review non-romance gay fiction. I think that, when last I searched, I came up with a grand total of two reviewers.

You wrote this blog entry several months ago - have you noticed any changes since then?

A.B. Gayle link

11/11/2014 05:19:09 am

It is time to revisit this subject, Dusk. But I will do it in a separate post, addressing what has happened in the meantime and bring in relevant feedback from above. Thanks for this. You raise a few good points.

Do we need a new imprint/genre under the MM umbrella?

Leave a Reply.

A.B.Gayle

Archives

Categories