The Continuing Controversy of Same-Sex Relationships in Fiction
[image error]
I have a theory that there are two types of writers: those who court controversy and those who avoid it. Controversy can mean many things these days but I was a little surprised to realise that same-sex relationships in fiction are still classified this way. And it has forced me to rethink the number of categories writers can be separated into and add a third: those who are controversial without realising it.
When KK Ness released her debut novel, Messenger, Book 1 in The Shifter War series, I was one of the first in line to read it. I’d followed with anticipation her writing journey through her blog ever since she did me the favour of reading a draft of one of my yet-to-be-published novels and offering some very useful advice. It was even more appreciated since we’d never met before and still haven’t to this day.
You can read my 4-star review of Messenger here. For the purposes of this discussion, this extract was my comment on the way the book had been categorised on Amazon:
“I was a little concerned when I was buying it that its main classifications seemed to be ‘gay fiction’, ‘gay & lesbian fiction’ and ‘lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender fiction’ when the blurb clearly described a story that easily falls into the fantasy genre. Maybe my concern was because so much fiction classified in that way turns out to be erotic fiction. But it’s only because the main character and his love interest are both male. In fact, it was so subtle that I wondered if the ‘gay fiction’ classification might put off some conservative readers when it really shouldn’t. More a marketing consideration than anything to do with the story itself.”
Despite my concerns about the way the book was categorised, I have no problem reading fiction with same-sex relationships and I found Ness’s depiction of the interactions between the two main characters, Danil and Hafryn, quite understated. So much so that I thought it could have been developed a little further, contained a little more depth. Still, I thought maybe she’d achieved something great: a romance written so well that people who are a bit iffy about same-sex relationships and those who find them completely off-putting might be able to look past it to simply see the beauty of love.
Apparently, that was too much to ask for. A couple of weeks after I finished reading the book and had posted my review on Goodreads and Amazon, I went back to those forums to see how the book was going and I was surprised by two later reviews that specifically referred to the same-sex relationship. The first was this:
“The story line was okay and well written. What has put me off is that the author has no respect towards the readers. And giving us the warning that the story involves a same sex romance. I have no objection against same sex couples, but frankly I am not interested to read about them either. So my dear author you have lost me as your potential book buying customer. 2 stars”
And the second was this:
“An enjoyable light read from a new author. Well written. Good story line and characters. I am concerned however regarding the inferred potential ‘gay’ relationship between the two main characters. Should this aspect be allowed to develop or intensify, it would result in my not reading future books in this series which would be a shame as I think this author shows real potential. Perhaps I’m being somewhat conservative but I love reading books which are enjoyable and entertaining to me and that doesn’t include gay and lesbian stories. 5 stars”
Far from being slightly misleading as I had found it, the first reviewer seemed to feel that the book’s categorisation as “gay fiction”, “gay & lesbian fiction” and “lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender fiction” hadn’t been warning enough of the same-sex relationship. “Not that there’s anything wrong with that,” as Jerry Seinfeld would say and which the reviewer seemed to be implying. They had “no objection against same sex couples” but were “not interested to read about them either”. Ness had lost herself a future customer.
But it was the second review that I found more insidious. Despite a five-star rating, instead of bemoaning the lack of an appropriate warning, it seemed to be warning the author against pursuing the same-sex relationship storyline any further. “Should this aspect be allowed to develop or intensify, it would result in my not reading future books in this series…” Ness had already lost one customer and if she pushed her luck, she’d be losing another.
I could understand people having a problem with Messenger if it contained explicit descriptions of sex – I’m not particularly interested in reading books full of straight or gay sex scenes either – but there isn’t a single instance of that. Danil and Hafryn barely touch each other. It seems as though so many of those people who have “no problem with gay people but don’t want to read about them” think that all gay people in fiction do is have sex all day long.
In 2018, I thought we were long past these ridiculous notions of what it is to be same-sex attracted (FYI, in case you didn’t know, apart from the obvious, it’s pretty much the same as being opposite-sex attracted). I’m disappointed that we aren’t long past these ridiculous notions. Especially because it seems to be impacting a book well worth the read.
All I can hope is that it doesn’t impact Messenger too much and that readers like this are a dying breed. If a reader doesn’t like the story of a book with a same-sex relationship, that’s one thing. If a reader doesn’t like the story of a book because of a same-sex relationship, that says more about the reader than it does about the book. I know which I’d choose to avoid.
*Visioner, Book 2 in The Shifter War series, is now also available (buy it here).
