date
newest »

message 1:
by
LenaRibka
(new)
Sep 20, 2015 12:16PM

reply
|
flag

Thank you Lena.

You can do it already, Ije! (Like to add to your 2 thousands+... books one more!:))I'm sure, you'll like it, it is a good-humored mystery, and I bet, with your reading speed you'll swallow it in one day!


But that's just me, really.
When I stumbled into the world of m/m fiction five years ago, I'd been reading gay lit for 25 years already. So in the new world of m/m fiction Josh Lanyon became a hero to me as an aspiring writer of m/m fiction and a gay man. He was the "voice" I listened to to reassure myself that I, too, could do this.
On the other hand, Harper Fox has always been more real to me, because she answered my emails and posted pictures of herself and her wife on Facebook. So she has become my hero, not because of her gender, but because of her more honest "branding."
I'm still gonna read Josh Lanyon, but it'll never be the same.

Thanks Ulysses. I don't think anyone should stop reading her. Rewarding those who brand honestly is probably a better idea than penalizing Josh Lanyon.

I will say one thing regarding your comments on people being asked the question about their sexuality during interviews. In my observations over the last 40 odd years, pro-active gay acceptance* has been growing for the last 20 years, but now, gender identification is becoming a much more topical subject with your middle-class mothers. "Oh, is it a boy or a girl?" is becoming the absolute taboo question to ask a new mum. I even posted a meme to my 30y/o daughter's timeline the other day regarding a baby dressed as a dinosaur, is not a boy or a girl, it's obviously a dinosaur. I am seeing more and more terms such as cis or cisgendered, demisexual, transgendered etc. (Lyn Gala's Turbulence, thankfully for me, had a glossary). Even the almost unnoticed change of LGBT becoming LGBTQ shouts of awareness and ultimately, it would have to, reflect acceptance. (Maybe they need to tack on an 'S' to really ruffle some feathers). What I am trying to say, most likely these questions about sexuality will become more complex issues and much more than being identified as gay or straight. The spotlight's beam is expanding until, one day, there'll be no spotlight. We can but hope.
So, thank you for your article, it has broadened my spectrum of knowledge and explained the current subject far better than I ever could have pieced together myself from all the social media posts I've been reading.
*I felt squicky just using that term because it's a label for something that shouldn't need a label.

Thanks for your interesting post. I've noticed some of this among my friends who have young kids, trying to give them the room to express however they'd like to. It does lead to some funny moments, like when my women's-studies, a little bit bi, always wears black, friend's daughter will wear only pink. "Pink! Why would she choose pink?"
In the case of Josh Lanyon, as far as I know, she's a heterosexual woman. She's said anything more was none of our business. Though up until this week she thought her correct gender was none of our business, too. If she identifies as trans* or bi or genderqueer she should say so. This isn't a corporate bank in bumfuck Idaho, this is an accepting community (at least I hope it is). And, I also have to point out that acceptance only happens when people present as who they really are. There wouldn't be a single straight woman writing m/m today if my generation and the generation before me had stayed in the closet. We'd still be mired in the morals of the 1950s.
This morning as I woke up I was thinking about something. I've been certain that Josh Lanyon was a woman for years. During that time people would talk about her using the male pronoun. I would not correct them. The reason I didn't is because in the queer community you respect the way someone presents themselves. If a 6' 4'', 300 lb. linebacker puts on a dress and says "Call me Shirley." You call her Shirley and start using female pronouns.
I realized that by not correcting people I was respecting not Josh Lanyon's sexual identification but her marketing. I wanted to tear my hair out. Why on earth does marketing deserve that kind of respect? For that matter we keep referring to this as "coming out" that gives it more respect than it deserves, too.
I feel kind of stupid about that.

Yes, and as a reader I struggled with whether it was my responsibility to keep an author's deceptive marketing secret. Assuming a gay male 'persona' crossed an ethical line for me, but as a straight female I wasn't sure it was my place to make a blanket assumption that LGBTQ people would feel the same. Many love Lanyon's work and feel it's helped increase gay men's visibility in fiction in positive ways.
And if I'd spoken up openly, say in a review where I compared her Killian and Lanyon work, I'm reasonably sure I would have been vilified and accused of trying to damage her career. As it was, I got down votes on one Amazon review I wrote just for mentioning I thought one of Josh's main characters felt gender neutral.
I haven't seen anyone mention Josh's Lambda Literary award entries, either. I know literary merit is taken into consideration first and LGBTQ status is secondary, but submitting your work under a false identity seems disrespectful and appropriative to me. Is there behind the scene stuff I'm missing on this?

I certainly could have spoken up as well. But I felt that since she started this she should be the one to finish it. She could have done gotten truthful in about one paragraph. All she needed to do was clearly admit what she'd done, acknowledge that it was wrong, point out that the ideas of catfishing and cultural appropriation weren't in the zeitgeist in 1997 but certainly are in 2015. What didn't seem so wrong when she began seems very wrong now. Say that she wouldn't do this if she was starting out now and that no on else should. That would have earned a bravo from me and I think from most of the others who've blogged. But, she chose not to do that.
As far as Lambda I'm not sure. They did change their rules for about a year and you had to be LGBT to enter. There was a big outcry about that and then they changed them back. I think since that time they're not supposed to take gender into consideration.

What may change is the thinking about her. The first blog post attacked all fans, who didn't take the hints. Besides never stating her gender I didn't saw any and that could have million of reasons so I really felt what? stupid? Like a child, who isn't smart enough?. In the second blog she attacked all who questioned the sexuality.
Maybe I'm intolerant, I don't know, but to "come out" and then to do another hiding game sounds rather odd. And even if she is bi, she is not a gay male and doesn't have the experience of a gay male. Not only distinguish the experiences between gay males from another gay males but from bisexuals and lesbians to. There are overlaps, but the feelings and struggles (if I can say so) are not really the same. Well and she did state, she is not trans*.
I don't know, I love her books (reading Murder in Pastel now) and I did like her thoughts in certain matters in the past, but I don't like that she victimizes herself. I didn't even see the outrage everyone is talking about (besides one author, who - as a gay male author - has in my opinion every right to be angry about the whole situation, without getting the label "envious").
I don't really think it is a matter about "protecting a markting-strategy", because you couldn't out her as not a gay man without revealing that she is not a man (she did state often that she is married to a man). And like I said using gender-opposed pseudonyms is okay (at least for me). In the end she simple should have done it sooner. Like ten years before. Maybe it is naive thinking of me, that it wouldn't have been so much of a problem.
Ah sorry for the long rambling.

Thanks for your comment.
If you're enjoying her books, you should absolutely keep reading her. I think she handled this badly, but in no way does the situation rise to the level of an Orson Scott Card for example. She's an ally who's made some serious missteps. Not a bigot.