Branding or Catfishing?

Writing is hard. It’s really hard. Especially if you have the crazy idea that you’d like to make a living as a writer. A friend recently sent me a link to a study from Author’s Guild that states the average full-time fiction writers’ yearly income is $17,500. To put that into perspective, you can expect to make around that working the same amount of hours at McDonald’s flipping burgers. Ouch. I’m having a good year and will end a bit below the average. I told the friend who sent me the link, “Oh my God, I’m really successful, and really broke.”

Every writer trying to make a living, or even just trying to maintain the paltry living we make, is constantly trying to cage the system. We’re always doing promotions, begging for reviews, chasing trends, writing short when that pays more, writing long when that pays more, doing whatever we can think of to present our works, and ourselves in a way that will make readers hit that buy button.

Sometimes I like to write mainstream (read not-queer) stories and books. Certainly, mainstream is a much larger market so the potential to make a living is greater. In the past, I published my mainstream writing as Marshall Thornton. In fact those were my first forays into self-publishing. I actually did pretty well for a while, then I began to establish myself as a gay writer and the sales on my mainstream work evaporated. My longtime editor suggested that I put out a mainstream book I had lying around under a different name. At first, the idea of doing this felt like going back into the closet. After all, the point would be to hide that I’m a gay writer. But then I thought, why should some else’s homophobia cost me money?

Eventually I did decide to publish my latest book, Death Comes to Happy Acres under the name JT Moss (which is both of my parents’ names; Marshall Thornton, which I’ve been writing under since 1992, is part of my grandfather’s name) with the caveat that I would be open to my existing fans. And for that matter any new ones I make as JT Moss.

As I’m launching my new book this week, Josh Lanyon finally came out as a woman. This has been a longtime rumor, which was confirmed for me more than a year ago by someone I trusted to actually know. Though, to be honest, I’m not sure I ever truly believed she was a man. In the broadest sense, Josh Lanyon is a brand just as Marshall Thornton is a brand and JT Moss is a brand. And I don’t have a problem with that and don’t think anyone else should either.

On the other hand, a great deal of this business is very personal and when you pose as a different gender both publicly and privately then you are skating dangerously close to catfishing. There have been instances where female writers have deliberately catfished gay male writers in order to pump them on how they “really” feel about straight women writing gay fiction. To my knowledge this is not something Josh ever did, and I’m not suggesting that.

However, everything Josh has said about straight women writing about gay men does now needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I’ve seen several comments about instances where she used her authority as a “gay man” to tell people how they should be writing about gay men, in fact I’d say she does that a lot in her book, Man, Oh Man: Writing M/M Fiction for Cash & Kinks.

In a 2010 article at by Dick Smart at Lambda Literary Josh is quoted as saying “There’s a great deal to appeal to gay male readers in M/M fiction.” That statement has weight coming from a gay male writer, from a gay man it means “hey you should try these books, I like them, you might too.” From a straight female writer, even though it may be a sincerely held opinion, the subtext becomes “buy my books.”

I want to stop for a moment and say that Josh has always been nice to me. She has gone so far as to recommend my books to her readers, mentioning me on her boards, on twitter, and in her newsletter. Writers don’t have to do things like that, especially successful ones, and I appreciate the support. I’m not writing this to suggest that she be punished or penalized for what she’s done. If you thought she was a man and you like her books you should keep on reading them. That said, I do think there needs to be some examination of when branding goes too far.

I also have few issues with her “coming out” blog, well, many issues. To me it feels like she’s trying to paint herself as some kind of victim. She writes “This is the blog post I kind of hoped I’d never have to write…” Really? I was told she was coming out last year. That means she’s been thinking about this post for at least a year. Did she think she could pretend/not pretend wink-wink to be a gay man forever?

“…I really did believe in my heart that the M/M genre had surely moved past this kind of nonsense.” You know, I think they have. Lots of women use male pen names. They do it transparently. They don’t create “open secrets,” they don’t spend fifteen years clouding the issue. And they answer the gender question when it’s asked. But it’s usually not asked because they show up at events and use actual author photos.

In the blog, she references a dust-up at DearAuthor.com and takes the position that refusing to state her gender is somehow admitting she was a woman. Certainly, she’s right that it increases suspicion (just as it does when an actor refuses to state a sexuality, and we’ve seen that a lot) but I fail to see how refusing to answer a question, over time, becomes honesty. It’s not.

And, that dust-up took place in 2008, yet in 2010 she’s described in an Out Magazine article as “one of the M/M genre’s few male authors…” I have no idea if Josh herself provided this info to the reporter, but somehow among all the male-named authors in M/M the reporter decided Josh was actually male. As nearly as I can tell, Josh did nothing to correct this very public mistake. Certainly, there was no blog about it. To me, whether actively or passively allowing the gay press to identify you as a gay male qualifies as catfishing.

To turn this around a bit if, in my new JT Moss brand, I allowed a publication to refer to me as a heterosexual and I didn’t correct it, that would be catfishing. Yes, casual readers will assume I’m straight, just as casual readers of any m/m male-named author might assume they’re reading gay men. But, the minute a reader takes the time to ask a question I think they deserve an honest answer.

And, if you’re an author who really wants to remain anonymous then don’t have an online presence. Don’t Facebook, don’t blog, don’t send out newsletters. The only thing you really have to do to be an author is write books. Yes, if you don’t do the rest of it, if you don’t actively create a brand, then you may not, in fact probably won’t, sell a lot of books. But that’s a choice freely made. There are downsides to being successful and if you don’t want to experience them, then don’t try to be a success.

I appreciate that in the year 2000 when Josh began publishing it may have seemed like a good idea to create a gay male persona as a brand. And during the ensuing fifteen years she did a lot, either actively or passively, to create that gay male persona. The problem – for Josh – is that in 2015, creating a false gay male persona is a really, really bad idea. And it has been for quite a while. This is why she’s been playing “open secret” for several years.

Had she “come out” with a blog that said, “this is what happened, this is why it happened, and this is how times have changed” I think there would have been a lot less hullabaloo about the whole thing. Certainly, I would have respected her more. Choosing to paint yourself as the victim of a brand you yourself created. Not cool. Not cool at all.

Links:

https://www.authorsguild.org/industry...

http://www.lambdaliterary.org/feature...

http://joshlanyon.blogspot.com

http://dearauthor.com/features/letter...

http://www.out.com/entertainment/2010...
18 likes ·   •  13 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on September 20, 2015 11:36 Tags: catfishing, gay-fiction, josh-lanyon, m-m-romance, pen-names
Comments Showing 1-13 of 13 (13 new)    post a comment »
dateUp arrow    newest »

message 1: by LenaRibka (new)

LenaRibka Aside of all the fuss over the JL coming out, I'm glad you let the other readers know that JT Moss is just another pseudonym of Marshall Thornton. I think that the real fans of Marshall Thornton HAVE to know that fact. Even if they would prefer Marshall Thornton's works. And it gives a chance to win new readers. (I know personally one person, who won't miss the books of JT Moss in the future :)


Ije the Devourer of Books I will certainly be buying JT Moss in future :)


message 3: by Marshall (new)

Marshall Thornton Lena♥Ribka wrote: "Aside of all the fuss over the JL coming out, I'm glad you let the other readers know that JT Moss is just another pseudonym of Marshall Thornton. I think that the real fans of Marshall Thornton H..."

Thank you Lena.


message 4: by LenaRibka (last edited Sep 20, 2015 12:51PM) (new)

LenaRibka Ije the Devourer of Books wrote: "I will certainly be buying JT Moss in future :)"

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!


♣ Irish Smurfétté ♣ I didn't retain most of her explanation, but this stuck out to me and you nail it: "Choosing to paint yourself as the victim of a brand you yourself created. Not cool."


message 6: by Ulysses (last edited Sep 20, 2015 04:05PM) (new)

Ulysses Dietz Well said, Marshall. I'm glad I don't have to earn a living with my fiction. My rejection of pseudonyms has been almost visceral since the first time an editor suggested I use one to "protect my professional image."

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.


message 7: by Marshall (new)

Marshall Thornton Ulysses wrote: "Well said, Marshall. I'm glad I don't have to earn a living with my fiction. My rejection of pseudonyms has been almost visceral since the first time an editor suggested I use one to "protect my pr..."

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.


message 8: by Liz (new)

Liz I read your article and I found it to be be very bi-partisan; with your true feelings and authority, on the subject, just as self evident. Your comment But then I thought, why should some else’s homophobia cost me money? especially resonated. It's all very well to remain true to thyself but the requirement to eat and live puts money ri-i-i-i-ght up there with oxygen, as a necessity. To identify it as branding I couldn't agree with more.

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.


message 9: by Marshall (new)

Marshall Thornton Liz wrote: "I read your article and I found it to be be very bi-partisan; with your true feelings and authority, on the subject, just as self evident. Your comment But then I thought, why should some else’s ho..."

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.


message 10: by Kelley Fae (last edited Sep 29, 2015 09:25AM) (new)

Kelley Fae "Why on earth does marketing deserve that kind of respect?"

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?


message 11: by Marshall (new)

Marshall Thornton Thank you for the post.

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.


message 12: by Tharayn (last edited Sep 28, 2015 10:55PM) (new)

Tharayn What disturbs me the most is that she and most of her fans don't get, that the whole problem isn't really about gender and that most people have no problem with using gender-different pen names. Yes, there are some readers who are disappointed because the books now lack a certain "authenticity" (which I can understand, you can't imagine how important gay male examples are, when you discuss with someone that the portrayal of gay in books by women and gay man isn't always as distinguish as they believe. As in "not every gay man is ultra alpha"), but in the end, we all love Josh's books and characters. And for most that doesn't change.
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.


message 13: by Marshall (new)

Marshall Thornton Tharayn wrote: "What disturbs me the most is that she and most of her fans don't get, that the whole problem isn't really about gender and that most people have no problem with using gender-different pen names. Ye..."

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.


back to top