Romance & Queerness: Genre vs Device

Posted: October 28, 2016 in Critical Hit
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

A while ago, I found myself in an argument about romantic tropes and the prevalence, both historical and ongoing, of certain of the more toxically misogynistic ones. It’s a conversation I’ve thought about often since, partly in that frustrated, fridge-moment sense of realising exactly what you ought to have said many months after the fact, but mostly because I felt that most people involved were functionally on the same side. It was just that neither the catalysing comments nor the subsequent blowup had established the contextually vital but easily missed distinction between genre and device, which lead to a very unhelpful conflation of the two, and ever since then, I’ve wanted to better articulate that point.

When we talk about the romance genre, we mean a subset of stories where romance is a primary or central narrative focus, and which can be roughly grouped into romantic subgenres depending on their usage of particular settings and tropes, or various combinations of same. Romance as device, however, is the presence of one or more romantic elements in a narrative whose primary or central focus lies elsewhere, and which, no matter how well-executed the romantic aspects, would more properly be grouped with a different set of literary genres or subgenres. The inevitable overlap of the two – and it is inevitable, as per the immortal adage – is further muddied by their tendency to share common tropes derived from different, albeit related, traditions, like similar-sounding words whose etymologies are respectively Greek and Latin (hysteria vs histrionics, for instance), and which therefore carry separate baggage. That being so, and while there’s often utility in discussing them as a single thing, different contexts call for a different approach.

Nor, I would argue, is romance the only narrative element to exist as both genre and device: quite the opposite, in fact. It’s just that romance-as-device tends to be viewed as a sort of common literary holding: something we’re all “allowed” to draw on, regardless of background, without being seen as impinging on someone else’s turf. The same is also generally true of crime-as-device, as opposed to crime-as-genre, and for the same historical reasons: namely, that in both these cases, the device-usage long predates the modern genre-usage. But when it comes to more unified constructions – schools of writing where, by and large, the device and the genre have evolved together and have subsequently come to be seen as special and elevated by their adherents: namely, literary fiction and SFF – gatekeepers tend to raise stronger, more public objections to the validity of their respective device-usages in other genres, viewing it instead as either a dilution of or a failed attempt to properly engage with their traditions.

Fascinatingly, the logic behind these respectively jerked knees is almost diametrically opposite despite leading to functionally identical reactions. Literary fiction, which is prone to thinking of itself as the only real kind of literature, resents its styles and structures  being appropriated by or tainted with the trappings of “lesser” pulp genres, and so considers the idea of litfic-as-device to be somewhat tawdry and embarrassing. SFF, by contrast, is so used to being vilified as pulpy dross that SFF-as-device is invariably seen as cause for circling the wagons. Either litfic is poaching geeky tropes without acknowledging their origins, as per the standard operating procedure whenever SFF stories popular enough to become “classics” are suddenly said to have “transcended genre”, or else it’s a hamfisted attempt by some other “lesser” genre – usually romance, which invariably ends up being dogpiled by everyone – to ape traditions they neither understand nor respect.

(Meanwhile, both romance- and crime-as-device are held to benefit from a sort of snobbish literary elevation when used by other genres. Their core elements, this argument goes, are spices rather than staples, and therefore better suited to seasoning than sustenance. This is bullshit, of course, but self-important purity seldom recognises taste as a variable.)

All of which brings me, in a rather roundabout fashion, to my recent contemplation of the difference between queer stories written for a straight audience and those written for a queer audience, and what it means when those categories overlap (as they also invariably do, as per the above). It’s an issue with a lot of different intersections depending on your entry point, but there’s one angle in particular that’s been bothering me: m/m romances written predominantly by and for allo/straight/cis women versus m/m stories written predominantly by and for queer people. Which, right away, presents a glaring imbalance, in that the majority of stories about queer men, even when they’re written by queer writers, are still being written by women, given the fact that both romance and fanfic, where the bulk of queer romances are found, both have a heavily female-dominated authorship.

That doesn’t mean they’re the only two genres that matter, of course, nor does it mean that queer male writers are absent from those spaces. I can think of several notable queer men writing in SFF (John Chu, Kai Ashante Wilson, Hal Duncan, Yoon Ha Lee), all of whom are excellent, all of whose works feature queer male characters. Nor is the queerness in their writing incidental, in the sense of passing without notice: even when present as a single element within a wider narrative framework, it still remains powerfully situated. But overwhelmingly, in my subjective experience, queer male authored m/m work falls more frequently under the auspices romance-as-device than romance-as-genre.

There are many possible reasons as to why this is, not least the fact that, as queer writers remain marginalised, queer romances of any kind are still more likely to be written by straight authors, period. Combine this with the particular double standards surrounding the outward presentation of traditional gender roles, which portray women as being both naturally more empathic than men while hiding potential sapphism under the banner of Gals Being Pals, and you have a situation where straight women – or closeted queer women, for that matter – are still less likely to be assumed to be queer on the basis of their characters than straight or closeted men who do likewise. And because homophobia is Still A Fucking Thing, Goddamit, Why The Hell Aren’t We Past This Yet?, that’s an assumption many men remain leery of risking, whether consciously or not.

Which makes me wonder if, in part, the apparent dearth of queer men writing m/m romance-as-genre is also a product, at least in part, of the same cultural gendering that sees romance-as-genre as being inherently feminine, and therefore a lesser endeavour. I don’t mean that purely as an evocation of misogyny within the gay community, although that’s certainly a potential factor, but rather in terms of literal socialisation. Romance of all kinds is so thoroughly entrenched as a female preoccupation that it’s pushed on AFAB kids from a young age, even when they’re ambivalent or hostile towards it, while AMAB kids who show any sort of interest in it are still considered suspect. Meaning, in essence, that one group is more likely to receive a cultural primer in romantic tropes – and to internalise the message that romance is meant for them – than the other, regardless of who they really are.

And the thing is, for far too many of us, one of homophobia’s first and most prominent weapons was the assertion that gender-deviant behaviour meant we somehow weren’t our gender, not properly: a devastating attack for those of us who are trans or nonbinary, but equally confusing to those who are cis, but who didn’t yet know that orientation isn’t synonymous with identity. In both cases, coming to queer adulthood has often meant relearning which traditionally “gendered” things, originally rejected as collateral in an amorphous desire for self-expression, might now be cautiously reclaimed, and which things we might have adopted, not out of any real passion, but because their gendered associations were as close as we could once come to being ourselves.

Regardless of the reasons, however, the fact remains that a great deal of m/m romance-as-genre is now written predominantly by and for women. In this category I include both stories where the m/m pairing is primary, and where it appears as a secondary pairing in a largely f/m  or, more rarely, f/f plot. And in considering that fact, I feel – very personally; which is to say, with no real attempt at objectivity – that there is a vast difference between m/m stories which are actually accessible to queer men, or which at least try to be, and those which aren’t. I say this as someone who is genderqueer and bi, which status renders me a liminal creature even to myself, and which often leaves me feeling as though I have no real claim to any particular experience. I know what I feel I am, but I can’t explain that without explaining myself, and in this instance I politely decline to do so on the grounds that, even if I knew how, it would constitute an entirely separate essay. Say this, then: my yardstick for whether a female-authored m/m story is friendly towards a queer male readership is based on how comfortable I’d feel recommending it to my actual queer male friends.

Obviously, queer men are not a hivemind. Obviously. (See above, re: personal and not the least objective.) My friends are not your friends; I’m not trying to make a universal point, but to tease out how this deeply subjective thing currently feels to me. Because when I look at the female-authored m/m romances on my shelves, or the f/m-centred romances featuring secondary m/m relationships – all of which are either SFF, YA or a combination thereof, and therefore more likely representative of portrayals of male queerness in those genres than in romance otherwise – overwhelmingly, the thematic backdrop to those pairings falls into one of two categories: the horrific sexual abuse of one partner coupled frequently with the violent torture of the other, or the pining of a gay virgin for a man who didn’t know he was queer until they found themselves together, all sexual elements neatly sublimated beneath romance. For brevity’s sake, let’s call these categories violent and chaste.

To be clear: I’m talking here about books I like. Books I love in some cases, or which I have a deeply conflicted relationship to in others, but books in any case about which I feel strongly. Taken individually, they’re all engaging stories with varying faults and strengths, and which have very little in common besides their m/m leanings and the vague umbrella of their non-romantic genres. But having noticed this dichotomous trend, I can’t unsee it, and therefore can’t help but want to analyse it. And thus, the following deeply subjective opinion:

I feel as though the violent stories, at least in part, are a reaction to both the broken bird trope and the long, long list of narratives in which women are subject to every form of sexual violation. As such, I suspect they’re more likely to be written by queer women than straight; women who are deeply aware of the risks of violence produced by homophobia, and who, while wanting to explore the ramifications of that violence, are understandably reluctant to add to to a body of literature already glutted with stories of female abuse in general and the violation of queer women in particular. I understand exactly the logic in these instances, and yet I flinch from recommending such stories to queer male friends for the same reason that I hesitate to recommend misogynistic grimdark stories to female friends, or queer tragedies to queer friends: the horrors might be real and well-written, but that doesn’t mean we want to read about ourselves being destroyed.

The chaste stories, by contrast, I feel are more likely to be written by straight women than queer; women who are either uncomfortable with or cautious of portraying the physical, sexual aspects of queer male relationships, but who nonetheless feel deeply affected by their emotional component. To me, it always feels like there’s a disconnect to these narratives, one where poetic euphemism so fully supplants any bodily sense of arousal or wanting, let alone confusion or shock, as to betray a lack of familiarity with what it means to question your sexuality, or to feel shamed into hiding it. The lack of sex scenes isn’t the issue; it’s the total abstraction of sexual desire without actually writing an asexual character, coupled with the general lack of internal debate or crisis. It’s queer boys on perpetual stealth mode except for when, all of a sudden and without any apparent drama, they come out, and while these stories can still be quite beautiful, there’s a weightlessness to them, an abstraction from queer experience, that makes me hesitant to recommend them, either.

What both categories have in common, however – not universally, but frequently enough to rate a mention – is the invariable distancing of both characters from any sort of queer community or friendship. In the violent stories, it’s usually due to the focus on abuse, isolation or being closeted: even if other queer characters are present, the abused man is made lonely in his abuse, so that only his lovers or assailants are ever really privy to his secrets. In the chaste stories, by contrast, it’s because the queer men are predominantly surrounded by straight people, such that all the queerness flies under the radar right until it doesn’t. Which is, I cynically suspect, a part of the appeal for some straight authors: given that more of the population is straight than queer, the kismet of meeting a soulmate is made to seem even more wondrous if the odds were lower in the first place, and even moreso if your protagonist thought he was The Only Gay In The Village. Hence the poetic tendency to put the emotional connection on a lust-ignoring pedestal: it’s pure and perfect as much because they found each other at all as because of any other reason, so why sully it with sex?

As personally and as profoundly as I understand why so many women, straight or otherwise, find meaning and enjoyment in m/m stories, I’m increasingly saddened by how few of those narratives seem to consider the possibility of a queer male audience, or which assume that audience’s needs to be identical to a female one. It should surely be possible to write for both groups at least some of the time, and while I freely admit the limitations of my own perspective – I can, after all, only speak to what I’ve read myself – the existence of a discernible pattern is nonetheless disquieting.

 

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Michele says:

    I’m not sure that ‘chaste’ is the style I’ve encountered most, more like ‘rampant sexualisation’ and ‘stories told from a Penis POV’ (sigh), but the distancing from any sort of queer community is so spot on. Whenever I do read something that actually incorporates other queer people (without casual misogyny/throwing other identities under the bus, etc) it’s always such a relief 🙂

  2. Alicia says:

    Really interesting analysis. I’m a cis-het woman and I do occasionally wonder about a) the lack of M/M partnerings in the romances I read or b) the overwhelming female gaze of the ones that do occur. Which is in one way encouraging because every other mainstream medium I have ever encountered has been overwhelmingly focused on the male gaze but there is always something a bit jarring. It seems like M/M pairings performed for women in the way that F/F porn is most often performed for men. It doesn’t feel like the way gay male friends talk about their experience and the lack of authenticity breaks the suspension of disbelief – so for me the writing falls down.

  3. Faith says:

    I’ve noticed the same trend, though I could not have put it so eloquently as you have. I don’t know whether it’s part of the same problem or I’ve just been reading stories that are too angsty for my personal taste, but I’ve been a bit troubled by how many of the m/m romance storylines in popular books have a really dysfunctional feel to them – terrible communication and active physical aggression seem so common? Obviously there would be no story if there were no problems to resolve but characterisations like that make it really hard to believe that the lovers in question could and/or would ever look after each other in a healthy way, and I feel those actions would be perceived very differently if they were happening between a heterosexual couple. It’s definitely worth keeping narrative patterns in mind, as a writer and a reader alike, so thank you for your thoughts!

  4. Sia says:

    As a queer writer married to another queer writer – when my husband and I discussed this, we wondered if queer writers in general might be more leery of writing romance-as-genre out of a fear (conscious or subconcious) of fetishizing our queer characters. I mean, we know queer people and queer characters both are fetishized by those outside the community; that’s part of the issue with m/m romance written by straight/cis women anyway, isn’t it?

    When we write stories about ourselves, for ourselves, we don’t want the focus to be on our queerness. (By ‘we’ I’m speaking specifically for my husband and I here. I suspect other queer writers might share our perspective/opinion, but obviously I can’t speak for them.) We want the focus to be on our characters as people, and on the story. I delight in including queer romance in my stories; I do not delight in making that romance the focus of the story, and it’s not because I think romance-as-genre is somehow lesser (it isn’t, it’s fabulous in so many ways and for so many reasons) but because the defining characteristic of my story and my characters is not their sexuality and/or their romantic relationships.

    In romance-as-genre, the primary focus of the story is the romantic relationship. But I don’t want my queer characters to be defined by their queerness, which they will be/are if the driving force of the story is their romance. If I write romance-as-genre with queer characters, then the entire story is built around their queerness and is focussed on their sexuality. So I don’t write that, because I’m very, very tired of queer characters only getting stories about their queerness. I want the queerness of my characters to be only a facet – albeit an important one – of their personas and their stories.

    So I wonder if this desire – to have our queer characters be people, people who are more than their sexualities – is something that other queer writers share, and why (in my experience also) queer writers are more likely to write romance-as-device than romance-as-genre.

  5. Hannah G says:

    This may only be sort of related, but: I’m a (queer) historian studying queer (mostly gay) literature, specifically gay pulp fiction from the 60s and 70s. It’s a genre written by (often) gay men for a gay audience, and it’s chock full of both sex and emotional speeches about love and adoration. The thing is, in the wake of Stonewall and the idea of “coming out,” the whole genre has been shoved under the bus as self-loathing trash, just a pornographic version of the doom-and-gloom literary-fiction-with-gay-themes. Then there was the golden age of gay porn movies in the 70s, followed by the AIDS tragedy that was interpreted as “caused” by gay sex. So, on the whole there’s been a real activist effort to distance gayness from sex in a bid for acceptance. That fear, combined with the things you’ve already mentioned — romantic tropes being instilled in women but found alarming in men, etc. — probably contributes to the lack of for-men-by-men m/m stories, even though that used to be a thing.

    • Kagi says:

      Sorry for the late reply here, just found the post. If one wanted to read some of these historic novels, where would one find them, or what authors/etc would one be looking for? They are, as you said, difficult to find as genre these days.

      • Hannah G says:

        Hi! Probably the most famous one is Song of the Loon by Richard Amory, which has been reprinted and comes with a great introduction. There’s also an anthology called Pulp Friction that reprints chapters from some major books and would lead you on to other authors. Victor J. Banis is still around and writing, and he’s put The Man from C.A.M.P. on Amazon as an ebook, so that’s easy to find. And, in a bit of shameless self-promotion: My website offering the novels of Carl Corley to read for free will be launching next month or so. 🙂 My blog is mostly modern book reviews but there’ll be an announcement there if you want to follow, or feel free to drop me an email or something if you’re interested.

  6. […] Meadows explores the relationship between romance and queerness, and the difference between genre and device. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s