I just did a very quick search for the term "respect".
Here, it says:
noun
1 [mass noun] a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements:the director had a lot of respect for Douglas as an actor
the state of being admired or respected:his first chance in over fifteen years to regain respect in the business
(
respects)
a person’s polite greetings:give my respects to their Excellencies
informal used to express the speaker’s approval of someone or something:respect to Hill for a truly non-superficial piece on the techno scene
2due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others:young people’s lack of respect for their parents
3a particular aspect, point, or detail:the government’s record in this respect is a mixed one
Some trans*phobic and biphobic blog has recently said that m/m authors ("and/or their publishers") lack "respect for readers". As an author and a publisher, I'm adding my few cents, adjusted for inflation/exchange rate.
Let's go with what "respect" actually means. The most pertinent definition in this case appears to be option 2:
due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others:
Let's define "due" as "proper, deserving, fitting". "Dues" is also "obligation".
The accusation therefore seems to be that some authors/publishers don't properly take account of readers' feelings, wishes, or rights of others while writing or publishing.
What did we do to deserve such a grave allegation? We included females having sex in an "m/m book". Now, I've been uncomfortable with the "m/m" monicker for a long time, but LGBTQ romance for me is no replacement, as I'm writing predominantly about bisexual and gay men (who are pretty much all cis). Future projects will shift the balance to include the T and the L, but right now, I'm writing GB romance.
This attitude was defended by saying that het romance excluded m/m. Which is actually not true--or did anybody miss the Black Dagger Brotherhood book and lots of others recently? If people peered outside the ghetto, they might realise that the "het" market is actually a fair bit more advanced than they think. Making sweeping statements about a genre you don't actually know makes anybody look stupid. On the whole, I'm finding the "het romance" community more accepting, open-minded and critical than the "m/m" community, especially those people who trot out "purity" as a genre standard. [Though that particular blog is the only one that openly hostile to trans* and bi content to my knowledge. Most blogs and reviewers in our space are awesome people with open minds, and I applaud the work you guys are doing.]
Do I respect my reader's feelings? Sorry, but the book comes first and the characters, too. There will never be a Voinov book with a guarantee or an airbag, and I laugh at the need for a safety belt--I don't get one while I write, either. You get in the car, you hold on. I do promise to drive you. I don't promise it's all flowers and unicorns, because who's in charge? The characters. People tell me the strength of my book is in my characters. Yes. Because they are in charge. To make the experience "safe", I would have to neuter them and break their backs to control them.
Not happening. I'd be killing the very thing I write for and the very thing that powers my joy in writing.
What I do promise is: I'll give you emotions. Some you'll like, some might make you uncomfortable. Primary colours here, dear reader. They serve pastels elsewhere.
Do I respect my readers' wishes? Again, the characters are in charge. I don't write to tick boxes (or I'd be checking out what sells in m/m and clone it), I write what Must Be Written. I do give due consideration to the input of my betas, because they are people who'll say, "Gods, I don't want you to hurt that character, but hurting him makes the book So Much Better." In other words, they care about the story more than their own wish fulfillment. (I'm not saying wish fulfillment is wrong. It's just not my guiding principle.)
Do I respect my readers' rights? Readers have the right to buy or not buy my book. They can boycott me because I'm an abrasive ass or because something I said three years ago somewhere on the internet was offensive. Okay. Nice to have met you, I respect your choice. I have at times been an asshole. Like pretty much everybody out there who isn't run by a staff of PR advisers. I've even been drunk on Twitter. Twice.
Readers get a say in what and how I write the moment they hire me as a ghostwriter--the payment is upfront, and I'm not cheap. We're looking at five figures at minimum, half upfront, half upon delivery, because writing "paint by numbers" is extremely hard work, and chances are, my own book will make that money over the lifetime of the copyright, so you'd have to sweeten the deal with some financial upside.
Regarding the concept of readers' rights, I would like to link to
George R R Martin is not you Bitch, by Neil Gaiman, one of the sanest, most soft-spoken authors out there.
To this I add, Amy Lane,
Heidi Cullinan,
Heidi Belleau,
Amelia C Gormley,
E E Ottoman,
L A Witt,
Cat Grant,
Kate Aaron,
Steelwhisper,
Sunny Moraine, Sara York (...) is not your bitch.
We write what we must, we include women, and they may even have sex, because the story is in charge, and so are our characters. We write "m/m" or "LGBTQ romance" because we were tired of the restrictions, because we have to, because our characters won't let us sleep if we don't write, and yes, we love our readers, but I think I can confidently say that we all know that we can't write for all readers.Anything we do will lose us
some readers. Hell, dissing an Apple product in a book might piss off a reader who loves her iPhone. There are no guarantees, and readers are all different. A writer will drive themselves surely mad by trying to not affront/irritate/piss off ANYbody. We write queer romance because we are passionate people, and I don't think neutering that passion and making us all write anodyne cookie-cutter romances is doing the genre any service.
I don't even believe the "YUCK, A VAGINA IN MY READING" readers are the majority. If they are, the minority is large enough that publishing Dark Soul was one of the best things I've ever done and was well worth it financially. And Dark Soul has vagina and bisexual men and a genderfluid main character--reasons, incidentally, why that blog wouldn't review it.
Didn't matter, because Dear Author did, and Dear Author is a vastly, VASTLY bigger site in terms of eyeballs and sway.
Who sold "Dark Soul"? Word of mouth. From what I can see from my own royalty statements, it had a slow start and then snowballed. That's the pattern of a word-of-mouth book. Apparently people were excited enough about it to recommend it to their friends, without warning them over "trans* content" in book 3 and "vagina" in book 5.
What I'm saying is not "look, how awesome I am". I say that that trans*phobic and biphobic blog tries to define a genre by exclusion and now by levelling unfounded accusations at those who are "different" or are doing a different thing. Ever since Dark Soul, I've said "fuck it" to anybody trying to hem me in or try to force me into a certain direction. It's been a process, and a path, and at times I was crippled with self-doubt, but here I am, happier, healthier and more productive than ever.
In my perception, the market and the readership itself are changing. Back in the days when people laughed at m/m or scratched their heads, some people banded together for mutual succour and relief and maybe to bitch about how misunderstood and discriminated they are. But the genre is opening up. We get published with bigger publishers, our sales are growing (mine are), and in the last two years, I've been seeing more positive women characters, I've seen transguys get happy endings, rather than getting raped and murdered, and I think we are, as a genre, more aware and more inclusive.
How's that a bad thing?
How is it a bad thing that a genre that is 85% female includes women characters who are not raging b*tches or nasty ex-wives--but gives them agency, respect [ooops, I used that word!] wow, maybe even sex?
Bisexual people are made invisible by forcing them either onto the straight or gay side. Being bisexual, I just cannot get to the point where I mis-represent other bifolks in a way that a group of readers finds palatable. I have a bi-coloured perspective on this genre, and I will not shut up or censor myself because one or two readers out there can't deal with the bi-perspective. Moreover, I'm offended by the idea that trans* guys or gals aren't "real" men or women. In that definition, that blog is about twenty years behind the mainstream. Look how progressive these people are now, how cutting edge. A force for "good" (pushing for the inclusion of disabled characters and POC characters) has become one of the haters, by denying trans* people something as basic as their true gender. Well done. I hope you're proud.
All this is deeply saddening. I love entertaining readers and connecting with them, making them laugh or getting them off or whatever we're setting out to do (because reading/writing is collaborative), but it's not my fault if I fail because I'm being true to myself and my characters. But it is not my obligation to neuter myself as a bisexual person and as a writer who believes passionately in diversity and freedom to create fearlessly. I'm not your bitch.
I respect and love my readers. I understand that some people are not my readers--and I wish them big (virtual) bookshelves full of books that are Exactly What They Are Looking For. But I'm me, I write what I have to write, and it's about the story, not my ego, and not even about a vocal minority of readers who can't deal.
And I refuse to let one blogger define what my genre is. I R IN UR GENREZ--deal with it.
And I'm not alone.
ETA3: Added even more links.