torachan: (oops! your privilege is showing)
Travis ([personal profile] torachan) wrote2009-09-27 04:01 am
Entry tags:

Oh, ew.

A bunch of "original slash" authors getting their panties in a twist that their romances aren't elligible for a Lambda literary award if they themselves are not queer.

I especially love the first comment: "[A]nyone who wins this year can be snug in the fact that they had no competition". Because no queer people write books about queer people! And they certainly couldn't be good books. (Not as good as those slash romances, that's for sure!)

They go on and on about how horrible it is, so discriminatory towards straight people! Look, I'm pretty sure there are other awards that are focused on minorities representing their experience. It's nothing new, and it's not discrimination.

ETA: Apparently people are also upset that the awards were not originally for queer writers only, but for any work of fiction about queer characters. I hypothesised that they probably felt no reason to specify since before the rise of original slash, most writers of queer fiction were queer. It seems I'm right. Look at this snippet:

given the perilous place we find ourselves in with our drastically changed market conditions. We also took into consideration the despair of our own writers when a heterosexual writer, who has written a fine book about us, wins a Lambda Award

The landscape of queer fiction has changed dramatically with the rise of original slash, much of which (like slash) is written by straight women. A minority space is being taken over by a majority. It is not discriminatory to take steps to change that.
naraht: Brian Epstein (beatles-Psychedelic)

[personal profile] naraht 2009-09-27 11:27 am (UTC)(link)

(no subject)

[personal profile] naraht - 2009-09-27 11:31 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] naraht - 2009-09-27 11:55 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] softestbullet - 2009-09-28 07:13 (UTC) - Expand
jackandahat: (Default)

[personal profile] jackandahat 2009-09-27 11:30 am (UTC)(link)
Oh yes - and please note that today, the same person is waving said knickers in the air about how white people can't be discriminated against. I can't link, because I de-friended them in disgust and they've now de-friended me. But it's the usual "Look, if you're white, it's NOT POSSIBLE for you to be racially discriminated against, I don't care how much affirmative action goes on."

So... apparently they can grasp it with regards to race, but oh noes, the minute it means something they want might not be eligable for something they want, it's DISCRIMINATION and it's awful and it shouldn't be allowed!

(no subject)

[personal profile] jackandahat - 2009-09-27 11:41 (UTC) - Expand
jackandahat: (Default)

[personal profile] jackandahat 2009-09-27 11:45 am (UTC)(link)
Also, they're having total logic fail. They're going on about how it can't be representative of good books if it excludes. In that case, Sci fi awards can't be about good books because they exclude romances. The Oscars clearly don't know about good, because they exclude pie. Let's all boycott the Oscars until they have an award for best pie!

All awards are about "Categories". This is "Books by LGBT authors", right? They're picking "Thr best book(s) written by LGBT authors", no? As opposed to "The best Sci-fi book published in 2009" "The best selling non-fictions of 2009" etc etc. What's wrong with narrowing down the category some?

(no subject)

[personal profile] jackandahat - 2009-09-27 11:51 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] darkrose - 2009-09-28 05:59 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] jackandahat - 2009-09-28 07:46 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] softestbullet - 2009-09-28 07:15 (UTC) - Expand
chaosmanor: (SOPI)

[personal profile] chaosmanor 2009-09-27 12:00 pm (UTC)(link)
Oh, dear.

Do the Lesbian Avengers do online interventions?
potted_music: (Default)

[personal profile] potted_music 2009-09-27 01:09 pm (UTC)(link)
*headdesks repearedly* While the distress some authors feel after finding themselves no longer eligible for the award is understandable, why do they think that spewing homophobic remarks is the best way to rectify that situation? Demons I get, people are crazy (c).

(no subject)

[personal profile] bossymarmalade - 2009-09-27 19:32 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] potted_music - 2009-09-27 22:49 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] liviapenn - 2009-09-29 06:39 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] liviapenn - 2009-09-29 08:30 (UTC) - Expand
gloss: woman saying "you gotta be kidding" (Leila: no bullshit)

[personal profile] gloss 2009-09-27 02:41 pm (UTC)(link)
helens78: Ewan McGregor rests his head on his hand.  Caption: *sigh* (emote: sigh)

[personal profile] helens78 2009-09-27 02:54 pm (UTC)(link)
What you said. >_<
blueswan: (S&A head-desk)

[personal profile] blueswan 2009-09-27 04:05 pm (UTC)(link)
The comments at that link are ugly.

I suspect what has really got them up in arms is the statement by LLF: "We take the nomination of any book at face value: if the book is nominated as LGBT, then the author is self-identifying as part of our LGBT family of writers, and that is all that is required."
snacky: (Default)

[personal profile] snacky 2009-09-27 04:28 pm (UTC)(link)
Wow, that's a lot of fail going on, especially in response to this comment.
amadi: Text icon reading: "That's Not On." (That's Not On)

[personal profile] amadi 2009-09-27 04:45 pm (UTC)(link)
There's also a huge bunch of dishonesty, because they're saying that this is "moving goalposts" and "changing rules midstream" and that there are people who have already submitted for this year's award who aren't LGBT and so this is problematic for them.

But submissions, according to the site, begin October 1. If people have already submitted/been submitted by their publishers, they're not following the rules of the competition anyway. Hopefully all early submissions will be promptly round-filed on that basis.

This is a bunch of people who really need to STFU.

(no subject)

[personal profile] amadi - 2009-09-28 02:17 (UTC) - Expand
angelikitten: Cat with a halo (Default)

[personal profile] angelikitten 2009-09-27 05:23 pm (UTC)(link)
Wow, that's seriously messed up.

[personal profile] puritybrown 2009-09-27 05:41 pm (UTC)(link)
And as usual, people immediately go to the "you don't want us to write what we want to write place!" because being disqualified from one particular literary prize is exactly like being ordered at gunpoint never to write original slash again. *sigh*
crypto: Amy Pond (Default)

[personal profile] crypto 2009-09-27 05:50 pm (UTC)(link)
I guess I can see both sides of the debate, but the arguments from those objecting to the guidelines are so incredibly off-putting and disingenuous that I quickly lost sympathy for their position.
riseupwithfists: art by rick veitch (steve: this is not my beautiful house!)

[personal profile] riseupwithfists 2009-09-27 06:20 pm (UTC)(link)
The landscape of queer fiction has changed dramatically with the rise of original slash, much of which (like slash) is written by straight women. A minority space is being taken over by a majority. It is not discriminatory to take steps to change that.

Fucking Amen to that. As someone who has constantly heard stories of how hard it is for great queer fiction writers to get any attention, I am enraged over the sense of straight entitlement going on in that post.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2009-09-28 19:59 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] ladyjax - 2009-09-30 19:12 (UTC) - Expand
eisen: Black (like a dead bug from my feet). (your hardest try is never enough.)

[personal profile] eisen 2009-09-27 07:54 pm (UTC)(link)
You know, I'm sure there are other literary awards for straight women who write about gay people - didn't Annie Proulx win a couple of them? They can go join her in the straight women's "corner", otherwise known as "everyfuckingwhere else", because there's plenty of awards for straight people who sometimes write queer characters, but there aren't many awards for actual queer people writing about/for people like themselves.

I guess it's just upsetting for these straight women to realize that when they finally accept they have to settle for the lesser glory of a "queer" award, the queer people don't want 'em either.
cimorene: A black-and-white vintage photograph of 1920s singer Helen Kane in profile, with a dubious, side-eye expression (:|)

[personal profile] cimorene 2009-09-27 08:01 pm (UTC)(link)
I've been struggling all day to comment on this because it makes me SO angry.
alchemia: (Default)

[personal profile] alchemia 2009-09-27 08:11 pm (UTC)(link)
Oh *boohoo*
grow up!
(i mean that to them, not you, of course!)
sholio: sun on winter trees (Default)

[personal profile] sholio 2009-09-28 05:55 pm (UTC)(link)
I just read the links and, okay, um, wow. Entitlement much?

There's honestly a certain amount of discomfort-inducing objectification, to me, in straight writers who make their living writing about gay couples, and that seems to be on display very strongly here. I can see developing your market niche and writing on the subjects which speak to you as a writer. But if you're making your living by writing about a community which is not your own, then you've got the responsibility of treating that community respectfully -- whether you're a straight woman writing about gay men or a white guy writing about a Native American tribe or whatever. And the message I'm getting from all of this is that RL LGBT people only matter to them if they're buying their books.

(Anonymous) 2009-09-28 08:03 pm (UTC)(link)
I always thought that the Lambda Awards were for queer writers. Color me surprised that they weren't.

I'm so glad that someone else smelled the privilege dripping off that bullshit post. ::stands up and applauds::
la_vie_noire: (Default)

[personal profile] la_vie_noire 2009-09-28 08:28 pm (UTC)(link)
Amen. Seriously, straight women. Seriously.

(no subject)

[personal profile] schmevil - 2009-09-28 23:25 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] la_vie_noire - 2009-09-28 23:49 (UTC) - Expand
parhelion: (Weird)

[personal profile] parhelion 2009-09-28 08:50 pm (UTC)(link)
Not meaning to cause offense, but I know some of these authors, write original slash myself (about both genders), and am queer as a three-dollar bill. Old school lesbian. Back in the day risking shock therapy butch. Out as can be. And I don't agree with you at all.

I'm afraid this isn't as easy and straight- forward (so to speak) as your making this sound. But what do I know? I'm just a published homosexual writer writing about homosexuality. Y'know, the people who are supposed to be being (whether they want to be or not) protected by this change?
parhelion: (Weird)

[personal profile] parhelion 2009-09-28 09:03 pm (UTC)(link)
Sorry about the temper-driven typos, by the by. That should have been "you're", for example. But I do honestly feel you're overlooking valid arguments on the other side of this question held by people who have every right, by your own standards, to be in on the discussion.

(no subject)

[personal profile] aquila1nz - 2009-09-28 22:47 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] schmevil - 2009-09-28 23:28 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] aquila1nz - 2009-09-28 23:57 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2009-09-29 14:22 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] parhelion - 2009-09-29 01:37 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2009-09-30 12:20 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] secondsilk - 2009-09-30 16:17 (UTC) - Expand

Via Metafandom

[identity profile] 2009-09-28 10:12 pm (UTC)(link)
These were my exact thoughts on that initial post, so thank you for writing them. I'm having a difficult time trying to see what's controversial about their decision.

[identity profile] 2009-09-28 10:28 pm (UTC)(link)
Yep, this. I just read some postings about this, and wow. The straight entitlement is vile.

Apparently, it's MEAN and RUDE and OPPRESSIVE to have ONE award there to promote GLBT writers.

Hell, I already filled my bingo card and I barely read the comments.
elf: Another link in the chain (Linkspam)

[personal profile] elf 2009-09-28 10:55 pm (UTC)(link)
This post has been included in a Linkspam roundup.


(Anonymous) 2009-09-28 11:37 pm (UTC)(link)

Queerness =/= Cancer.

gelasius: (peter)

this is what I get for not paying attention for a few days...

[personal profile] gelasius 2009-09-29 01:26 am (UTC)(link)
Your icon=YES.

So what, there's this brand new discrimination? Where, for some reason, a queer-focused literary group tells everyone it's is going to focus on queer-identified authors, perish the thought? I don't even really understand how this is such a huge policy shift, if this (as I understand from here was already their mission statement):

The Lambda Literary Foundation is dedicated to raising the status of openly lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people throughout society by rewarding and promoting excellence among LGBT writers who use their work to explore LGBT lives.

Although as a sidebar I see something of an intersection of (perceived) oppression going on here, where (straight) women feel that they're being silenced by (gay) men, since by-women-for-women m/m romance seems to be the springboard of the issue here. It's faulty logic, but there it is.
Edited 2009-09-29 01:27 (UTC)

Page 1 of 2

<< [1] [2] >>