Lesbian + gay writers : discuss

"There's plenty of gay writers here too - at least four at my writers' group so far - and specialist press, so it seems easier to get published if you're gay." Neil, There's one gay press so that makes it easier? In fact Millivers, (owner of GMP, Diva, Red Hot Diva, Prowler Press) and who advertise themselves as the biggest gay publisher in Europe published one novel this year. Friends of mine, who used to write for them, have since had novels returned from mainstream publishers who said they were too 'niche'. (Happily something that has not happened to me - I get books returned for other reasons and I make a point of making the least strange thing about my characters their sexuality.) I think the important thing is is not to think about why / why not you're published but try to write as best you can. While we're on the subject I like the books published by both GMP and Diva. Try The Woman In Beige, by V G Lee. (starring Lorna Tree, deliverer of newspapers and writer of epic poems. Setting, Stoke Newington (Lesbian capital of the Western world). Costumes. Paisley frocks, leather trousers, appliqued aprons and beige, beige, beige.) The Ropemakers Daughter, by Virginia Smith. (A thriller a la Ruth Rendall) Fly On The Wall, Rupert Smith (A comedy about a fly on the wall documentary show that sets up in Elephant and Castle) Orange Bitter, Orange Sweet, Anthony McDonald (Set in Seville in the mid 70s, follows the intertwining lives of six people. I loved this one.) You seem to be making assumptions about what gay writing is; 'not as many dungarees and dildos as I feared'. In fact I don't know what it is.

There has always been this irritating backlash out there that thinks alternative cultures have privileges. Such as the enduring criticism that you have to be a disabled, black lesbian to get any job. The reality of being in a minority is so far from this, and few people really take the time to imagine all the torments and difficulties of being different from the perceived or accepted norms. Internalised homophobia, for example, can really eat away at a persons ability to accept themselves. Ages ago I posted something up about what I had read in a school text book about homosexuality...the hidden agenda was that it was to be bracketed along with other disabilities, and only given any respect if people were in long-term relationships. This sort of thinking goes permanently unchallenged. So many people just have not got the imagination to go beyond it. I have my eye on the future...where hopefully, most people will be of Drew's opinion when he states, with regard to gay writing...'I don't know what it is' - good, because it can't be placed in a box with a label on...

I like the 'don't know what it is' point. I suppose that was my point earlier on when I said everything affects a writer's work - down to the street you live, that sunday afternoon in 1981 when you knocked the scab off your knee on the bouncy castle, the time you opened the bin and it was full of maggots, the day you first kissed someone you really liked, the fact your house was number 12....etc etc... writing is a funny, strange, shape shifting thing. In a perfect world you can't really call someone a such and such writer. You'd just call them a writer. I think if you ask any writer what it is that makes them write, where it comes from, where it's going, most of them - if they're honest with themselves and don't make something overtly intelligent up - don't know. It just happens... twok - I realise you might have not liked the semantic turn this thread took earlier on, but as there is no rule that we have to stick to the top question as though writing an academic essay, sometimes it is interesting to see where the threads take us. If every time someone digressed we had to start a new thread, maybe every thread would just have one posting...

Good point. I probably wouldn't check out something hot in the gay and lesbian section because I would think it was not aimed at me, just as the 'women's literature' would not be aimed at me. If the book were simply on the shelf and described as a great read, I might well take a look. I don't check out the 'heavy romance Barbara Cartland' section either, same reason. OTOH, knowing that an author is gay, like William S. Burroughs--one of my favorites--is neither here nor there. I like his books. There are descriptions of homosexuality in them, but that is incidental.

What a strange post...I hope this doesn't cut an interesting discussion short...hey ho.

Take your pick, I'm not averse to any of 'em, just the usurping of 'innocent' words in an attempt to sanitise or confer social acceptance on a sexual persuasion that has been demonised for centuries. The words you quote are ALL perfectly good and acceptable words that, as far as I know, have homosexual meanings. As it is now an acceptable life-style I don't see the need to 'pretty it up'. I have no problem with homosexuals, I have friends of both varieties. I also have some heterosexual friends too.

Hey, this is relatively new stuff to me, I don't really know what I'm going to find out there. Some of what I've looked at in other "minority" collections seems quite poor, though maybe it's Manchester library's purchasing policy that's to blame. The lesbian short story collection's by Diva and it's excellent and very varied in theme and tone.

fergal - i realise threads can turn different directions which is what makes them interesting, sometimes exciting, i didn't like the particular nature of this one but hey i don't have to like it but its another opinion to add to the board just like everyone else has. After all we are here indeed to discuss...;o) and yes missi I can indeed take it or leave it ...

Neil, I hope my words didn't / don't sound harsh. I think that Emma's may have been a little. Gay / lesbian / bisexual people sometimes forget how hard it was for them to come out and come to terms with themselves and then expect immediate understanding from someone who has never gone through those things - I remember how nervous I was the first time I went to a gay club - I didn't know what I was expecting, much as you didn't know what to expect from supposedly gay literature. (The gay club was normal by the way although I did see Limahl and Marc Almond there. Cool!) Neil, after all, you did start this thread - and interesting it has been too. I think it's great that you've made the effort to read a lesbian collection of stories. How many straight, male (ha ha I want to say middle-aged but actually I don't know how old you are!) would, in fact, go and pick up a collection of lesbian shorts and start a discussion about it? That surely, is the ideal, isn't it? Thay gay writers exist, whatever they are, but that a larger majority of people go out and buy them, whoever they are.

Twok, I agree with Mississippi's reply, but would add... If you're so impressive, lets see what you write. Post some stories or Poems, see if they'll pass muster with the writers here. This is one of the most demanding story sites on the net as far as quality of work being submitted. I can't think of a single location with so many talented writers sharing thoughts. If you have a problem with threads drifting off topic, you're not very versed in the real world, as I've seldom had a conversation with people that was restricted to a single topic.

Neil...my comments were not pointed in your direction personally,...seriously, I know how broad minded you are!!! It's just a little pet topic of mine...it was simply triggered off by a small part of what you said. It's a hard world, but heterosexuals having relationship probs get ready ears and sympathy and popular culture sympathises with their situations...(perhaps actually a disadvantage???). I don't want to offer excuses to people who don't want to stretch to understand how difficult it is for people to become 'out' or whatever, nor do I want to force anyone to reach an understanding of something they really cannot deal with. But this doesn't change the point I was making about the 'reality' of life in a minority as being far different from the notion that today's society is all accepting. There is so far to go. I'm asking a lot of these questions at the moment, because I'm taking the huge leap from marriage to single parenting...and maybe onward to a same-sex commitment. I was at a school barbecue this afternoon and evening. It is a fact that there are no same-sex parents at my children's school. What do you think I would face if, at some point, I wanted to turn up with my girlfriend/partner? Hmmm....who would decide they didn't want little Johnny playing round at my house? I think I've got some serious networking to do in order to meet people with similar issues. Sadly, in a school where the intake is mostly children of the middle-classes and professionals, people who are separated probably feel similarly alientated. The world revolves around the 'family unit'. Honestly, it does. Mind you...it has to be said that I've never felt so lonely than as a parent. I thought it would bring me into some sort of companionship - unconditional and belonging...however, I have just found the rivalry, competitiveness and materialism stifling. Oh, and the push to conform...gawd...but then, I wasn't in my right place anyway. Digressed from the thread...hey ho! Whinge over.

A 15 yr old lesbian huh? Shame you didn't spend more time on your education. At least then you might have learned how to communicate. There again, you are American... so good you had to say it twice? Love to Virginia.

radiodenver - i don't have a problem with threads going off on a tanget as my 2nd post said....feel free to view the 2 poems and monologue i have put online although your reference to thinking myself 'impressive', i think no such thing. And i agree with drew, neil, your willingness to read minority books is to be encouraged. I prompted further questions on the defensive side, when topics are close to home, I have a tendancy to do. No offence was intended on my part.

Hey twok, No hard feelings with me - I like it when people disagree. Just didn't want you to think we were going off on an irrelevent tangent - I think it's all interesting stuff and semantics get in the way of everything, lawd knows. Good to have you on the site, I'm fairly new myself (though vaguely addicted). Looking forward to reading your stuff ;)

Right. Apology required. Some of the comments I have made on here are out of proportion with reality. They mainly reflect my own current feelings of bitterness and regret. I have to accept that I am in a minority, and stop blaming outside factors for my own difficulties. When it boils down to it, no one is responsible for myself but me. I'm staring into the black hole of this realisation at the moment. Bear with me.

thanks fergal and its nice to receive a welcome :0) Emma it sounds like you're going through a hard time at the moment, i hope it works out for you. All the best.

Don't worry on my behalf Emma - raising a topic like this is always going to lead to some hurt feelings, painful memories, misunderstandings, and I don't always display sensitivity especially if I think I can be witty. I'm still unlearning homophobia, which is sadly seen as a positive attribute in some christian circles.

Mississippi...while most of the time, I would agree that 'marked language' for different sexes, such as 'actress' instead of simply 'actor' for either sex, is politically incorrect, I can't help feeling you're splitting hairs here. In 'marked language', the addition of gender-specific word endings is a suggestion that the altered version is abnormal. i.e. an actress is not as common as an actor and therefore unusual. This sort of sexism I would agree to be outdated and unacceptable and is the reason we are now introducing non gender specific terms such as police officer and fire fighter into social roles. While 'gay' can be and is often used as an acceptable umbrella term for homosexual people of either sex, neil is not being politically incorrect by referring to female homosexuals as 'lesbians'. The term was coined in ancient Greece and was named after the Island of Lesbos, where young GIRLS (not boys) were sent to learn how to make love to potential husbands by practising on each other. Therefore 'lesbian' is not, as in the case of 'marked' language, hinting at the female take on homosexuality as inferior or abnormal to the practise of gay males. It is simply a specific term for female homosexuals. I have never once been rebuffed by any friends who happen to be lesbians for using this term.

*Making a farce of my melodramatic exit, as I knew I would* I don't think there's much point in getting angry at people for 'claiming' or 'misusing' words and phrases. You've just got to ride the tide. Look at what happened to 'liberal'. I once had a terrible run-in with some rather pushy Americans, who were almost trembling with rage about the phrase 'where it's at', because it's grammatically unsound. I made the mistake of using 'infer' to mean 'imply', and they went nuts! Of course, if you try to tell them it doesn't matter, they come up with all this snobbery about our ability to communicate being eroded by poorly educated people. I'm toying with this theory that disgruntlement comes from within - that sometimes you just *are* irritated, and have to look for something to be irritated by - an itch to meet your scratch. And, well.... I guess if you've got to have a stick in your craw about *something* all the time, the inevitable shifts in the English language must fill the gaps.... Thoughts on the subject of gay literature: I don't know why, but I like the idea that writers, gay or straight, can choose whether or not to market themselves as 'gay writers'. I mean, us straight chaps could lie about it, right? It's one thing I really wanna do when I have time - infiltrate all the specialist genres that are based on the identity of the writer, rather than the type of story. I mean, surely, the boundaries are imagined, and are easily broken?

There's an arguement that Queer writing is seen to focus too much on sexuality because it is thrown into contrast by what is the percieved norm. If you think about it, most books are 'straight' in that there is an implicate assumption that the characters unless stated otherwise are straight and will behave in ways that are straight. There is a straight discourse, if you like. Straight is what is considered to be so normal that it needs no comment or explanation. If you read a book that is 'Queer' you have the same assumptions of normality but with the polarity switched to 'Queer'. If you aren't used to it, it can feel like the author is mentioning 'queerness' and 'gayness' on every page for the hell of it. When you think about it though, 'straight' books aren't any different are they?

I agree Mark. In fact I tried to say, in part, the same thing, but only managed to do so in about ten times more words. I was also saying that people are quite used to reading books with gay characters now, so are less and less noticing the 'queerness' or whatever. It is the same as reading a straight narrative. something is only different when you are not used to it. or something.

Missi. I agree about the word 'gay' it's a lovely word and seems to have been abducted. Mark. I disagree with your post. I think a 'queer' book, whereby the normality is switched, shouldn't have the 'gayness' or the 'queerness' overstated on every page in the same way that the hetrosexuality of characters in straight literature is assumed and not, therefore, constantly pointed out. If a book in set in a homosexual setting, and because of the assumptions of the average reader, it is necessary to make it clear that the majority of people in it will be homosexual, then once that's explained we have no need to have it reitterated on every page. I like it when an auther can give us poor readers credit for getting into the mindset of the characters and settings without having to keep putting, ..."who was ALSO gay" after each name.

glad you reneged on your dramatic exit Hen. I am amazed that I seem to have such strong opinions on this subject (re: my tirade about the Normans and the Saxons and claiming words and posting up websites etc...) What I meant to say I think, and people feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, a lot of this stuff comes down to a) whether you write with money in mind or creating something meaningful b) how you are marketed c) if you are convinced by others that you are part of a movement people are always trying to pigeonhole things.... especially publishers who want to know who they are marketing stuff to. I know quite a few people write with 'being published' in mind. This is true of any writing. I happen to think doing that is cynical and waste of time. Just my opinion of course.

how many books have you read where it says - who was also gay - after a character's name? It just doesn't happen. That's whay we were saying. There are loads of books with gay characters in that are many other things other than being gay, just as there are many other things to straight characters than being straight. Gay ia a 'lovely' word. It is also only one word. And for a word to be 'abducted' one would have to presume that a) one was part of a group that had more right to it than another and b) the group taking it had criminal intent, or disregard for the other group. Also why can't it still be a 'lovely' word now it has multifarious meanings. I think that's part of it being used. A nice word. Why shouldn't homosexuality have a nice word? I understand that some people think it's been highjacked, but to be honest, it's not like there aren't lots of other words that describe 'gayness' in the old sense of the word. Also words change and develop all the time. The English language has always been like that. Let's go back to the Normans and tell them no, we don't want your word 'miserable' when we've already got the word 'sad'. We don't want your word 'joyous' when we have the word 'happy'. We don't want your word ' incredible' when we have the word 'great'. We also don't want the words captain, kennel, cattle, castle and canvas. Nope. We want our own words with their original meanings. Am I the only one who thinks that's ridiculous? We've always adopted words from others, squeezed them around and changed them. Should we really be that bothered for the change in the word 'gay'?

Well, heterosexuality is reiterated on every page of much writing, and that isn't challenged, so i am more inclined to agree with Mark's viewpoint. Why should gay lit be criticised for doing the same? Though I do take your point about crediting the reader with some intelligence...this is a matter of quality in the literature, not a specifically sexuality-related matter.

I agree with Emma there - we have to remember that there are differences in quality in all writing. Anyone who has to spell things out to the reader is a bad writer. That has nothing to do with sexuality. It has to do with quality of writing.

Whoah there! talk about a hair trigger, you've gone off like BB Nadia after a week without fags! (no pun intended) my point Fergal, was merely that I like to be able to immerse myself in a novel about any kind of lifestyle without constant reminders of it, as if being gay were so alien to me that I'd need a nudge every paragraph. Mark wrote: "If you aren't used to it, it can feel like the author is mentioning 'queerness' and 'gayness' on every page for the hell of it. When you think about it though, 'straight' books aren't any different are they?" well if it does feel that way then it's the fault of the author because in a well written book set in a homosexual atmosphere it doesn't feel that way and therefore, straight books ARE different and so are well written gay books. As for the word 'gay' its original meaning was simply 'happy' and anyone could be happy. If I were to announce to a stranger that I was gay then they would assume I was homosexual and not happy. I cannot now be gay because it has become COMPLETELYassociated with homosexuality and not happiness. Yes, it's a lovely word and there's no reason at all why homosexuals shouldn't have lovely words OR hetrosexuals. There's now one LESS lovely word that I can use about myself. DO YOU GET IT? are there any lovely words for hetrosexuals? NO. Straight is, at best, not lovely but everyday, average. At worst it implies boring and staid, unexciting and uncreative. There must be thousands of gay people that are 'straighter' than me but they can't be called straight any more than I can be gay. They have to be called gay, to be seen as all the stereotypical things that are associated with the gay culture when all they want to do is be the same as everyone else except for the gender of their sexual partners. homosexual, hetrosexual. These are scientific words based on the sexuality of the relative groups. They're ugly and functional and should be all we need. After that all the lovely words can be used by anyone and EVERYONE can just be people regardless of who they sleep with.

Mm. I know people who have *said* that this is the reason they write, but in most cases, I get the sense that they don't really know why they write, and are trying to find the most obvious motive. If they really wrote just to be published, they'd pay far more attention to what publishers want at the moment, and not press on with their own visions and ideas.

hehehe - when I met Fish, in London, she decided I was a 'flapper' hehehe.

Ha ha that was tan-tastic!!

oh come on Missi! every claims to have hetrosexual friends in these situations. They always say, "Actually some of my best friends are straight"

I have a problem with this topic. No I have two. First one being surely the definition of a writer is one who writes. So therefore the sexuality of the writer is irrelevant. Secondly why are 'hetrosexuals' so bloody curious about the sexual activities of lesbians or homosexuals? Do you wonder what your hetrosexual friends get up to in the bedroom. Do you judge them on their sexual preferences? i.e kinky, sadomacochism etc. Yet when someone declares that they are either lesbian or homosexual the brain automatically jumps to the bedroom scenarios. Personally I don't care what they do behind closed doors.

I don't believe that you can read a generic work by a writer and tell if he or she is gay, unless they use the forum to discuss or expouse a point of view. Writers tell stories, and any good writer can write from a gay perspective or about a gay perspective convincingly. As for words being usurped, sound's like anti-political correctness to me. Words are nothing and words are everything. Now I can understand a confusion in terms, as phrase-ology seems to demand things in the now. In my town, gay is applied to male homosexuals, lesbian is applied to female homesexuals. We have the "Gay and Lesbian Foundation" which is very active in supporting the arts. La-de-daa.... Other acceptable or should I say functional words would be .... Queer.... male or female? Dike.... female. Faggot.... generally male. Cock sucker.... male or female. Who gives a flying fuck anyway? Use what ever words you like. Take possession of the result.

Thank you Ian. It's nic to know at least one other person got the point. I don't like the word 'straight' used in a sexual sense either. It suggests the others are 'bent' and that's not nice either.

Brighteyes? I am well aware of the origins of the term 'lesbian', you see I did actually go to school many years ago. I find your mini-lecture patronising and condescending, apart from being quite unnecessary in my case. And just for the record, 'police officer' and 'fire fighter' have never had any gender-specific content, whereas 'actress' and actor have. Nothing to do with 'political correctness' I suspect, but just a more accurate description of the job. As for political correctness, I don't give a dogs dick about it. Thank you.

If you're going to use Dyke - please spell it properly. I hate that I seem to be forced to use words to describe the relationships I have. They always have too much weight to them, for the reasons that have emerged above in this general discussion. Interestingly, it amuses me that, by return of favour, homosexual folk refer to heterosexuals as 'breeders' - when I first heard this, it made me laugh uncontrollably....hehehehehehe.

What exactly *is* political correctness? It seems to be people's name for an imaginary construct that stands in the way of them saying something vaguely offensive. I say 'imaginary', because it never actually stops them saying it - ergo, is it worth mentioning at all?

Miss, If you're going to talk about dog dicks, use the correct terms... Pooch Penis

Am I the only one who wasn't taught the origin of the word 'lesbian' at school then? And think of poor 'Sable', Missi - the magazine for lesbian afro-carribeans. It's gotta be enough of a mouthful without you denying them the obvious term for female muff divers!

I do understand what you were saying missi and ely. I really do. But my point was: <> which neither of you responded to. I do understand what you are saying. I really do. I just think it's a bit more complicated. And it is only one word. And there are plenty of others on offer. I happen to think that there is a lot of power in words. Even casual use of certain words. Tis all. Wasn't going off on one intentionally.

I don't see how they can re-claim them when they weren't theirs to start with. Nigger is still an abusive racist word.

I wouldn't know what you were taught and what you were not, but if that little snippet of information by-passed you then it may be a contributing factor to your misunderstanding of women in general. I should imagine your term, 'female muff divers' will be accepted by most here with an ear-splitting grin. Count ME out. You seem to have an amazing capacity for being offensive.

I know it is. I agree. maybe reclaim was the wrong word. Maybe I meant claim. I dunno. Ahhh well. We can agree to disagree. I respect you have your opinion.

"....Count ME out. You seem to have an amazing capacity for being offensive." So do you George.

I have no problem with you disagreeing, honey. This may come as a surprise to some here but I DO sometimes change my mind on things, as a result of someone else's viewpoint.

Yes it happened once in 1937.

I've never denied it Gerry.

Since when was the word 'gay' said with, "aggression and harm" prior to its current use? That's my point. The word 'nigger' was always demeaning. It was used by the people who oppressed the black people amongst them so they could be labelled as something other than human and it's now used solely (with any kind of acceptance) amongst the black community as a familiarity. A call sign between the oppressed. When it's used by white bigots it becomes filthy and evil. Please don't use my dislike of the current use of the word 'gay' in the same context. It somehow implies that I have some kind of dislike of homosexuality, which I certainly do not. And it puts me in the same field as those white morons who would call someone nigger.

I have never felt calmer, brighteyes. You make the mistake of assuming that just because I reply, in what Gerry considers offensive terms, that I am wound up about something. This isn't the case. Jon, I'm sure you are well aware that the term 'political correctness' is applied to language deemed to be pasteurised, and completely free of anything that could possibly be construed as offensive to absolutely anybody, especially minority groups. I am obviously at the pinnacle of political INcorrectness, and happy to be so.

Although it may have seemed I used your dislike of the word gay in the same context as the word nigger my feeling is I wasn't. If it sounded that way then I appologise. I did not mean to offend you. I suppose I was using the idea of recreating a word's meaning. But got a bit lost in turgid description. I suppose I was thinking of the word 'queer', which missi disliked because he said it was offensive. I was just saying a word isn't offensive when it's used by the group it used to attack. You're right about the word gay. That has become an insult in playgrounds and such (re: emma's post) since it was adopted. But it was invented to have a word that didn't feel offensive. Many gay people find the word homosexual more offensive than gay or queer. But hey, what do I know? I certainly didn't mean to offend you or say you thought there was something wrong with being gay. I knew you were only saying you thought there was something wrong with the word being 'abducted'. Maybe the first part of this webpage says why it's been 'abducted' in a better way than I did. As to the original question about gay writers. Well. I'm getting more and more certain that it's all about good writing, new writing and writing that manages to break through the cliches we have all been brought up with. How many times have you read the words 'the sun glinted on the water'? or 'he narrowed his eyes like slits' or 'icy fingers' or 'the rain fell in splinters?' I think good writing is about finding your own way to describe how you perceive the world. To challenge yourself to really write something that you haven't seen before. And to entertain and tell a good story and keep the reader interested. One day I hope to be able to do that. Maybe when I'm in my seventies perhaps. I have a glorious fantasy of being able to actually write a good book when I'm about 73.