So, there was a bit of a kerfuffle scattered across a few places last week when Anne Harris reported on her web site and also on the Yahoo list of a gay romance publisher (Torquere Press, which, in the interests of full disclosure, is my publisher) that Ginger Buchanan, editor in chief of Ace and Roc, told her “that m/m can only work in print publishing as erotica, not romance. Her reasoning was that women will read m/m for the sexual thrill of seeing two men together, but when it comes to a story where the goal is a monogamous long-term relationship, they want to be able to place themselves in the story.”
Ummm, yeah. Needless to say, none of the m/m readers or writers involved in the conversations agreed with this, given that in the e-book presses and the hardcopy small presses, m/m romance is alive and thriving and selling quite nicely, thanks much.
So all right, Ms. Buchanan is obviously unfamiliar with the m/m end of the industry and is repeating the common wisdom she’s heard from other important people on the New York end of the romance genre. I’m sure those same people were just as dismissive of the commercial viability of erotic (het) romance before Ellora’s Cave proved that there’s a huge market for it. The larger publishers will figure out how big the readership is for m/m romance eventually, and then they’ll all be scrambling to bring out m/m romance lines. That’s not really what I wanted to talk about, though.
Instead, what I’m curious about is the inherent assumption behind her statement, that all or at least most het romance readers insert themselves into the story, putting themselves in the heroine’s place as they read.
I find it startling that this belief is still alive and kicking today. I remember multiple discussions on the subject twenty years ago (online, although pre-web) among romance writers and readers both, and the conclusion at the time was essentially the opposite.
Early in the history of the genre, it’d been believed that the (100% female, of course) readers imagined themselves in the heroine’s place as they read, and that therefore the writers should do the absolute minimum of characterization of the heroine, so as not to include anything which might interfere with the reader’s ability to imagine that she was the one having these romantic adventures. By the late eighties, the conclusions of a number of discussions on this topic were that 1) a few readers did insert themselves into the heroine’s place as they read, but only a smallish minority, and 2) that the writers had finally rebelled against the “minimal characterization” rule and that it’d been pretty much trashed at that point. (All the readers, the self-inserters and everyone else, strongly agreed that this was an excellent idea, as I recall.)
All right, so obviously the whole minimal characterization thing is still in the trash heap of romance history where it belongs, but at least one major editor is still convinced, here in the twenty-first century, that a pretty significant number of her readers insert themselves into the heroine’s place while they’re reading a romance. She didn’t mention any actual percentages, but clearly if she thought there were any significant number of romance readers who don’t self-insert, she’d see that as a market opportunity for m/m romances. Since she sees no market opportunity at all, I’m concluding that she believes that most or possibly even all het romance readers do self-insert.
I thought this had been settled a generation ago, but since this is a new generation of readers, maybe things have changed again.
So my first question is, do you? When you’re reading a het romance, do you insert yourself into the story? As the heroine? As the hero? As someone else? Or do you just read and imagine what’s going on as though you’re watching a movie? Or something else entirely?
Second, if you do self-insert as the heroine in het romances (or as the hero if you’re a man), and if you do read m/m romances (or f/f romances if you’re a man), how do you handle the fact that the gay romances have no same-gender-as-you character whose place you can take?
Third, if you do self-insert as the heroine in het romances (or as the hero if you’re a man), what’s your reading mode for non-romances? If you’re reading a detective story or an SF story or a fantasy or a Western or lit fiction or whatever else you might enjoy, do you only read books with a protagonist the same gender as you? Or do you simply not self-insert at all in non-romances? Or do you do something else?
I guess what I’m trying to find out here is twofold — first, how many people do self-insert when they’re reading het romances, and second, how many of those people would actually have a problem with m/m or f/f romances because of the lack of a same-gender protagonist? In other words, is it really impossible for a significant number of readers to enjoy fiction which doesn’t have a same-gender protagonist? (And I have to admit that just typing that last question makes my eyes cross, but it’s apparently what the decision-makers in the mainstream publishing houses believe, so it has to be asked.)
It seems to me that even if some people (or a lot of people) do enjoy self-inserting with a romance, that can’t be their only reading mode, unless they simply don’t ever read any fiction which doesn’t have same-gender protags, which doesn’t sound right at all.
So how do you do it? What do you read, how do you enjoy it, and does the gender of the protag make any difference?
Angie
I’m (or was it depends) a romance reader. I read M/M romance… sorry what means that M/M could be only erotic and not romance? I don’t believe that all the books I read are erotic, I believe that I mostly read romance, and I think that I can recognize what I read. Beside the theory that the female reader places herself in the role of the heroine is old and not true. Laura Kinsale wrote almost 20 years ago a very good essay in which she explained that the female reader “is” the hero in the romance, and I believe this is a reason why, sometime, I don’t like the heroine: if she is spoilt and too bratty, I despize her like an hero would do.
by elisa July 9th, 2008 at 6:30 amI have never read m/f romance, largely because I inevitably find myself identifying with the hero, which puts me in a strange position when I’m then supposed to fall in love with the heroine. As a straight woman, I find that a little uncomfortable.
I only came into the romance genre at all when I discovered m/m - which obviously solves that problem. I read, and write, m/m *romance* - not erotica - and I’ve had a number of people tell me that they love the fact that there is more romance than sex in my book.
I have some good news though, as my second book, ‘False Colors’ - which is another m/m romance should be coming out in Spring 2009 from Running Press, a subsidiary of Perseus Books. They are mainstream, New York publishers. They’re also publishing ‘Transgressions’ by Erastes at the same time. So *some* mainstream publishers are definitely testing the waters of m/m even as we speak
by Alex Beecroft July 9th, 2008 at 6:50 amElisa — I’m assuming that Ms. Buchanan, and whoever told her that m/m romances aren’t viable, have no experience of actual m/m romances, and that they’re just making assumptions about how m/m erotica could sell but not romance.
I think they’re mistaken in their assumptions, but I’m curious about how many romance readers nowadays do self-insert into the stories, and if so, whose place they take. I know what I think the answer will be, but I’ve been wrong before
so I’m hoping to get a lot of data.
Alex — that’s great news, for you and Erastes both.
I hope your books fly off the shelves and folks in that end of the industry start noticing. Luck!
Angie
by Angela Benedetti July 9th, 2008 at 8:00 amI can enjoy reading romance without a same gender protagonist. However, I read several in a row last year and didn’t enjoy the last even though it was pacy, well-written, and with good characterisation. I came to the conclusion I had missed having a female perspective in the book.
by Marianne McA July 9th, 2008 at 8:06 amPerhaps that was because I self-insert - but if that’s it, I do it unconsciously.
Perhaps it was a cumulative thing - because I’d read several books without female protagonists one after the other.
Perhaps - and I haven’t read enough m/m to be sure - it wasn’t the female character’s perspective I missed, but the female author’s perspective - if I’d been reading m/m written by a woman, I might have felt differently. I don’t know though.
2) I’ve never inserted myself in the story as the Heroine. I’m always a ‘bug on the wall.’ 
I have to be able to cheer on the Heroine and/or Hero in order to enjoy the story though.
by Kimber An July 9th, 2008 at 8:08 amIf I ever read any m/f books - romance or otherwise - I never, ever self insert.
Most of the time the heroine is nothing like anything that I admire or would aspire to be like. (Ok, perhaps slim, with copper curls, I’d aspire to that…) I like to read a story about someone ELSE not put myself into that position because that would just make it a very dull journey for me.
I want to be able to identify and sympathise with the character - and again that can’t involve me putting myself in her place. Granted I’ve often thought (watching “Willow” for example) that Madmartigan should be embracing ME, but it doens’t mean that I put myself in Sorcha’s place, no matter how copper her hair is.
It certainly seems (as Elisa says) a very old fashioned attitude to have.
It’s nonsense for this person to say that gay romance doesn’t sell because it very clearly is.
As Alex said, I hope that Perseus are the publishers to break this stupid barrier and that other mainstream publishers will jump on the bandwagon.
by Erastes July 9th, 2008 at 8:15 amI have to IDENTIFY with the hero/heroine. There has to be some element of sameness, that I can grasp onto, and identify with.
Usually because I am an alpha female, it is the stronger alpha male hero, even in straight romances. That’s why I prefer to read romances with some male POV.
by Kimber Chin July 9th, 2008 at 8:29 amI don’t identify with the character himself or herself; but, as a reader, I identify with situations, emotions and the personalities of the characters presented.
No matter what anyone claims, people do see themselves in others, whether they be movie stars, sports heroes, or heroes/heroines of a novel. It doesn’t matter if the novel is m/m or m/f or a menage of any kind.
Yes, women want happy endings, but we want them for everyone - we are non-discriminatory that way.
AC Katt
Sometimes you start reading a book and put it down after a few chapters because you believe that one of the main characters (you don’t even have to insert a gender here) does, says or acts in a way you consider to be inconsistent with YOUR idea of who the person is, in other words you are projecting your own personality on the writer’s creation.
You do that with any kind of media, in social situations, at work and in families.
So…
by AC Katt July 9th, 2008 at 8:32 amMarianne — there is generally a difference between how male authors write romance and how female authors do it. I’ve known people who masquerade from both sides, but it’s because they’re particularly good at spoofing the other gender’s style. It’s possible that if you tried some m/m romance by female authors, you might like it more. Or maybe not; some folks just aren’t into it because it’s not their cup of tea, and that’s fine too. I’m just really curious about the self-insertion thing, and whether that’s actually an issue. Sounds like it isn’t for you.
Kimber An — she didn’t say that it can’t work for Ace and Roc (although they publish SF and Fantasy respectively, so that’d be academic anyway) but that it can’t work for print publication. That implies to me that she doesn’t think it’d have enough numbers for any major print publisher (assuming that she’s not counting the small presses when she says “print publication”).
Also, she seems to think that m/m erotica would sell well enough for print publication — whatever she meant by that. So there is a print audience for m/m erotica, but not for m/m romance…? That doesn’t make sense to me. :/
And I should’ve added the “bug on the wall” perspective as an explicit option.
Erastes — I’ve run into some heroines I’ve found admirable, myself, but I still don’t self-insert. If anything, I’m more likely to just want to hang out with the characters if I like them, rather than imagine I am them.
And definitely congrats and good luck, as I said to Alex. I’ll keep a set of virtual fingers crossed for you both. I firmly believe that it’s just a matter of someone else starting to coin their own money on the m/m audience first, the way Ellora’s Cave did with erotic romance. EC is doing well with m/m, and now with Perseus willing to take it on as well, I’m hoping the other publishers notice soon that there is money to be made here.
Kimber Chin — so either gender works for you? [nod] I’m the same way, although I’m wondering whether there are a lot of people who aren’t like that. I don’t want to just assume everyone’s like me, since in that direction be monsters.
I agree that there has to be some hook for empathy to catch onto, and also that there are a lot of characteristics which can work besides gender.
Angie
by Angela Benedetti July 9th, 2008 at 8:35 amMarianne: Which ones did you read? I find it strange that you managed to miss the ones written by women as the vast proportion are. If you want a list of recs of m/m romance by women, I can supply.
Kimber An: How can anyone know how “too niche” is if it’s not being published internationally? If it does well in niche and epub markets, then who knows how well it will do in mainstream markets? No-one has tried to publish it before.
by Erastes July 9th, 2008 at 8:35 amAC — I identify with situations, emotions and the personalities of the characters presented.
That sounds like what I was saying to Kimber Chin above, that there are a lot of ways of identifying with a story or the characters. [nod]
because you believe that one of the main characters (you don’t even have to insert a gender here) does, says or acts in a way you consider to be inconsistent with YOUR idea of who the person is, in other words you are projecting your own personality on the writer’s creation.
I usually think of it as the writer being inconsistent with their characterization. [duck] Luckily it I don’t run across it all that often.
Angie
by Angela Benedetti July 9th, 2008 at 8:39 amPut me down as another for the “bug on the wall” option.
As a child I read quite a lot of books that were labelled as being “for boys” and it didn’t bother me one little bit that the characters were male. The gender of the main characters still wouldn’t be an issue for me.
by Laura Vivanco July 9th, 2008 at 9:36 amTotally observational.
Maybe the idea of the woman reading as the heroine is too simple and too easily supports the argument that women read romances to ‘fill a void’?
by Eva Gale July 9th, 2008 at 10:06 amAs another (female) Torquere author of m/m romance, Angie knows my opinion on the assumptions of the NY editor
As for the self-insertion, nope I’m more the fly on the wall type of reader. Even when I did still read m/f - which was a good few years ago now - I never put myself in the heroine’s shoes. It’s not a subject I’ve really considered until now, but I realize if I identified with anyone it was the hero! Hmmm, perhaps that’s more revealing than I realized
Stevie
by Stevie Woods July 9th, 2008 at 10:11 amI read a lot of non-romance, which means I read a lot of books by and about men. It’s possible that I read romance differently and so have different expectations for the protagonists, but I don’t think so. One of the most exciting things a novel can do is make me empathize with a character far from my own experience.
by RfP July 9th, 2008 at 10:13 amThanks, Angela! And yes, selfishness aside, I’m really hoping that at least one of us does well enough for Perseus that it will help break the industry a bit more open for m/m.
Do you think you can tell the difference between a m/m romance written by a woman and one written by a man, then? I don’t think I can! What gives it away, do you think?
by Alex Beecroft July 9th, 2008 at 10:25 am“is it really impossible for a significant number of readers to enjoy fiction which doesn’t have a same-gender protagonist?”
I think it might get harder depending on the genre. In mystery, readers read for the thrill of the who done it. They relate mostly to the personality of the character through whom the story is told and the intelligence of the sleuth. Intelligence and personality are more abstract qualities and tend not to be read with gender bias or potential partner critique.
In romance, however, readers read for the thrill of the emotional pull. In a romance, the H&H are always being judged as to whether they’re suitable for each other and the reader is always considering whether they want the two to end up together. Combine that with the fact that anything based in emotion is always surrounded by personal preference, and that could make it more imperative for readers to be able to “insert themselves into” or relate to the main characters in a romance than in, say, a straight suspense or murder mystery.
by Sarah McCarty July 9th, 2008 at 10:25 amHi Angie!
First of all, congrats to Alex B. and Erastes. I hope your books sell tons. Are they shelving them in the romance section?
Anyway, back to the question at hand: Can someone explain to me the difference between self insertion and identifying with a character? If there is a difference. I just want to be clear about what’s under discussion here. The term self-insertion is new to me. It sounds hot, but I’m not sure if that’s what I do when I read or not.
by Anne Harris/Jessica Freely July 9th, 2008 at 10:49 amI don’t think I self-insert when reading het romance or erotica..usually the women are written with sexy bodies that I’ll never have. (Face it, I’ll never be Anita Blake and have that many men in my life) More like watching a movie. And I definitely don’t read m/m self-inserting. I first starting reading m/m because it was fascinating to me to find out how men relate to other men as lovers, friends, family, whatever the setting. And now it’s an addiction. And I still want my romance to have erotica, and my erotica to have romance, so I’m still demanding both!!
by Liz July 9th, 2008 at 11:54 amAnne Harris/Jessica Freely: I would define “self-insertion” as the act of imagining oneself in the place of the H/H…in other words, is the hero falling in love with the heroine, or falling in love with you? (or vice verse)
Identification, on the other hand, is the ability to connect with the character because you and the H/H have characteristics, personality traits, gender, values, and/or experiences in common.
Personally, I prefer female protags written by women because I like a female perspective in the fiction I read. I don’t “self-insert,” but I do “identify.” And I prefer a female protag whether I’m reading romance, mystery, or mainstream fiction. I grew up with five brothers (only girl), two sons (no girls), and a husband who’s all guy–so there’s plenty of male perspective in my life. I’m inundated with it.
If there isn’t a female protag (and especially if it’s any type of fiction written by a male), I’m often annoyed with stereotypical portrayals of female secondary characters and never finish the book. Obviously, this isn’t true for all male writers, but it’s true for enough of them to make me shy away altogether. I have the same problem with many mainstream movies and television programming…which is why I prefer to read.
On the other hand, I’m a little older than many of you, and many of us have different social/environmental experiences that influence our choices–consider my voice an echo of the shift that occured in romance in the 1980s to heroines who actually kept their careers after marrying the hero…radical idea, I know.
by Kacie Leprotti Jossart July 9th, 2008 at 12:23 pmIf it’s a good story, I absolutely place myself as the heroine. I always have. However, that doesn’t stop me from enjoying alt stories. No, I don’t insert myself into m/m relationships, but I do love reading them
by Mel-O-Drama July 9th, 2008 at 12:45 pmOkay, I get it now, thanks. Yeah, I identify, usually more with male characters than with female ones, which may be why I like m/m much better than m/f or f/f. But no, I wouldn’t say I self-insert.
by Jessica Freely July 9th, 2008 at 12:59 pmI very very rarely self-insert, I think it has happened less than five times during the more than 15 years I’ve been reading romance (and that’s a lot of books). I’m more of the “fly on the wall” reader.
I like m/m romance and erotica because I find it easier to find more of a balance between the main characters, even in D/s couples, than in f/m romance and erotica. And I’m with Liz, I demand both!
by elianara July 9th, 2008 at 1:40 pmI think Jessica Freely hit on something–the difference between self-insertion and identification. I’m a bug-on-the-wall / watching-a-movie type reader, myself, but I’m absolutely all for identification with the characters. But identification absolutely does not equal self-insertion, and I very much read for the male characters, so I’m all over m/m romances (not erotica, but romance).
And I hope the NY pubs catch on quickly, too!
by Sarah S. G. Frantz July 9th, 2008 at 1:48 pmI don’t insert myself into the story. I do have to be able to relate to the characters i nsome way. Whether it’s situational or emotional, I have to be able to relate to them.
So, it really doesn’t matter to me if it’s a m/f or a m/m story (although admittedly, I have not yet been able to find a f/f story that I’ve really enjoyed - go figure - different strokes and all). As long as there is a good story, good and believable characterization, and something I can relate to, I’m fine. Heh, heh, I don’t ask for much, right?
by Lori July 9th, 2008 at 1:53 pmI must admit to rolling my eyes when I read, “women will read m/m for the sexual thrill of seeing two men together, but when it comes to a story where the goal is a monogamous long-term relationship, they want to be able to place themselves in the story.”
so personally, I don’t mind what sex/sexual orientation the main characters are, as long as the book is written well.
by Heidi July 9th, 2008 at 2:05 pmI love it when people make grand, sweeping statements about women and don’t put useful little words in front like “most/some/a percentage” to cover their…um…to cover themselves.
Because I—a woman—do not read M/M just for a sexual thrill. I like books with strong, well-developed characters and a plot that keeps me interested. If there’s a good story between the men in the M/M, I’ll read it and probably enjoy it. To borrow a phrase— “it’s all about the story”
So, to answer your question, I don’t self-insert. I’m more of a bug on the wall. If I enjoy the book, I’ll sometimes feel like I know the characters—like they’re a couple I meet up with every so often—but that doesn’t mean I want to be either one of them.
I read a bit of both ways. Sometimes I self-insert and sometimes I’m a fly on the wall, watching a movie in my head.
Someone mentioned that m/m or f/f romances are a niche genre. They are correct. Anytime a book falls into a relatively small niche, it’ll be harder to gain mass appeal. That doesn’t mean there isn’t an audience for it. As far as I can tell, there’s an audience for everything. A trip to Amsterdam proved it. *g* But unless you’re Diana Gabaldon, you’re not going to sell massive numbers of niche stories. And as you know, this business is ALL about the numbers.
I’ve only read a couple of m/m/f stories, which involved a love story between the males. They were well done, but I have to admit I found it difficult to get into the stories and I really didn’t relate to them. The latter is key for me in order to enjoy a story. I have to relate to them on some level. I tried reading a f/f story, but I couldn’t finish it because I missed the male hero too much.
Tastes are subjective. I agree with the editor. It would be a hard sell outside of erotica.
by Jordan July 9th, 2008 at 2:16 pmOf course I self-insert. But It’s not that I insert my own personal life experiences, background, body type, etc. Its’ more that I wear the point-of-view character like a mask. Like I’m some sort of mini-person riding around in their skull, seeing through their eyes, experiencing their life. I, personally, will never do, see, or react like the characters in the novels I read.
It is the author’s abilitiy to hook me to the characters and drag me along for the ride that I love. For example. I had absolutely no trouble “inserting myself” after my own fashion into Harry Potter’s life, and I’m a 30-something mother, not a teenage boy wizard.
Bring on the various points of view. Bring on the heros. Bring on the serial killers, the villains, the fatally flawed heroines that are nothing like me. I want to be all of them. If I wanted to be myself, I’d spend my free time writing and re-reading my own memoir.
by Kristi July 9th, 2008 at 3:02 pmI think I fall somewhere between the bug on the wall and Kristi’s “Mask” in my reading. I’m a bug on the character’s shoulder. Or maybe someone along for the ride–a friend taking the journey with them. I identify, but I don’t self-insert, because I appreciate all the different quirks of the various personalities. On the other hand, I do not like villain POVs, but I just skip those pages. (I sometimes skip a whole lot of the J.R. Ward books…) I enjoy m/m now and again–like it more than f/f (I’ve read both)–and the ones I’ve enjoyed the most were the ones that were the most romantic and the least erotic. Not because I don’t like the erotica–I do–but these were SOOOoooo deeply and subtly romantic. SWORDSPOINT by Ellen Kushner comes first to mind…
by Gail Dayton July 9th, 2008 at 4:30 pmHmmmm, I guess I’m everyone and no one when I read. I’m whoever the POV character at the time is, I’m not inserting myself to the extent that I identify only with that one character. Same thing when I write: I AM that character while I’m in their POV. I don’t care about the gender or even species of said character (cause I’ve “been” a lot of alien races over the years, LOL). Hell, I’ve even read books where I’ve been a cat, or a fox, or a dog, or a horse (hello Rita Mae Brown).
It’s like TV, I don’t find that I identify any less (or more) with the boys on Queer as Folk than I do with the girls or The L Word or the ones on Sex in the City or Girlfriends. Love if love.
by Kalen Hughes July 9th, 2008 at 5:25 pmHmmmm, I guess I’m everyone and no one when I read. I’m whoever the POV character at the time is, I’m not inserting myself to the extent that I identify only with that one character. Same thing when I write: I AM that character while I’m in their POV. I don’t care about the gender or even species of said character (cause I’ve “been” a lot of alien races over the years, LOL). Hell, I’ve even read books where I’ve been a cat, or a fox, or a dog, or a horse (hello Rita Mae Brown).
It’s like TV, I don’t find that I identify any less (or more) with the boys on Queer as Folk than I do with the girls or The L Word or the ones on Sex in the City or Girlfriends. Love is love.
by Kalen Hughes July 9th, 2008 at 5:25 pmGotta love the double post. Sorry!
by Kalen Hughes July 9th, 2008 at 5:26 pmErastes, most of them were by women, but it was after the last book, which was written by a man - Josh Lanyon - that I was conscious of missing the female perspective.
)
by Marianne McA July 9th, 2008 at 5:48 pmWasn’t that it was a bad book, just that it made me think ‘enough of the m/m, I want to read m/f now’.
(Not that I’ve forsworn m/m or anything
Laura — me too. [nod] I was a big SF reader when I was a kid and back then it was very rare to find female protags in those stories. The women tended to be arm candy or brainless foils or whatever. So identifying with the male protag is something I just grew up with.
Eva — that’s an interesting thought. [ponder] But yes, I can see that; if people are assuming that women read romance as escapism, then that’d strengthen the argument (in their minds, at least) that they need a female placeholder in the story.
Stevie — [wave] Right, I didn’t expect you to disagree.
RfP — yes! That’s it exactly, at least some of the time. Sure, there are times when I want something familiar and comfortable (although after all these years, I’m perfectly comfortable with male protags.) But there are other times when I really want to see the world through a set of eyes very different from my own, someone who thinks differently or believes differently or whose world view is very different from mine. I might not agree with them, but the experience is always worth having.
Alex — I think it’s more that there are stylistic differences in the genres (gay romance/erotica for a female audience, versus gay romance/erotica for a male audience) and that most of the time it’s women writing for the female readers and men writing for the male readers. John Preston’s books are very different from yours or mine, for example. But so are Kyle Stone’s — another writer on the guy’s side, who was with the same publisher as Preston for a while — and “he” is actually a woman.
I think there are differences in what your average man looks for in this sort of book and what your average woman looks for, and for the most part men like writing what men like reading and vice versa. But it’s nowhere near absolute; there are women who like reading the stuff “for” men and men who like reading the stuff “for” women, and same with writers.
When I talk about the differences between how men and women write gay romance or erotica, I’m talking more about that marketing difference, which is based on a very general and average gender-based preference (which might or might not stand up at all, fifty years from now when the idea of hiding what sort of erotica you enjoy is considered quaint and old-fashioned) but I don’t think there’s any hard and fast line drawn between the genders on either the writer’s side or the reader’s side.
Sarah — sure, a romance is going to need more emotional investment on the part of the reader than, say, a pure puzzle-story mystery. But do you think that the gender of the protag(s) is a make-or-break issue for you?
Anne — LOL! All right, maybe I should’ve used another term. [duck] But yeah, as others have said, I’m thinking of self-insertion as the reader imagining her- or himself playing the role of the protagonist as they read the story, while identification is more being able to empathize with the protag.
Liz — another bug vote, thanks.
And yes, I like both too.
Kacie — I can see how spending your life surrounded by males would make you want to read about women.
And yes, I get impatient too when a writer can’t seem to get the opposite-sex characters quite right. [sigh] That goes both ways, though; there are plenty of female writers who can’t quite manage the male characters either, and plenty of male readers who complain about it. At least there’s some equality there. [wry smile]
The best writers, of course, can manage both beautifully.
(By the way, I’m forty-four, just as a data point. Sometimes I feel like waving my cane and bellowing at all the kids to get off my lawn, LOL! but I think I’m actually somewhere in the middle when it comes to romance readers and writers.)
Mel — so sometimes you self-insert but not always? Cool, thanks!
Elianara — that’s another important issue, definitely. [nod] When I was posting an amateur effort (An m/m romance novel. With vampires.) online about twenty years ago, an established romance writer commented that the m/m aspect let me write a truly equal relationship in a way that a het relationship never could be. That struck me pretty strongly at the time, and I still agree with her. Gender politics is a horribly tangled patch of brambles and sometimes it seems that no matter what you do, someone will be angry with you over it based on gender issues. Having both characters be the same gender lets a writer just sidestep all that and it can certainly be a relief, aside from all the other reasons I like m/m romances. :/
Sarah — right, there’s definitely a difference between self-insertion and identification, and I should’ve stated that more explicitly in the original post. [nod]
We can each keep a set of virtual fingers crossed in hope that the NY publishers do catch on quickly.
Lori — good story, good and believable characterization, and something I can relate to
Well, good grief, some readers are just so demanding!! ;D
Heidi — I think everyone has their perfect balance, or at least some general range of how much erotic they like in their romance. My ideal romance has a decent amount of hot sex, all of which is necessary to and supports the story. I don’t care for pointless sex, and I’ll take story without sex over sex without story. Both is better, though.
I feel like I’m getting to know the characters too, though, and if I like them a lot, then I’ll want to hang out. [nod] It looks like a lot of people are like that — more bug-on-the-wall than actual self-insertion, at least so far.
Jordan — of course m/m romance is a niche market right now, but the question is whether there’s potential for a larger market. I think there is. Saying that m/m is only a niche market because only a little of it sells ignores the fact that very little of it is available, and the publishers who do handle it are small and have correspondingly small advertising budgets, and very little influence with the large distributors and the buyers who work for the big chains. The fact that m/m romance isn’t selling huge numbers right now might be because there’s no New York sized market for it, or it might be because it simply isn’t available in places where your average reader can see it, nor advertised in places where your average reader will notice it.
Erotic romance was also a tiny niche market just a few years ago, until Ellora’s Cave proved that there is a huge audience for it, willing to spend quite a lot of money, at which point the NY publishers jumped on the bandwagon. My own view is that there’s a similarly huge and lucrative market for m/m romance; there are crowds of women (and some men) jamming into those niches as we speak. It’d be nice to be able to expand and get some elbow room.
Kristi — that’s an interesting way of thinking about it, that you’re a mask being worn by the character. [ponder/nod]
Gail — it looks like most people so far are imagining themselves very close to the protags, but not actually as them. [nod]
I don’t mind villain’s POV, and I’ve even written it at times. I sometimes skip it on rereads, though, because some writers use it more as a way of feeding info to the reader than as an opportunity to fully develop the characters and give them their own interesting subplots. In those cases, I’ll read their POV scenes the first time I read the book, then usually skim through or just skip over them on subsequent reads.
Kalen — so it sounds like you do self-insert, but you’re perfectly all right with whoever or whatever the POV character might be. [nod] That makes sense. And yay, another QaF fan.
Angie
by Angela Benedetti July 9th, 2008 at 6:12 pmI don’t self-insert by the definition being used here. I’m not putting myself into the place of the character in way that makes the character a cipher or holding place for *me*. As a reader I simply disappear into the book. Only the book exists. Only the character exists. There is no me.
Does that make sense?
by Kalen Hughes July 9th, 2008 at 6:34 pmAngie,
I’m in agreement with the editor and Jordan for the reasons stated.
M/M romance is, in reality, a tiny segment of even the ebook market which is a tiny segment of the erotic romance market which is, in reality, a small percentage of the over all romance market. IOW, it’s doubtful the numbers necessary will be there. And in NY print, it’s all about the numbers.
by