Comments on: Do You Self-Insert? http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/2008/07/09/do-you-self-insert/ What's hip, what's now, what's tomorrow in the romance genre world. Sat, 09 Jan 2010 20:26:04 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Weekend smexin and insertions. « Rain on the Roof http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/2008/07/09/do-you-self-insert/comment-page-3/#comment-26753 Weekend smexin and insertions. « Rain on the Roof Sun, 20 Jul 2008 01:07:42 +0000 http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/?p=1362#comment-26753 [...] Romancing the blog post here. [...] [...] Romancing the blog post here. [...]

]]> By: Angela Benedetti http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/2008/07/09/do-you-self-insert/comment-page-3/#comment-26658 Angela Benedetti Wed, 16 Jul 2008 05:01:44 +0000 http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/?p=1362#comment-26658 Shayne -- I agree. [nod] There's a difference between romance and erotica, and fans of one aren't always fans of the other. They're marketed separately for a reason, and the fact that a book is about two guys rather than a guy and a girl doesn't change that reason. Angie Shayne — I agree. [nod] There’s a difference between romance and erotica, and fans of one aren’t always fans of the other. They’re marketed separately for a reason, and the fact that a book is about two guys rather than a guy and a girl doesn’t change that reason.

Angie

]]> By: Shayne http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/2008/07/09/do-you-self-insert/comment-page-3/#comment-26652 Shayne Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:27:15 +0000 http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/?p=1362#comment-26652 Coming from the opposite side of the opinion, I'd say marketing gay romance as erotica isn't a good idea. It's misleading. People who read erotica will expect the usual number of sex scenes in a gay romance marketed as erotica. Marketing it as erotica simply because the characters are same sex is ridiculous. If a het with sex is marketed as romance, you are doing a disservice to the gay equivalent. Coming from the opposite side of the opinion, I’d say marketing gay romance as erotica isn’t a good idea. It’s misleading.

People who read erotica will expect the usual number of sex scenes in a gay romance marketed as erotica. Marketing it as erotica simply because the characters are same sex is ridiculous. If a het with sex is marketed as romance, you are doing a disservice to the gay equivalent.

]]> By: Angela Benedetti http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/2008/07/09/do-you-self-insert/comment-page-3/#comment-26649 Angela Benedetti Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:54:14 +0000 http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/?p=1362#comment-26649 Sarah -- of course there are readers who prefer one or another gender mix, as well as readers who enjoy both, just as there are readers who prefer historicals over contemporaries, or Regencies over medievals. The fact that it'd be a good idea to separate out m/m romances into their own lines, marketing-wise (and I'm certainly not arguing against that) still doesn't mean that the only way, or the most effective way, to market m/m romances would be to call them erotica, much less to bury them in with "gay fiction," which in most bookstores is in the "GBLT Studies" section. That sort of retail ghettoization does no good for anyone; just ask the Black authors whose romances or mysteries or historicals or whatever are buried in the "African American Studies" aisle in far too many bookstores. The assumption is that only Black people would want to read a romance with Black characters, which is patently ridiculous -- just as much so as the assumption that only people who are actually gay would want to read a gay romance. Most people who are looking for romances go to the romance section of the store, and assume that all the romances are there. Straight romance fans are not going to go hunt in the GBLT section for romances, any more than White or Asian or Hispanic romance fans will typically go looking in the Black Lit section for romances. Shuffling the m/m romances off to a low-traffic aisle away from the romance section won't do anything to serve either the writers or the readers who would enjoy these books. Zathyn -- that's my experience too. [nod] To me, "erotica" is very heavy on the sex, and has a lot of sex which isn't necessary to the story, but is just there to be sex. I have no problem with these books being written or read, but I have no interest in either reading or writing them myself, and I'm not going to go looking for or purchase books marketed as erotica because I assume there'll be more sex-just-to-be-sex than I care for. Looking at the comments above, most people don't actually self-insert, but rather imagine themselves watching the action like watching a movie, or like a bug on the wall. (Still love that image. :) ) But even the people who do self-insert have said that they have no problem taking the role of a character who is different from them, whether it's a man or an Elf or a vampire or a cat or whatever. Given that feedback, I doubt even the folks who <i>do</i> want to actually play a story-role in their imaginations would have any problem with a story lacking a female protag. Angie Sarah — of course there are readers who prefer one or another gender mix, as well as readers who enjoy both, just as there are readers who prefer historicals over contemporaries, or Regencies over medievals. The fact that it’d be a good idea to separate out m/m romances into their own lines, marketing-wise (and I’m certainly not arguing against that) still doesn’t mean that the only way, or the most effective way, to market m/m romances would be to call them erotica, much less to bury them in with “gay fiction,” which in most bookstores is in the “GBLT Studies” section. That sort of retail ghettoization does no good for anyone; just ask the Black authors whose romances or mysteries or historicals or whatever are buried in the “African American Studies” aisle in far too many bookstores. The assumption is that only Black people would want to read a romance with Black characters, which is patently ridiculous — just as much so as the assumption that only people who are actually gay would want to read a gay romance.

Most people who are looking for romances go to the romance section of the store, and assume that all the romances are there. Straight romance fans are not going to go hunt in the GBLT section for romances, any more than White or Asian or Hispanic romance fans will typically go looking in the Black Lit section for romances. Shuffling the m/m romances off to a low-traffic aisle away from the romance section won’t do anything to serve either the writers or the readers who would enjoy these books.

Zathyn — that’s my experience too. [nod] To me, “erotica” is very heavy on the sex, and has a lot of sex which isn’t necessary to the story, but is just there to be sex. I have no problem with these books being written or read, but I have no interest in either reading or writing them myself, and I’m not going to go looking for or purchase books marketed as erotica because I assume there’ll be more sex-just-to-be-sex than I care for.

Looking at the comments above, most people don’t actually self-insert, but rather imagine themselves watching the action like watching a movie, or like a bug on the wall. (Still love that image. :) ) But even the people who do self-insert have said that they have no problem taking the role of a character who is different from them, whether it’s a man or an Elf or a vampire or a cat or whatever. Given that feedback, I doubt even the folks who do want to actually play a story-role in their imaginations would have any problem with a story lacking a female protag.

Angie

]]> By: A case of mistaken identity? | Dear Author: Romance Book Reviews, Author Interviews, and Commentary http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/2008/07/09/do-you-self-insert/comment-page-3/#comment-26635 A case of mistaken identity? | Dear Author: Romance Book Reviews, Author Interviews, and Commentary Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:57:11 +0000 http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/?p=1362#comment-26635 [...] Erastes says, 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. [...] [...] Erastes says, 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. [...]

]]> By: Zathyn Priest http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/2008/07/09/do-you-self-insert/comment-page-3/#comment-26616 Zathyn Priest Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:59:54 +0000 http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/?p=1362#comment-26616 I don't think I've ever read a book and imagined myself in the character's place. When I read, or watch a movie, it's generally for escapism from my reality and my life. As a m/m fiction author, also published through Torquere Press, I'd describe my novels as heavy on the plot and/or romance and light on the sex. I've had quite a bit of feedback from readers and none of them have suggested I turn my style of writing around to include more erotica and sex scenes. Quite probably there are many readers out there who self-insert, but I'm sure there are just as many, if not more, who don't. There's a lot to choose from in m/m fiction now and the genre is, in my opinion, better for it. Readers have a selection, they can pick if they want the raunch, if they want the romance, or if they simply want a good story with gay characters. Seeing as heterosexual fiction has always had a wide selection of genres catering for different tastes, it's good to see gay fiction is now offering the same. I don’t think I’ve ever read a book and imagined myself in the character’s place. When I read, or watch a movie, it’s generally for escapism from my reality and my life.

As a m/m fiction author, also published through Torquere Press, I’d describe my novels as heavy on the plot and/or romance and light on the sex. I’ve had quite a bit of feedback from readers and none of them have suggested I turn my style of writing around to include more erotica and sex scenes.

Quite probably there are many readers out there who self-insert, but I’m sure there are just as many, if not more, who don’t. There’s a lot to choose from in m/m fiction now and the genre is, in my opinion, better for it. Readers have a selection, they can pick if they want the raunch, if they want the romance, or if they simply want a good story with gay characters. Seeing as heterosexual fiction has always had a wide selection of genres catering for different tastes, it’s good to see gay fiction is now offering the same.

]]> By: Sarah McCarty http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/2008/07/09/do-you-self-insert/comment-page-3/#comment-26611 Sarah McCarty Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:33:34 +0000 http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/?p=1362#comment-26611 Selah- I'm sorry for the confusion. EC sells all Ellora's books as erotic and breaks them down by elements. (An HEA is not required for any Ellora's Cerridwen or Exotica book.) Beyond a genre breakdown, inventory is also broken down by sexual content if it is proven to be specific draw. Such as M/M. If just any romance would do and the gender of the protagnists didn't matter, M/M romance wouldn't be separated out by the gender of the protaganists. It is because there are readers that all things story being equal, would rather read about two men than a man and a woman or two women. And readers that would rather read a man and a woman than anything else. So for either side of the argument, when it comes to marketing, the statement that romance is romance no matter the sex of the H&H has no relevance. And marketing is the bottom line when it comes to where and how books will be shelved. And I still think that M/M romance if it gets big enough to warrant NY print interest will not be marketed as genre Romance. Maybe Erotica but I think more likely as Gay fiction or Literature because those areas provide the biggest opportunity for growth along with the most visibility for cross genre marketing and appeal. Which is good. :grin: Selah- I’m sorry for the confusion.

EC sells all Ellora’s books as erotic and breaks them down by elements. (An HEA is not required for any Ellora’s Cerridwen or Exotica book.) Beyond a genre breakdown, inventory is also broken down by sexual content if it is proven to be specific draw. Such as M/M. If just any romance would do and the gender of the protagnists didn’t matter, M/M romance wouldn’t be separated out by the gender of the protaganists. It is because there are readers that all things story being equal, would rather read about two men than a man and a woman or two women. And readers that would rather read a man and a woman than anything else. So for either side of the argument, when it comes to marketing, the statement that romance is romance no matter the sex of the H&H has no relevance. And marketing is the bottom line when it comes to where and how books will be shelved. And I still think that M/M romance if it gets big enough to warrant NY print interest will not be marketed as genre Romance. Maybe Erotica but I think more likely as Gay fiction or Literature because those areas provide the biggest opportunity for growth along with the most visibility for cross genre marketing and appeal. Which is good. :grin:

]]> By: Angela Benedetti http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/2008/07/09/do-you-self-insert/comment-page-3/#comment-26601 Angela Benedetti Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:06:02 +0000 http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/?p=1362#comment-26601 Sarah -- but there <i>is</i> quite a lot of m/m romance being sold out there; it's not all aimed at the pure erotica audience. In fact, if you look at the publishers who market largely or primarily to the female audience, most of it is romance, even if it's erotic romance. Or maybe, as Selah suggested, we're just tripping over definitions here? There was a thread on the Torquere Social Yahoo group recently (the list open to readers) about what the readers want or like in their books. (Torquere sells only GBLT, just as a data.) The overwhelming response was more plot, more story, a good romance with great characters. The sex is popular too, of course, but the main emphasis was on the romantic storyline. This is not an audience which is only there for the sexual thrill of seeing two guys going at it. [wry smile] Yes, the sex sells. But the sex is an overwhelming selling point on the het side of the business too. Sexy romances outsold sweet ones <i>way</i> before the whole Erotic Romance thing came along, so I don't think it's valid to say that any book with explicit sex is automatically an erotic romance. I mentioned somewhere else in the thread (or it might've been a comment thread on one of my blogs where I linked this, I forget) that the first snowballing scene I ever read was in a historical romance back in the seventies. Explicit and varied sex acts have a very long history in the romance genre; just because a story has sex doesn't mean it's erotica, genre-ly speaking. An actual Erotic Romance, in the subgenre sense, has to be more than just a romance with hot sex; mainstream romance has been doing that for decades. Personally, I don't expect the larger publishers to bring out m/m romance lines any time in the next year or two. At the same time, though, I'll be shocked if, ten years from now, there still aren't any. Lee -- good point about the soap operas. :) If the mostly-female viewers are getting used to seeing gay romances in their soaps, I doubt they're far behind in their romances. Selah -- exactly, the genre has expanded and added new areas of interest before, and I'm sure they will again. They just need to notice that the interest and the audience and the money are all there waiting for them. Surya -- based on the comments above, no, you're not weird at all. Most people have said that they don't actually self-insert, but that when they do, the gender (species, live/undead status, etc.) isn't an issue one way or the other. I'd say you're pretty normal. :) Elspeth -- thanks for that viewpoint; it makes great sense now that I think about it. [nod] You're right about the het readers, too, in that no matter which character one identifies with in an m/m romance, there's that shared experience of being attracted to a man, making love with a man, falling <i>in</i> love with a man. Angie Sarah — but there is quite a lot of m/m romance being sold out there; it’s not all aimed at the pure erotica audience. In fact, if you look at the publishers who market largely or primarily to the female audience, most of it is romance, even if it’s erotic romance. Or maybe, as Selah suggested, we’re just tripping over definitions here?

There was a thread on the Torquere Social Yahoo group recently (the list open to readers) about what the readers want or like in their books. (Torquere sells only GBLT, just as a data.) The overwhelming response was more plot, more story, a good romance with great characters. The sex is popular too, of course, but the main emphasis was on the romantic storyline. This is not an audience which is only there for the sexual thrill of seeing two guys going at it. [wry smile]

Yes, the sex sells. But the sex is an overwhelming selling point on the het side of the business too. Sexy romances outsold sweet ones way before the whole Erotic Romance thing came along, so I don’t think it’s valid to say that any book with explicit sex is automatically an erotic romance. I mentioned somewhere else in the thread (or it might’ve been a comment thread on one of my blogs where I linked this, I forget) that the first snowballing scene I ever read was in a historical romance back in the seventies. Explicit and varied sex acts have a very long history in the romance genre; just because a story has sex doesn’t mean it’s erotica, genre-ly speaking. An actual Erotic Romance, in the subgenre sense, has to be more than just a romance with hot sex; mainstream romance has been doing that for decades.

Personally, I don’t expect the larger publishers to bring out m/m romance lines any time in the next year or two. At the same time, though, I’ll be shocked if, ten years from now, there still aren’t any.

Lee — good point about the soap operas. :) If the mostly-female viewers are getting used to seeing gay romances in their soaps, I doubt they’re far behind in their romances.

Selah — exactly, the genre has expanded and added new areas of interest before, and I’m sure they will again. They just need to notice that the interest and the audience and the money are all there waiting for them.

Surya — based on the comments above, no, you’re not weird at all. Most people have said that they don’t actually self-insert, but that when they do, the gender (species, live/undead status, etc.) isn’t an issue one way or the other. I’d say you’re pretty normal. :)

Elspeth — thanks for that viewpoint; it makes great sense now that I think about it. [nod] You’re right about the het readers, too, in that no matter which character one identifies with in an m/m romance, there’s that shared experience of being attracted to a man, making love with a man, falling in love with a man.

Angie

]]> By: Elspeth http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/2008/07/09/do-you-self-insert/comment-page-3/#comment-26600 Elspeth Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:05:55 +0000 http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/?p=1362#comment-26600 I'm actually exactly the opposite of Ms. Buchanan's theories. I love m/f and m/m romance about equally, but when it comes to erotica, I like it best if there's at least one person present whose anatomy matches mine. Because erotica is more about the physical act of sex, whereas romance is more about emotions, so who has what body parts matters less. When I read "het" romance novels, I'm just as likely to identify with the male lead as I am with the heroine -- even if the whole book is from the heroine's pov. Sometimes I identify with the women, sometimes with the man -- it's the eternal "sleep with him/her or be him/her" dilemma... which one would I rather be, and which one would I rather imagine myself making love to? But then, I'm bisexual, so I can identify with the experience of being attracted to a woman just as easily as I can that of being attracted to a man. I imagine that for some straight woman (and, having checked, I see I'm proved right by some of the comments above), it would actually be easier to identify with the protagonists of m/m romance than the male lead of a het romance novel, because whichever of the two guys you're identifying with, they're still going to be getting it on with someone you find sexually attractive. I’m actually exactly the opposite of Ms. Buchanan’s theories. I love m/f and m/m romance about equally, but when it comes to erotica, I like it best if there’s at least one person present whose anatomy matches mine. Because erotica is more about the physical act of sex, whereas romance is more about emotions, so who has what body parts matters less.

When I read “het” romance novels, I’m just as likely to identify with the male lead as I am with the heroine — even if the whole book is from the heroine’s pov. Sometimes I identify with the women, sometimes with the man — it’s the eternal “sleep with him/her or be him/her” dilemma… which one would I rather be, and which one would I rather imagine myself making love to?

But then, I’m bisexual, so I can identify with the experience of being attracted to a woman just as easily as I can that of being attracted to a man. I imagine that for some straight woman (and, having checked, I see I’m proved right by some of the comments above), it would actually be easier to identify with the protagonists of m/m romance than the male lead of a het romance novel, because whichever of the two guys you’re identifying with, they’re still going to be getting it on with someone you find sexually attractive.

]]> By: Surya http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/2008/07/09/do-you-self-insert/comment-page-3/#comment-26599 Surya Sun, 13 Jul 2008 07:56:14 +0000 http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/?p=1362#comment-26599 You know, if I want to self-insert into a story, I find that the sex of the character is pretty much irrelevant. Does that make me weird? I mean in RL I'm unambiguously female and about the straightest person in the world, but it only takes a little imagination to insert myself into a male character. ::nudge, nudge - wink wink:: Maybe being rasied on science fiction helps. As a three-year old, I used to imagine I was Mr Spock, so a human male isn't much of a stretch. And when I come to think of it, small children do that all the time - self-insert into rabbits and teddy bears. Is Ms Buchannan really suggesting that we lose that much imagination as we grow up? You know, if I want to self-insert into a story, I find that the sex of the character is pretty much irrelevant. Does that make me weird? I mean in RL I’m unambiguously female and about the straightest person in the world, but it only takes a little imagination to insert myself into a male character. ::nudge, nudge – wink wink:: Maybe being rasied on science fiction helps. As a three-year old, I used to imagine I was Mr Spock, so a human male isn’t much of a stretch. And when I come to think of it, small children do that all the time – self-insert into rabbits and teddy bears. Is Ms Buchannan really suggesting that we lose that much imagination as we grow up?

]]>