December TBR Challenge – Festive
2020 has been a very long year for all of us. Finding something “festive” for TBR Challenge sounded like quite a challenge indeed. However, we dug into our respective piles of books and came up with an emotional m/m romance and an adventure-filled Tudor Christmas tale. One is a 2015 release, the other is 2016, and both were successful finds. We hope you have enjoyed our searches through the TBR pile and we will plan to see you again with more TBR reading in 2021!
Winter Oranges by Marie Sexton
Marie Sexton is one of those authors who’s been on my radar for a while but whose books I haven’t yet read, so I was pleased when I found something on my Kindle that would fit this month’s TBR Challenge prompt. Winter Oranges is an emotional but impossible love story that kept me guessing – right up to the end – as to how on earth the author was going to give this star-crossed couple a believable HEA.
Former child star turned teen heart-throb turned B-list movie actor Jason Walker is at something of a crossroads. Tired of only being offered crappy parts, of the unrequited love he feels for his best friend and fuckbuddy Dylan, and of continually dodging the attention he still gets from the media (especially after being forcibly outed eight months earlier) he leaves Hollywood and buys a house in a remote location in Idaho, looking forward to a bit of privacy and seclusion.
On his first night in the house, Jason is shocked when he sees a face at the window of the apartment above the garage. When Jason looks again, the face is gone, but the next day it appears again, and now he can see it belongs to a young man with pale skin and a shock of dark hair; a young man who seems to be delighted to see him, his lips moving and hands waving excitedly. Jason rushes back inside and immediately calls the local sheriff – but when she arrives and goes into the apartment to investigate, she finds nothing and no-one there.
Still spooked, Jason realises he has to accept that either he’s hallucinating… or his house is haunted.
After trying to ignore his ‘ghost’ for two days, Jason gives in and goes up to the apartment himself – and there he is, the man he’d seen at the window, dressed in old-fashioned, baggy clothes and old boots… and he’s translucent. As Jason recovers from the shock of seeing an actual ghost, he realises that although the man is talking rapidly, he can’t hear him – and on saying so, the other man immediately deflates, crestfallen.
Communicating through a mixture of lip reading and gestures, Jason learns that the man – Ben – was born in 1840 and that he lives IN the old snow globe he directs Jason to find on the shelf, and that what Jason is seeing is not his spirit but a kind of ‘projection’. Jason struggles to take it all in – but after a few days (during which he’s seen no sign of Ben) he returns to the apartment and takes the globe with him into the house. When Ben appears, they still can’t communicate easily – until Jason realises the globe is a music box, winds it, and discovers he can actually hear Ben, who is overjoyed and immediately bombards Jason with questions (I had to laugh when one of the first things he asked was “Who killed J.R?”). He tells Jason how his sister Sarah had somehow “put” him into the snow globe back in 1861 in order to stop him going off to join the Confederate Army, but that she’d never given him any instructions as to how to get out, as she hadn’t intended him to be there for long. Unfortunately though, the globe was stolen and has changed hands many times over the years until it eventually ended up in the garage apartment.
After this, Jason and Ben spend every day together. Ben’s enthusiasm for and enjoyment of everything around him is infectious – and incredibly endearing – and Jason can’t help getting swept up in it, realising he feels happy for the first time in ages. A genuine and loving friendship develops between the pair, and as the weeks pass, that friendship becomes underpinned by a slowly building attraction, their connection growing deeper and turning into something much more. Watching these two lonely men falling for each other was captivating and sigh-worthy… and heartbreaking at the same time, their inability to touch each other ramping up the tension and frustration, the longing between them so palpable it leaps off the page.
Of course, this being a romance novel, obstacles are overcome – although not easily or without cost, and the HEA is delightful and well-deserved.
Jason and Ben are likeable, well-drawn characters who find, in each other, someone to fill the voids in their lives. When the story opens, Jason is feeling hopeless and disillusioned with just about everything in his life, but Ben, with his enthusiasm for the simplest things, brings back the light and joy Jason has lost and teaches him to appreciate the simple things, too. And Ben, who has been deprived of human contact for a hundred and fifty years, is just so grateful to be able to interact and experience the world around him in a way he hasn’t been able to for so long, that he completely charms Jason – and us – with his childlike innocence and zest for every new experience.
With a touch of magic, a lot of romance, and a lovely wintry setting, Winter Oranges is a charming, poignant and heartbreaking slow-burn love story that made me sad, made me smile and gave me all the feels. If you’re looking for a seasonal tale with depth and emotion that’s just a little bit different, this one should definitely be on your radar.
Caz
Grade: B+ Sensuality: Warm
Buy it at Amazon, Audible or your local independent retailer
The Queen’s Christmas Summons by Amanda McCabe
Some of my favorite Christmas romances have a blend of darkness and light running through them. In The Queen’s Christmas Summons, Amanda McCabe does this very well. This book is filled with adventure and intrigue and yet, among all the plot action, we can still see her characters’ emotions shining through.
The destruction of the Spanish Armada is not the most common setting for a holiday romance, but the author uses it to great effect here. Alys Drury is the daughter of a English nobleman and a Spanish aristocrat. For his marriage to a Spanish Catholic, Alys’ father found himself exiled to a remote Irish keep where he serves the queen in isolation.
Alys herself is fairly content in Ireland, though she lacks for company beyond the household staff. The main dark clouds on her existence come from missing her beloved mother, who died when Alys was eleven, and her growing awareness of her father’s advancing age and isolation. Alys’ world changes in 1588 with the arrival of the Spanish Armada. Following their defeat at the hands of the English, Alys sees some of the ruined ships that wash up on the nearby beach, and she is horrified by the brutality with which the survivors are received.
It is against this background that Alys meets the mysterious captain Juan. Like Alys, he is (or at least claims to be) both Spanish and English by background. While Alys is undoubtedly loyal to Queen and country, the author does a great job of laying the groundwork to show why she might be sympathetic to a wounded Spanish sailor. The rapport between Alys and Juan is not instalove, but instead grows a bit more gradually. From the very beginning, their time together is fraught both with tension from knowing their different positions in life as well as a growing romantic tension.
When Juan and Alys find themselves suddenly separated and then unexpectedly thrown together for a royal Christmas, the story takes quite a turn as they realize that they have quite a lot to figure out about one another. The mood in Ireland had been quiet, pensive and sometimes somber. Once in England, the festivities of the Christmas season play a prominent role in the book. Yet, while this story is clearly taking a happy turn, there are still threads of intrigue running through it. The characters’ emotions are all over the place for quite obvious reasons, and I have to admit that I was very much here for all that messiness.
The Queen’s Christmas Summons is not one of those stories where the leads have a petty misunderstanding that could have been solved with one conversation as opposed to chapters of curl tossing, flouncing, and despondent drinking/gambling/faux debauchery. Political circumstances, family history, and all manner of larger issues must be dealt with, and Alys and Juan must often calculate whether it would be better for them to face their various challenges together or separately.
While not overtly religious and definitely not evangelical, Christmas traditions do lend this book a festive air and a distinctly seasonal tone. While I did have occasional quibbles such as, ‘What’s with everyone being part-Spanish in this book?’, I enjoyed this read very much overall. If you’re looking for a Christmas historical set somewhere outside nineteenth century England, definitely track this 2016 release down.
Lynn
Grade: B+ Sensuality: Warm
I mostly wanted to wrap my head around something that is peculiar or simply a mystery to me.
I do not have in my head a lot of what is normal to US readers, be it ever narrower genres, a lot of debate about othering, appropriation, own voices and so on. I like learning but it is not daily background conversation in middle Europe where I sit.
I totally love this discussion.
After reading all here plus the links I conclude for myself that
love Mark’s comment!
I am fine with all this, I just assumed that m/m meant gay, or at least a significant percentage of authors was gay, and some names like KJ, Jay, G.L, Garrett, are not clearly gendered to me. Now I know more.
thanks for the fun I had learning!
Nice summary, Lieselotte. I’m glad you had fun with this discussion. I did too. :)
I wasn’t able to join in the discussion yesterday, but saw it going on.
Coincidentally, yesterday morning KJ Charles mentioned, on Twitter, an academic paper called Gaily Ever After: Neo-Victorian M/M Genre Romance for the Twenty-First Century by Caroline Duvezin-Caubet(University of Poitiers, France) which is published in the current issue of Neo-Victorian Studies ejournal. It focuses on various books by KJ Charles and Cat Sebastian and overlaps with the discussion on here. (Sorry, I couldn’t manage to link it). I found it an interesting read.
Here you go – http://www.neovictorianstudies.com/past_issues/13-1-2020/default.htm
Just scroll down – it’s the 9th piece.
Wow. That’s a lot to digest. I was particularly interested in the discussion of Heyer’s influence on the lack of cultural diversity in Regency/Victorian romance,and the idea of found family within Sebastian’s and Charles’ works.
I found myself wondering how we “make room” for own voices authors, and should non own voice authors still write? (I think yes, but just wondering if others do.) It seems that minority voices for traditional romances (hetero) are still having to fight for room to get published, although it’s getting better. But are own voice authors of queer romances in the same boat? It seems to me that there is more room already, and a better chance at a welcome, in the m/m (or wider) romance genre for own voice authors. I hope so. I can’t read what hasn’t been written or printed, so I hope that we get a diversity of authors to choose from.
I personally don’t think the presence of ‘non-own-voice’ authors in the marketplace, in the age of easy & inexpensive self-publishing, presents any barrier to ‘own-voice’ authors. If anything, all those of us out there flailing in the ocean of self-publishing are an object lesson in how to do it (or not).
I buy books based on whether the book itself interests me. If the book features e.g. POC or queer main characters and is written by a POC or queer author, so much the better. But I’m not going to NOT buy a book that has POC or queer MCs just because it isn’t written by an own-voice author. All that tells the marketplace is that there is no demand for books about those characters, not why.
We know there is a demand for POC and queer characters, or people wouldn’t be buying those books. If we say ‘non-own-voice’ authors should stay in their lane (i.e. a straight white person should only write straight white characters), we are guaranteeing a sadly homogenous marketplace. We are also putting 100% of the burden on ‘own-voice’ authors to fill the marketplace.
Which also then says that if there aren’t enough POC and queer characters, it’s because the own-voice authors aren’t getting the job done. “If you want those stories, write them yourselves.” That’s uncomfortably close to blaming POC and queer workers for centuries of overt, legalized workplace discrimination IMO.
What we can do (and maybe should do, though most of us are in absolutely no position to influence the industry; all we can do is talk up books we like) is be encouraging and inclusive to own-voice writers. What RWA epically failed to do not so long ago.
But if we value a marketplace full of books featuring diverse characters, and not just the straight white characters who have dominated for-f**king-ever, then we need to welcome the non-own-voice authors who are bringing us those characters, because at least they are trying to NOT write the same old straight white stories. And demand for those stories will lead readers to others which may well be written by own-voice authors.
Of course I say all this as a straight white woman writing predominantly about characters who are neither straight nor white. :-) My own experience is only good for one story. I want to imagine – and read about – lives that are NOT just like mine.
Well said. I look forward to more inclusion of own voice authors across the romance genres, but still want all authors welcome. This year I’ve read more books with more diverse characters,by own voice and not, and it’s been fun to expand my horizons. It’s also been good to see characters I can relate to (autism spectrum, chronic illness, varying sexual orientations) because I have children like that.
I read F&SF for decades before I started reading genre Romances. Large chunks of the genre(s) of fantasy & science fiction wouldn’t exist if “own voices” ideas were enforced. This also applies to several sub-genres of Romances (paranormal, science-fictional, fantasy). Unless reality is a LOT different than I believe, none of the books I’ve read were written by nonhuman extraterrestrial aliens, vampires, werewolves, elves, fae, gods, demigods, etc.
I’m an older hetero/celibate white male, so for me, stories centered on women or gay men are only slightly less alien than the stories about extraterrestrial aliens I’ve read for so long. And I’m not a big fan of anal sex scenes regardless of the genders of the characters, so their increase over the decades I’ve now been reading Romances is a trend I’ve observed but not appreciated.
Cute, but of course you know we’re talking about LGBT, authors,etc. writing their own stories. Once Extraterrestrials make their existence known we’ll endeavor to include them,too. Cheers.
I presented a reductio ad absurdum of sorts to make the point: where do you draw the line about who can write FICTION?
I think it’s a trend across the board we are seeing in a lot of areas where we see that there have been wrongs or injustices in the past and in trying to correct, oftentimes things get over corrected and go too far the other way.
I think people should get to write what they want. It’s good to look for new and “authentic” voices but we also should allow artistic license so that your gender, ethnicity, personal life doesn’t dictate what you can write.
My two current examples of overcorrecting craziness: Abraham Lincoln and Helen Keller both being seen in disfavor by some right now. I don’t have a problem with either, personally.
I don’t think there are many people who held power in the past that haven’t sinner by current standards.
Yes, I think that’s certainly true.
Helen Keller’s only sins seem to be that she was a “privileged white woman”. Lincoln is being pointed at for not doing enough for Native American rights.
Seriously, there are people calling Helen Keller “privileged?” Calling someone who was blind and deaf living in an era especially hard on the disabled “privileged” is hitting a new low and is cruelly dismissive of everything she accomplished despite the odds. And I bet the people hurling those ugly, ignorant statements toward a dead person who can’t defend herself haven’t done much of anything remotely worth Tweeting about…
I’m not trying to draw the line, which I said clearly. I’m discussing the situation. Have we made room for own voice authors in romance? The RWA imploded over just this topic, so it’s a legitimate question. People in the conversation have been pointing out that most writers of m/m romances are women and they write for women readers. Some poster seemed to point it out as if it were a bad thing. Is it? That prompted my one statement about non LGBT writers writing m/m fiction. Is it somehow suspect for cis women to write m/m romances? I don’t think so, but others seem to.
As a white male, I normally stay quiet when own voice or cultural appropriation discussions come up, but since I joined this thread I will continue.
I read a lot, most heavily in the Romance & F&SF genres, but I figured out years ago that my skills don’t include the ability to write good fiction, so my thoughts about writing are those of a reader. I see fiction writing as requiring empathy, imagination, discipline, and several skills. The empathy & imagination are critical—any attempt to describe a believable character depends on them. Believing that fiction writers work from this base, I have found most own voice and cultural appropriation discussions baffling. I finally understood the basic concept when I read a newspaper story about a business that pretended to be based on a Latinx family, and faced backlash when the pretense was exposed.
In my view, own voice and cultural appropriation discussions are appropriate when discussing NON-fiction, but not fiction. Publicizing when a fiction author shares the race / religion / nationality / gender / gender preference / whatever attributes of characters they write about may suggest that they have a better grasp of the attributes because they live with them, but given how little self-awareness many people exhibit, in many cases an empathetic author without the attributes who does good research can produce just as believable a character and story.
Male authors of Romances who use female pseudonyms are a long-standing example of an own voice issue. I know there are readers who will never read those books if they know the authors are men. Years ago, I read about a science fiction novel written as a first-person contemporary account of hidden events. The collaborative authors didn’t realize that the publisher had planned a publicity tour, which couldn’t happen because they clearly weren’t the protagonist. To me, the pretense is the problem.
All excellent points, Mark. I agree with you. I will, however, go even farther than that. When it comes to writers, I think the author should be somewhat invisible. What I mean by this is, we need to get back to a place culturally where we can separate artists from their art. It shouldn’t matter who writes a particular story as long as it is written well. As an author, I am always pleased when I submit work to magazines that enforce blind submission policies. Just like when musicians auditioning for an orchestra perform behind a curtain, blind submission policies in publishing force the editors to look solely at the content and quality of the work- which they should be doing anyway.
I am, sadly, seeing more and more exclusive anthologies that specifically state they are only open to female writers or ethnic minorities, etc. Do I think anthology compilers should be allowed to discriminate? Yes, but with the caveat you have to be open to people excluding you as well. I can almost guarantee you those same exclusionary editors would throw a big hissy fit on Twitter if a competitor said, “For this issue, we are only seeking stories from straight white males who hail from the Ozarks.” But if they feel comfortable saying “women only” or “non-whites only,” they have to stand behind anthologists who say “men only” or “whites only.” Does anyone see the irony in all this? Weren’t we trying to get away from all this segregation in the 1960s? And now the left (and it’s largely the left) is trying to make segregation cool again. It isn’t.
Also, whether I qualify for an exclusionary anthology or not, I never submit to them as a matter of principle. Just because I wouldn’t challenge these editors legally on First Amendment grounds doesn’t mean I will participate in practices I strongly disagree with. As far as I’m concerned, it’s one thing to say, “For this anthology, we are only seeking stories starring POC protagonists.” It is quite another to say, “For this anthology, we are only seeking stories by POC authors.” Like I said, an author should be invisible. Let stories stand on their own merits instead of demanding a family tree or chromosome test before you decide whether or not a piece is worthy of publishing.
No one will be served by trying to exclude writers from writing what they want. That said, we could do a lot better about allowing more room for own voice authors to get published and reviewed. This touches on another discussion we had recently, and sometimes there is an over correction while old wrongs are righted. I think it is perfectly legitimate to publish anthologies highlights POC authors. In romance, as an example, they are greatly underrepresented, and it’s not because they aren’t out there.
I think a better way to allow more own voices authors to get published and reviewed is to adopt blind submission policies in addition to open submissions via free online platforms such as Submittable. The publishers pay for Submittable, not the author. That way, the author doesn’t have to pay postage to submit manuscripts, which can present a financial barrier. Internet access is required, of course, but there are at least free wi-fi opportunities at public libraries (at least not during COVID restrictions- most industries are in a state of upheaval at the moment…).
Agents have their purpose, but publishers who require them represent another real barrier to those with stories to tell. And believe me, requiring agented representation isn’t the quality assurance measure major publishers pretend it is; it’s a weed-out measure. When you see some of the rot that comes out of mainstream publishing, this reality becomes sadly apparent.
I give Harlequin and Carina Press a lot of credit for not requiring an agent to submit manuscripts plus using Submittable. And self-publishing has been a great boon to those who would otherwise not find a home in traditional publishing. The problem in the latter is poor visibility and high levels of competition. But it beats the heck out of having perfectly decent stories rotting on someone’s hard drive.
As a writer, I stand by my assertion that my work should be judged solely on its literary merits- or lack thereof. Who or what I am shouldn’t be a determining factor for whether or not something I have written deserves to be published. And that goes for any author.
Fiction or not, it is helpful to have some experience when you are depicting characters with specific attributes or people groups you are not part of accurately. This can be done with research and beta readers,etc. Or it can be done by individuals who are part of the group, or own voice writers. I’m saying both are legitimate. However, I do see people review books and wonder if, say, the character with autism was written accurately, for example. This is why own voice authors are helpful. We aren’t relying on good research but instead personal experience. If a Chinese-American author writes rom-coms about contemporary life in a Chinese immigrant family, we don’t have to guess if they’ve portrayed the family dynamics accurately. A non-Chinese writer would have to research and interview in order to capture an authentic family situation,and still might get it wrong.
If I was a writer I’d be at a disadvantage trying to write an authentic experience of a black woman in America. I haven’t lived it. It can be done, and has been done, but I also want to read it from an own voice author, too.
For many things we have to rely on research. None of us can experience historical events in person.But there are many places own voice authors can bring an advantage of experience that is fresh and insightful.
The part of “own voice” that, if not used fallaciously is at least iffy, is the personal experience. In your example, a Chinese-American author can write based on their own experience, but that is THEIR family, not necessarily a typical Chinese-American family. A non-Chinese-American author who researches Chinese-American families might get a completely different picture. I’m not arguing we shouldn’t encourage “own voice” authors, I’m saying we need to view their works with as much caution as we view the works of other authors. I like Nan’s point about invisible authors.
I don’t disagree with everything you and Nan are saying, but I don’t think it’s as simple as “invisible” authors. What I see is a reluctance to give up some ground in order for everyone to get a chance at representation.
Thank you for your discussion, but I think we’ve all said all there is to say and no minds will be changed.
You’re welcome. I think it’s best to agree to disagree on some points, but I did want to make one more comment about this:
“What I see is a reluctance to give up some ground in order for everyone to get a chance at representation.”
To me, this implies that authors exist as a group rather than individuals. This definitely isn’t the first time I’ve heard variations of the argument, “White authors need to move over and make some room for others.” The problem with that argument is that it runs roughshod over individual white authors who have never been published and are now being told, “You’ve been on top of the pyramid long enough” when they’ve never been so far as the base of it.
Having said this, I agree with you that diverse perspectives in literature- including romance- are a good thing. The more the merrier, I say!
Seems like the boom of love for gay romance goes along with the Me Too movement. Romance readers now hold M/F lovers to a different standard than M/M.
Interesting thought. In what way do you see that happening?
I just finished this year’s Harlequin Christmas anthologyTudor Christmas Tidings which featured a story by Amanda McCabe, and it was by far the best of the bunch, IMO. I’m pleased to know that she’s written in this setting before, because she absolutely struck the right balance of political intrigue and romance in the Renaissance period. I’ll definitely be seeking out more of her backlist!
I’ve really liked her books and stories across a variety of time periods. She also has a trilogy set in Georgian Ireland, written under the name Laurel McKee, that is very good. I gave the first one (Countess of Scandal) a DIK years ago when it came out.
I looked up her backlist and see that she goes all the way back to trad Regencies, LOL! I admire someone who can write competently across lots of different time periods and settings. She’s definitely on my radar now.
I liked the two Renaissance books of hers I tried but for some reason stopped her checking it out. I noticed her ratings on Goodreads are really low so this may stop some folks from checking her out.
Chrisreader said: “Then I start thinking ‘should I try to push myself out of my comfort zone?’ Or do I just accept this is my fun reading and just keep reading what I like?” and then Nan de Plume said: “I think a lot of us ask ourselves that question. I lean on the side of fun reading but have taken chances that played out well.” This got me thinking!!
This has been a very interesting discussion here and a number of people have posted comments that pretty much reflect my own musings including Lieselotte. A while ago, after reading an m/m book review here, I went over to Amazon to see what comments had been made about it. Forgive me, I can’t remember what the title was, but the (copious) Amazon comments on the book included 3 or 4 from gay men (well they said they were gay). The POV they expressed pretty much dovetailed and it seemed that they felt that m/m romance is as Nan mentioned written by females for female (probably straight) readers. I ask myself continually when reading the m/m romance reviews here what the appeal is to straight women. I have tried a few books that got A ratings here and although I appreciated the high level of prose, detail in HR settings, etc. it was mainly the non-sexual components of the MC relationship that I found interesting and held my attention. I prefer character-driven romance to the more steamy stories so well-developed relationships of most kinds are appealing to me. But, the sexual side of m/m romance, no thanks, not for me. And I still wonder at and muse upon the appeal because in a “regular” m/f romance I can hope to find both a character-driven story as well as some well-written sex scenes. Everyone is different and thankfully no one can (or should attempt to) regulate or police our personal reading choices.
I think the appeal is voyeuristic in nature, a sexual fantasy akin to why many straight men enjoy watching “lesbian” pornography despite its often glaring inaccuracies. They watch the f/f pornography because two sexy women are twice as hot as one sexy woman- and no having to look at a man! Likewise, I’m sure a number of straight women read m/m romance and erotica because it contains emotional development the readership tends to like plus two sexy male bodies without a woman in the way. Plus, as some here have said, a lot of the appeal is how the relationship dynamics are portrayed between two men versus between a man and a woman. I’m sure motivations vary by reader, but I think that sums up a lot of the appeal for many.
Absolutely agree with you 100%!
I like the different power dynamic between two same sex characters. Although there are power differences due to wealth and status,etc., this isn’t the same feel as differences of the male-female relationship. I’m not expressing myself well. It’s just nice to look at two people working through a relationship without having to mentally filter the cultural stereotypes still in play too often between men and women.
One of my favorite artists is a queer singer named LP. She’s amazing, and she writes the best songs. Even though they are love songs, and she’s singing about her relationships with women, they aren’t like love songs written by men, or about men. She uses words, feelings and emotions that seem to me to be very specific to a woman in love with another woman. I love that, and I think I have that same feeling with same-sex love stories.
Is it voyeurism? No more than any romance is voyeurism. No more than any story about people who are outside of our own small circles of experience.
You expressed yourself fine. Maybe my use of the word “voyeurism” wasn’t so clear. I certainly didn’t mean in the sense of a peeping tom, although I guess all readers peep into the lives of fictional characters by definition. I meant more in the sense of watching the “other” for the sake of satisfaction.
‘Winter Oranges’ has an intriguing premise and this review makes it sound very appealing. Also, I note it’s a charity title. So I have acquired. :-)
Re: women writing M/M, that’s something I think about a lot since it’s something I’m doing! Bookmarked Jamie Fessenden’s post (thanks Nan!) to read later.
I didn’t have a TBR full of holiday-themed books but have treated myself to a whole pile of them recently. Almost all M/M. Notable: ‘Humbug,’ contemporary novella by Joanna Chambers and ‘Yuletide Treasure,’ fantasy-historical novella by Eliot Grayson. Both are nice twists on A Christmas Carol.
You’re welcome! Here’s the other blog post I mentioned by Jamie Fessenden where he addresses compulsory heteronormativity in M/M sex scenes, plus his suggestions and take on the subject: Even in gay romance, love does not always have to equal anal sex | Jamie Fessenden’s Blog. I’m pretty sure Caz has read this one as well.
Yes, I definitely read that, and thankfully there are authors who don’t do sex-by-rote in m/m (hand job->blow job-> anal) and some who write characters who don’t do anal (L.A Witt’s Rebound is a case in point).
Frankly, I’d like to see some m/f romances that break away from the current sex-by-wrote of kissing -> fingering -> cunnilingus -> fellatio -> vaginal. Lately, I’ve been seeing a lot of HR in particular where the hero goes down on the heroine and then acts utterly shocked- shocked, I tell you!- that the heroine wants to do the same to him. First of all, how common would that order of activity have been in eras when upper class women would have known next to nothing about their own bodies? She really wouldn’t be freaked out about a man kissing her most intimate area the first time they do the deed? Really? Or immediately returning the favor with a coy mixture of curiosity and enthusiasm? Puh-lease! Also, that sort of “base” system as in “making it to first base,” etc., has a very American cultural basis according to this one article I was reading. Quite a few modern-day French women were shocked that anyone would do oral for their first time with a new lover, considering it more intimate that intercourse. Things for romance writers to keep in mind…
Winter Oranges sounds intriguing. I read my daughter’s review of the book and she enjoyed it, but had issues with the depiction of the bisexual character (probably Dylan?) as being “sex crazed.” Since she’s bi, she might be a little sensitive due to bisexuals being regularly dissed in the LGBTQ+ community as being sluts.
On the other hand, the recent m/m books I’ve read often have bisexual characters, and they’ve been fairly depicted instead of shamed. That’s nice.
I’ve seen that criticism levelled at Dylan, too – but another reviewer said they liked him for being unapologetically who he is. He’s promiscuous, sure, but I didn’t think he was any more or less so than many of the male leads in other queer or m/f romances I’ve read. That said, I’m not bi and there may have been subtleites I missed.
That’s what I was thinking, that he probably isn’t more or less than many characters in romances. Thanks for your perspective.
I read ‘Winter Oranges’ last night and really enjoyed it. The central romance embraced its internal logic (there should always be internal logic in fantasy), the development of that romance was nicely done, and both MCs were engaging characters.
Dylan: I liked him. His promiscuity wasn’t presented as a function of his bisexuality. It seemed to me that he was and always had been completely honest and open about his sex life, which meant he was approaching Jason from a position of respect: I am not lying to you. Jason’s infatuation with him was, though not fully examined because this book was not about them, pretty obviously tied to 1) glamor 2) proximity 3) seeing other people get what he wanted, i.e. envy, + having a crappy home life and wanting someone to be there for him 4) genuine friendship and the tendency a lot of us have to want our BFF to be everything to us.
Plus, Dylan’s behavior all the way through *was* expressive of genuine friendship and love. He really cares about Jason, worries about him, goes well beyond personal inconvenience trying to make sure the guy is all right when all the signs point to ‘this person needs help.’ He shows up. My only real quibble with Dylan had to do with his tendency to say ‘here, take this pill’ (though, to be fair, I also said to Jason ‘WTF with the drugs’).
I agree with that assessment. Dylan really did love Jason, but just wasn’t IN love with him… and actually, if there’s any blame to be apportioned, quite a bit of it belonged to Jason for not being honest about what he wanted. That may have ended their friendship and it’s easy to understand why Jason wasn’t willing to do that, but still…
I’m glad you enjoyed it!
Both of these sound intriguiging. I might even bite the bullet and read my 2nd M/M romance ever.
Winter Oranges is a really charming story – I hope you enjoy if it you do pick it up. I’ve gradually shifted to reading much more m/m over the past few years; right now – for me – m/m is where I’m finding the best stories.
I agree. m/m has become a very big favorite in my contemporary romance reading, and might constitute 1/3 of it or more. And – Cat Sebastian, KJ Charles – it has some important space in my historical romance reading.
Though I have two small issues with it:
I still read the occasional m/m, especially if it’s been recommended by a reviewer I trust to give an honest review and isn’t part of the hype parade. However, I slackened off reading very many a few years ago because of your 2nd bullet point. It seemed to me that too many were by writers jumping on a trend and the m/m relationships were being fetishized by readers.
The snow globe plot sounds enchanting. I think someone from the 19th century asking about who killed JR as a first question would throw me out of the story, though.
I do not know if my second bullet is true or not – I just cannot help wonder.
I don’t know how true either. All I know in my very limited experience is that whenever I’ve talked books with my gay male friends and brought up m/m romance they’ve rolled their eyes. My BIL is also gay and has been with his partner over 20 years and they’ve been married for over five years. Neither of them relate to m/m romance. I think it’s very personal and sometimes unpredictable what anyone is going to relate to, though.
Yes, I have the same reaction among my gay friends.
But then, many women roll their eyes at the idea of romance books too, and I guess more did years back, when these books were less common, or simply newer, as I guess m/m romance is today.
So I am left with some indications, but no really conclusive evidence either way, yet.
Well, I am sure over time, there will be more knowledge.
Or maybe someone else on AAR has clear information, or an idea how to get some knowledge. It is not my most urgent issue, really, I just “watch that space” because of a niggle about women writing m/m.
I know a m/m writer, and with that very anecdotal and nonscientific sampling, I can say they research and ask a lot of questions of gay men/couples, and have beta readers for those issues.
The exact same thing is true for m/f romance. I love them, but I don’t think many are actually realistic stories. We idealize romance, love, and relationships, which is wonderful. We’re reading fiction, after all. If I want gritty realism I’ll read something else.
I’m not sure m/m romances are any less representative of real m/m relationships than m/f romances are of m/f relationships. I guess we could say we fetishize romance and sex in both. I mean, why aren’t men writing romances much at all? Romance of all types are very female-centric.
YES!!!
I think it’s very much true.
“It seemed to me that too many were by writers jumping on a trend and the m/m relationships were being fetishized by readers.”
I think it’s natural for authors to chase trends regardless of genre. Publishers certainly do it too. As for “too many” writers jumping on a particular bandwagon, I totally get it. It’s like when all the movies at the theater are superhero films when you have no interest in the genre. Or even if you do have an interest in the genre, almost all of the newer entries are subpar knockoffs- thereby making you sick of the genre.
As for fetishization, I have to say I’m okay with that in romance and erotica. It doesn’t bother me, for example, that almost all lesbian porn is produced by and for a straight male audience. Likewise, almost all gay romance is written by and for a straight female audience. Would it be nice to have some more variety in both departments? More #ownvoices? Absolutely! But I’ve always had a philosophy of “the more the merrier” when it comes to art. Especially now with unlimited shelf space on the internet for e-books and widespread availability of self-publishing, I don’t think fewer fetishistic m/m books need to exist in order for more accurate, nuanced portrayals to exist along side of them. There’s room for everyone!
Well said.
The fetishization is a real issue and I do my best to avoid those books. I recently listened to a book by a Big Name contemporary author who has recently jumped on the m/m bandwagon and it was terrible – cardboard characters and 70% sex. Needless to say, GR is full of breathless “OMGSOHAWT- this is my first m/m” fangirling which makes me uncomfortable.
As to the JR question – there’s a good reason for Ben’s familiarity with 20th century culture; he’s spent a lot of time watching TV because the snow globe usually ended up in living rooms where the TV was and in the years before he got stuck in the garage apartment, his owner was an elderly lady in a home who watched TV all day.
Lieselotte, you might be interested in this blog post by male m/m writer Jamie Fessenden on this subject: My take on women writing MM Romance | Jamie Fessenden’s Blog.
Fessenden wrote this article in response to criticism that gay romance should only be written by gay men. He made the argument- quite successfully, I think- that MM romance as we understand it originated with female fanfiction writers. So it was never really a genre written by and for gay men to begin with. Therefore, demands for more gay authorship of MM romance represents a misunderstanding of the genre. In short, it’s been written by mostly straight female authors for mostly straight female readers since the beginning. As such, a lot of the tropes are highly reflective of female fantasies rather than gay male realities. One example he gave was the idea of enforced monogamy in the genre. In another blog post, he mentioned a publisher wouldn’t let him include a scene where a gay couple let another gay guy film them having sex for kicks. Even though that scene was based on something he and his lover did in real life- and everyone had a lot of fun!- that kind of thing wouldn’t fly with a majority female romance audience. Plus, he said, MM romance tends to be too heteronormative in its often obligatory inclusion of anal sex. Despite all this, Fessenden said he actually prefers a lot of female written MM romances because gay stories written by gay men have a tendency to be depressing and obsessed with penis size.
Liselotte, as usual you bring up some excellent points. I have to confess I haven’t read much m/m stories and my main reason is a reaction to so many years of only reading books about men (and written by men) in school.
When I think back to my school years it wasn’t until College that female authors like The Brontes or Jane Austen were taught and assigned. I spent years of my life reading and writing about “The Red Badge of Courage”, “Lord Of The Flies”, “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” and on and on. Most of these books don’t even have a woman speak once, let alone be a main character. I truly cannot think of one important female author we read (apart from some poems). When there was the occasional female protagonist like Antigone, she was still a man’s creation.
This was in direct contrast to my private reading which was heavily skewed towards female authors and protagonists. I am very happy that I never internalized the idea that male authors = important and female authors = frivolous/fun. I suspect it’s because those female authors I read were too important to ME and I always highly valued them.
I’m afraid some of that prejudice of mine or reaction or whatever you want to call it has carried over to this day in my reading and reading choices. While I love having the male and female POV in a novel I do not gravitate to all male POV stories.
I just got a Library loan of “Midnight Sun” (Edward’s view of the Twilight story) and while I enjoyed it at first, it’s wearing on me. I really miss Bella’s viewpoint. I was thinking about going back and forth between Twilight and Midnight Sun while reading it. I do really enjoy getting the male POV in a book but I don’t want it ALL the time.
As much as I love Jamie in Outlander, I wouldn’t want an all Jamie POV book. While I fall in love with great male characters I can’t enjoy a book if the female lead isn’t strong and interesting as well. This is why I haven’t read many of the great m/m recommendations here.
Interesting insights as usual, Chrisreader. I never really gave much thought to male vs female authors and viewpoints when it came to assigned reading. I just came to the conclusion that classics = stuffy, pretentious, and depressing rather than fun. It wasn’t until after graduation that I discovered Margaret Mitchell, James Michener, and James Clavell, all of whom wrote fantastic, well-rounded characters- whether male or female.
Since you like female POV stories, do you have any interest in reading FF romance? I haven’t read a lot because of the comparatively limited selection but am starting to read more.
I’ve read books like Fingersmith (does that count as a romance? romance is a big part of it.) which I think is a great story.
I find I really like a book that is split between the male and female POV but I am also OK with just a female POV if it can only be one.
Then I start thinking “should I try to push myself out of my comfort zone?” Or do I just accept this is my fun reading and just keep reading what I like?
“Then I start thinking ‘should I try to push myself out of my comfort zone?’ Or do I just accept this is my fun reading and just keep reading what I like?”
I think a lot of us ask ourselves that question. I lean on the side of fun reading but have taken chances that played out well. You might recall I came to romance from a mercenary perspective, looking for a get rich quick scheme, only to discover I actually liked a number of romances I originally intended to read in a mean spirit of derision. A few books later made me a convert and made me realize I probably couldn’t write a romance because they require too much talent. :)
Replying or rather my reaction to your super comments above, thanks!
I will read the blog you mention, Nan de Plume!
I understand much more now, Carrie G., Nan de Plume, and Caz, how this works.
Chrisreader, I completely get that male books thing, and I have a resistance to “literature” until today, based on similar experiences.
I tried m/m because of some glowing reviews here and a willingness to try.
One big reason I like m/m a lot is that a lot of usual “roles” are actually not playing. A woman crying, or being afraid, or a man being angry, or rather closed off and not talking about feelings, or a woman liking to look good, just to cite a few examples- in an m/f relationship, immediately, some form of assigning / stereotyping goes on, by the characters themselves, by society / friends. In m/m, there is a degree of freedom to be crying, or closed off, and then to react to that, without a fixed idea “I should not be a weak woman” or some other idea “typical man, cannot talk about feelings, I as woman am better at this” or so.
The relationships feel fresher because of that.
And I can see some stereotyping I do myself with women and men in love, when I see how a relationship m/m is playing out, where this roles cannot play.
Also, totally other thing:
Sometimes, lusting after two men can be fun as a woman looking in.
If m/m is actually meant to be for us women, then it is a fantasy, and I just need to get my head around it, knowing that probably men are actually not like that (idealized, of course, but relatable, like in m/f, idealized but relatable), these are actually ladies in male skin, in some way. Like some sort of aliens, not men, really.
All fine, I suppose, just kind of hard to figure out.
Are we doing to gay men what was done to us in old James Bond films? Imaginary blondes who were into James Bond, into easy sex, then dead?
I completely agree with what others have said here about fantasy; ultimately all romance falls into that bracket I suppose. I think that one of the things that works for me in m/m I generally read is the different power dynamic. I’ve read several romances over the years where, in order to show how “strong” the heroine is, the author has her treating the hero like crap. That’s a big no-no for me; not just because I tend to be a hero-centric reader, but because a successful romance should be about an equal partnership, not one in which one character has to become a doormat. In the majority of the m/m I’ve read that sort of one-upmanship isn’t necessary and just doesn’t happen.
Agreed.
Also, one of the things I like about queer romance- including m/m- is its ability to move beyond standard stock character types. Heroes in most m/f romances I have read tend to be “the tallest man in the room” or “over six feet tall” (never mind this is a Regency where very few men would be anywhere near that height!) and have rippling washboard abs regardless of whether they take up any activity more strenuous than horseback riding. Plus this guy with a Viking body (and he almost always has a stereotypical Viking body) is stoic, or, if he is allowed to have a sense of humor, it’s snide rather than playful (exceptions, yes).
I get it. It’s a fantasy a lot of readers like, and it exists in some m/m too. But m/m also seems to be more open to men who are physically more fragile and vulnerable, maybe even gentle and effeminate. I’m not saying an m/f or m/m hero should be a weakling (I don’t want weakling heroines either, thank you very much!), but he can be sweet toward the hero/ine and not have to be the biggest, baddest hunk in the room. Just saying…
Just as my romance reading over the past five years or so has evolved from almost exclusively historicals to almost exclusively contemporaries, so I find myself reading far more m/m romance in the past couple of years than I ever did before. I don’t suppose m/m romance novels accurately reflect gay male experience, but they make great romance reading! As Aster Glenn Gray said on the Amazon page for HONEY TRAP: “This is a romance novel, not GIOVANNI’S ROOM.” I know a couple of years ago, a writer was being called out for taking plots, even dialogue, wholesale from her older m/f romances and simply changing the characters’ names and obviously gendered text and publishing the result as new m/m romances. I don’t think that happens very often. Writers who write both m/f and m/m (Sarina Bowen, Kate Canterbary, for example) generally do a pretty good job of making the m/m stories different from m/f but just as full of love and emotion.
I have heard this comparison before, and it can be an accurate one. On the other hand, there are male readers of MM romance who genuinely enjoy the stories women create. But they are definitely in the minority according to my haphazard research, just as men make up a distinct minority of romance readers in general. The “16% of romance readers are men” statistic seems a bit high to me and most likely encompasses more masculine/male-centric romance subgenres like Westerns, sports, and thrillers. I don’t have any statistics to back this up, just a hunch based on observations. And, no, I’m not saying there aren’t men who like Barbara Cartland and Harlequin Historical books, but I think you would be hard-pressed to find them.
But if you are looking for actual men who read and enjoy MM romance, the example that immediately comes to mind is The Big Gay Fiction Podcast. They have a website and YouTube channel you might want to check out. Like AAR, they review romance but have an almost exclusive focus on MM. They have also conducted some nice author interviews- including one with Cat Sebastian! The fact the reviewers are husbands and writers gives them an extra nice dynamic. I like how they are respectful toward a female-centric genre, take it seriously, and are willing to try new subgenres.
Yes, I enjoy the dynamic of queer romances too, not just MM, for this reason. There’s the emotional component like you mentioned, of course, but also the sexual dynamic. I forget who said, “The problem with straight sex is the woman is always the bottom,” but I think that sums up a lot of the prescribed dynamic problems/conflicts in both literature and reality. Historically, PIV for opposite-sex couples is just a given. Even today anything else is culturally considered “foreplay” or “fetish” behavior rather than “real sex.” Whereas same-sex relationships always required more communication and adaptability due to the anatomical sameness. As Quentin Crisp once said (paraphrase from memory), “When a man and a woman want to have sex, they just hop into bed and do it. But when two men want to have sex, they must first have a board meeting at the kitchen table to discuss who is going to be doing what to whom.”
Add the fact that same-sex relationships have a historical taboo, you already have two (or more) people who aren’t following the rules anyway. So why not shake things up? Who says there can’t be an open relationship? Who says same-sex activity has to include penetration? Etc. According to a number of gays, these are parameters by and for straight people, not them. I know there were some gay men who were furious about the idea of same-sex marriage becoming legal on the grounds it was mimicking heterosexuality or attempting to domesticate and shoehorn homosexuals into heteronormative narratives. Certainly not a majority opinion considering gay marriage eventually became legal- and a number of gay monogamous couples did want to be legally married- but I think it goes to show some of the differences between how some gay people actually think versus what straight people think they think. And, of course, everyone is an individual, so there’s that…
I like the Big Gay Fiction Podcast :)
And there is a lot more willingness to explore gender issues and different sexualities in queer romance than in m/f. The Jay Hogan book I just reviewed is a case in point; we’ve got an MC who identifies as gay but when it comes to gender is much less inclined to label and who wears skirts and heels as well as jeans and boots. Over at AudioGals, we recently had a short discussion (Carrie will recall this) about asexual and demisexual characters – I could think immediately of a handful of m/m books featuring those sexual identities, but no m/f ones. They must exist, but they’re probably not mainstream and I don’t know of them.
I see m/m authors being more open to exploring other sexual orientations, demisexual and asexual, and bisexual, especially in secondary characters. It’s rare to see any exploration of that in books where the main romance is m/f. One I did read this year was Jackie Lau’s bisexual main character in Ice Cream Lover,and there it was a very minor part.
That’s a good point about exploring different sexualities in queer romance vs m/f. There is only one m/f example I can think of that features a hero who isn’t heterosexual, and that’s the Harlequin Special Edition title In Service of Love by Laurel Greer. The hero is a bisexual man who has a daughter and whose husband died. There’s also a plot involving training a service dog. I haven’t read it, but I have it on my never-ending TBR list because of the interesting premise.
I think one of the reasons you don’t see as much experimentation in m/f stories is because of reader expectations. The product description of In Service of Love never makes it clear that the hero is bisexual or was married to a man. Was that an effort to not segregate the character from other heroes in the product line, or was it a sneaky move to prevent potential readers from saying “skip” at the mention of bisexuality? I know one Goodreads reviewer was angry, thought of the lack of disclosure as a bait and switch. Personally, I think it would have been a good idea to mention in the product description that the hero is recovering from losing his husband. Otherwise, how can readers interested in queer characters find the story? And how can readers like that one annoyed woman (who I noticed probably had religious objections based on her big catalog of Love Inspired Suspense titles) avoid the feeling of a bait and switch?
As for asexual characters, the only example I can think of is the FFM Carina Press title Writing Her In by Holley Trent. Again, a book I haven’t read, but I heard one of the heroines is possibly on the asexual spectrum with homosexual leanings.
“we’ve got an MC who identifies as gay but when it comes to gender is much less inclined to label and who wears skirts and heels as well as jeans and boots.”
Sounds like Eddie Izzard! :) Jokes aside, I think it’s great there are stories willing to explore queerness as a feeling or activity as opposed to a set-in-stone orientation from birth. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think of sexual orientation as a choice, but I also think being too rigid about the idea of an immutable identity closes off the possibility of fluidity. It’s actually only recently in history that homosexual relationships have been thought of something one is versus something one does. So, I’m glad to see there are at least some romance authors willing to explore characters who eschew or are skeptical of official labels, just as there are those who declare without question they are gay, straight, bi, or whatever. The more books and perspectives, the better!
I read WRITING HER IN a couple of years ago and, iirc, the hero’s wife loved him but was completely uninterested in sex with him. She was raised in a very strict religious home and it wasn’t until she met the heroine that she realized her lack of sexual enthusiasm was because her sexual orientation was lesbian. I thought Trent did a good job of making it plausible that a woman might not be aware of her interest in women until a situation literally threw the fact in front of her.
Ah, thanks for the clarification. The product description probably didn’t want to spoil the “twist.” Some of the reviews I read gave wildly different interpretations of the heroine’s orientation.
Check out Butterfly Tattoo by Deidre Knight, published in 2009. And for an ace MC, an Alex Beecroft book in the Trowchester series, I think maybe it was Blue Steel Chain. It has been a long time since I read it.
I haven’t heard of that one. Thanks for the rec!
This is so interesting to me. I really like learning and considering.
Bringing my issues here made me so much more aware of what m/m is, how gays feel about it, and yes power play and assigned roles, that and more fluidity of roles, all true.
Authors who write outstanding fluidity are Racheline Maltese and Erin McRae – Art of Three is a stunning excellent book!
I love both your recommendations.
I do remember that Harlequin title; I think I looked it up and noticed the absence of that particular piece of information (the blurb just says he’s a widower). I’m sure you’re right about reader expectations.
Nan great points! Thx for all those thoughts – I do not mean it as criticism, I just try to understand. The blog of Fessenden adds a lot of nuance.
yes, I would be super interested in successful open relationship books, or other versions of their own way, I love it when people find what truly fits them, makes them happy and loving/loved, and the rocky road to getting there is a large part of the appeal of romance.
“I do not mean it as criticism, I just try to understand.”
Oh, don’t worry. I didn’t interpret anything you said as criticism but critical thought. :)
“yes, I would be super interested in successful open relationship books, or other versions of their own way.”
I think you might have a little more luck in erotica than romance when it comes to open relationship stories. Overall, I don’t think the mainstream romance readership is ready for or interested in open relationships. Maybe publishers think it comes into direct conflict with the HEA/HFN requirement. But you never know! It hasn’t been that long since queer characters could star in official romances, and HEAs didn’t have to include marriage. In fact, I think one of the Cat Sebastian books has the opposite-sex characters living apart at the end, but they are together as a committed couple regardless. That’s rare though.
Carina Press has a few ménage/polyamorous titles in their catalog. Their newest one, This is Not the End by Sidney Bell, focuses on a married couple who bring the husband’s best friend into the relationship. Maybe not exactly “open relationship,” but probably on that order. It’s coming January 11th, might be interesting.
As for erotica, there is a niche called “swingers” where spouses/significant others switch partners or have a sex party together, which can fall under the umbrella of “open relationships.” This differs from other niches where the partners are cheating on each other either behind someone’s back or in front of them as a humiliation tactic. But again, these swinger stories tend to focus more on the “naughtiness” of sharing partners or the explicit orgiastic scenes rather than the possible romantic aspects of such an arrangement- at least from my limited research into the subgenre. I’m sure there are exceptions.
Totally!
I share this bias too. I have always been interested in women’s stories–like you, my education was primarily bolstered by those of men. M/M doesn’t appeal to me because, in romance especially, I like the female voice. I did just finish Tana French’s latest, The Searcher, and really enjoyed its male protagonist. But, after the titular lead, the next other significant character is female and that made the book even better for me.
I remember a million years ago when I worked in a bookstore a teacher came in looking for a book for her junior high or high school class and wanted to discuss choices. One she was considering had a female protagonist and one of her main concerns was whether the “boys” would object to it. To give her credit she eventually decided they could “suck it up” (that’s a paraphrase) this once and I had to politely say “yeah like the girls have been doing since K-12”.
I feel lucky I raised my sons in an era where female protagonists were part of their beloved reading–Lyra Silvertongue, Angharad “Harry” Crewe, Beatrice Prior, Meggie (from Inkheart) and so many others.