Diversity in YA

[oyceter]

The links in question:

• Authors Say Agents Try to "Straighten" Gay* Characters in YA
  
• Guest blogger Joanna Stampfel-Volpe responds to a recent PW article on LGBTQ YA
  
• Malinda Lo's statistics on LGBTQA YA published in the US

Disclaimer: Rachel Manija Brown is a close friend of mine.


I am not an agent, editor, book publisher, or author. I'm a reader who sometimes—less often than I'd like of late—writes up what she reads on her blog. And honestly, I think the point of the first post about the lack of LGBTQA YA isn't that there are evil homophobic people out there, but that systemic inequalities are easily perpetuated.

The sentence that caught my attention most in Joanna Stampfel-Volpe's response was: "Changing this starts with the readers. Scott Tracy has a great post about this on his blog. If more people buy books with these elements, then publishers will want to publish more of them. Sounds simple... yet, it's not so simple."

As a reader, I'd like to agree that it isn't so simple. And, in fact, pinning the start of the change on readers vastly oversimplifies things. I don't think there's ever single start to overturning systemic oppression. The change needs to start everywhere, or else you get stuck in an endless loop of chicken-or-egg: "As a reader, I try to support diversity in YA, but it's kind of hard to when there are only [x] number of books out!"

My experience as a reader is that it is pretty damn hard to find books starring characters with diverse sexual orientations, race, levels of ability, and class out there. I've actually had a bit more luck in YA with regard to race than I have with SF/F and romance, but if you're like me and you love SF/F, it feels like the choice is to either read about POC teens in YA in contemporary settings, or white people doing white people things in YA SF/F. Ditto with LGBTQA characters. You can read about them in contemporary settings, but if you're looking for genre, good luck! POC LGBTQA characters? In YA SF/F? Watch the numbers drop even further.

BUT.

As a reader, I also don't think the way to start change is to make publishers publish more, or agents buy more, or authors write more. Or for readers to buy more/read more/blog about more. I think the way to start change is all of the above. And all the above actions are not actions that run in sequence, but rather, actions that run in parallel. I can blog about LGBTQA books, make lists, buy the books, and suggest to various local libraries that they should buy the books (all of which I have done). Publishers can put out a ton of books. Agents can try and represent. But if you only have one portion of the equation working, the entire thing falls apart.

Again, my experience with this is more in finding POC characters in YA and/or SF/F. And it is hard. I subscribe to a number of blogs that focus on POC in YA, on international SF/F, on POC in SF/F (books and otherwise), as well as reader groups who make it a point to find these books and talk about them. Even with all this support, it feels like uphill work. When I asked my local librarian for more YA with POC protagonists, I began to realize how limited that sphere was when I had either read or heard of almost every single book she pulled out, and not only that, but that I knew of upcoming YA with POC protagonists before she did.

Furthermore, most books tend to only deal with a single underprivileged identity at a time, a character at a time. It's hard enough finding YA with LGBTQA protagonists, but it's even harder finding YA with someone who is bi, poly, mentally ill, and lives outside of the US. Within YA with Asian protagonists alone (not a huge number of books), how much more difficult is it to find narratives that don't come from East Asian hyphenated families from a very specific set of economic circumstances?

I put this out there not as a way of giving out cookies to individuals who do look for diversity in their reading, but to say that the main point I got from Rachel and Sherwood's article was that the system sucks. And that the most important part of the post isn't even that, it's the part beginning "What You Can Do":

If You're An Editor: Some agents are turning down manuscripts or requesting rewrites because they think that the identities of the characters will make the book unsalable. [...] If you are open to novels featuring LGBTQ protagonists or major characters, you can help by saying so explicitly. [...] If you are interested in YA fantasy/sf with protagonists who are disabled, or aren't white, or otherwise don’t fit the usual mold, please explicitly say so. General statements of being pro-diversity don’t seem to get the point across. We ask you to issue a clear, unmistakable statement that you would like to see books with protagonists or major characters who are LGBTQ, people of color, disabled, or any combination of the above.

If You're An Agent: If you are open to manuscripts with major or main LGBTQ characters, please explicitly say so in your listings and websites. Just as with editors, simply saying "we appreciate diversity" could mean anything. [...] For instance: "I would love to see books whose characters are diverse in all or any respects, including but not limited to gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religion, disability, and national origin."

If You're A Reader: Please vote with your pocketbooks and blogs by buying, reading, reviewing, and asking libraries to buy existing YA fantasy/sf with LGBTQ protagonists or major characters. [...] Your reviews don't have to be positive; any publicity is good publicity. [...] [annotated lists of books provided in the original post]

If You're A Writer: If you have had a manuscript rejected because of the identity of the characters, or had an agent or editor request that you alter the identity of a character, please tell your story. Comment here, or leave a link to your own blog post. If you would prefer to use a pseudonym, feel free to do so; see this post for more information on Genreville's pseudonymous comments policy and credibility verification option.

If You're Anyone At All: Please link to this article. (If you link on Twitter, please use the #YesGayYA hashtag.)

Full article

I want more diversity in my reading. I want to see all the ANDs and the intersections that go into identity, how it's never as easy as picking "I am female" or "I am Chinese" or "I have depression." And we're never going to get it unless everyone starts somewhere.


* I like Robin Talley's It's More Complicated Than #YesGayYA note on terminology, especially given Lo's pie chart on the gender divide in LGBTQA YA.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Thanks for posting about this. This has been making feel slightly crazy all day, and I think the reason is because every reason the agent came up with in her defense for why the gay POV (and gay romance) just had to be taken out for "story reasons" and "MG market reasons" seemed, to me, to boil down to the same old institutional justifications for homophobic *actions*. Because the action, whatever the intention, was to remove the gay. So basically, I don't think that the agent's rebuttal really *contradicts* what Rachel and Sherwood said happened as much as she thinks it does. She said, "Take out the gay FOR THESE REASONS THAT HAVE NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH HOMOPHOBIC CONCERNS ABOUT PUBLISHING OH NO," and they heard, "Take out the gay." Remarkably similar.

And that's even before the questionable idea that middle grade means you can have no romance at all (did she ask them to remove all reference to the other characters' heterosexuality?). Admittedly, I don't read too much MG these days, so maybe the rule is absolutely no hint whatsoever of any budding sexuality, but somehow I doubt it. Kids are still reading The Secret Garden, aren't they?

As to your point, more directly: YES. Though, overall, given the realities of publishing and the marketing juggernaut, books that aren't pushed don't (usually) get popular. So the lion's share of responsibility rests on the major players in the industry (agents, publishers), not the consumers. Everyone needs to try, but when I see publishers and agents try to deal with this issue by fobbing it off on readers I start to gnash my teeth. It's like "environmentalists" who tell you that to save the earth all you have to do is ride a bicycle. Sure, that will help, but let's regulate Monsanto too.

[Sorry for the long post, this is Alaya. I don't have a DW account.]

[oyceter]

GAH yes. I especially hate "market reasons" and "story reasons" because it is so nebulous and difficult to pin down, much like how there are a billion and one reasons why "I only have one black friend." In the end, I kind of don't care about the reason. Mostly I care about what you're [general you, not you-you] doing about it and what the track record is.

[also, hi!! let me know if you want an invite!]

[(Anonymous)]

One thing pointed out by an agent friend of mine is that it's all well and good for publishers to say they'd like to see more queer YA titles from agents, but at the end of the day, money talks. Agents don't buy, they sell, and they only make money if and when they manage to sell the books in question to publishers. And if time and time again (as has been her experience, and the experience of agent friends of hers) agents present books with queer protagonists, or heavy queer representation, and these publishers who *talk* about wanting more queer titles find some reason not to buy... well, after a while they start to get the picture. And if they're any good, they start to learn what they've got a good chance of selling (for enough money to make it worth their while), and what, ultimately, is likely to get a whole lot of 'Oh, I wish I could buy that, but I just can't right now.'

Just like they learn that this editor won't buy anything with animal abuse or that editor is sick to death of dystopian YA or this other house never makes an offer on historicals set in the US, they learn who will and will not put up or shut up when it comes to queer YA. Or queer YA that isn't absolutely stellar. Or [fill in your condition here]. So when they look at a queer YA project that (as is their *job*) they pretty much know is unlikely to sell for any decent amount of money, but still has a core plot/world/set of characters that could be much more salable if the queer element was removed - and in their opinion, could be removed without disturbing the story too much - should they keep their mouths shut? Should they just pass and wish the authors luck? Or should they let their prospective clients know that if they're willing to change certain aspects of the story, it would dramatically increase the salability and therefore be worth the agent's time to represent?

I honestly don't know the answer to that. But I do know that it's unlikely there's a whole bunch of agents out there who could earn their keep selling more queer YA, but who have decided not to because of ... IDK, homophobia? Being set in their ways? I'm sure that's a factor for some, but like I said, the only way they make money is when Publishers spend it, and at the end of the day, they can only take on so many low-return projects. Yes, I'm sure there's a vicious cycle part of it, publishers don't buy so agents learn not to offer, so publishers buy even fewer

Agents obviously take some responsibility, and obviously, there are agents out there who have personal issues with queer lit, but to paraphrase this agent friend of mine (who is as queer friendly as they come, and has managed to sell a number of queer-led titles), this is a business, not a charity. And since the only way she makes money (after a sometimes *very* lengthy upfront investment of time and effort for zero paycheck) is when a publisher chooses to buy something, it is that publisher track record of not what they *say* they want in this blog post or that article (to a chorus of yes, isn't that lovely and righteous that you want to see more queer YA), but what they actually put down cold hard cash for that most influences which projects and authors she takes on, and which she has to pass on.

And from what she's told me, there's sometimes a pretty big gulf between what publishers say or tweet or blog about what they want to see more of, and what they actually end up cutting checks for. Which is not to say it might not be better for society if more agents were willing to work a long time for free to push more projects that their lived experience has told them will most likely never net them a reasonable payout. But the publishers are the ones who hold the purse strings, and if they start buying more often (and bigger, and promoting more, etc) the queer titles that they say they want, you can be sure that most reasonable agents will start snapping up more queer YA titles to send their way.

Great reasoned response!

[(Anonymous)]

I love this comment, and couldn't agree with you more.

I am a queer woman and I was an agent for three years. When I was an agent, I repped books with LGBT themes and characters. The one thing I had to keep trying to teach clients was that they needed to stop saying "This is a gay YA." or "This is a queer urban fantasy." (Or really, ghettoizing their books in any way that detracted from the actual STORY. I had a woman once get vehemently angry when I suggested she stop calling her book "a Native American novel" and just call it "a novel". Because, ya know, that's what it IS.)

In reality, books don't have a sexual orientation - they have plots. And your book isn't gay - it's a YA with LGBT themes or characters.

Believe it or not, framing your book in the right way accomplishes two things. One.) Agents and editors become much more receptive to them, and Two.) - and this one applies particularly to adult fiction - Your book is much less likely to get shelved in the dreaded "gay section" of any bookstore, where it will be segregated from the vast majority of your readers, readers who are over in the YA or fiction or mystery section looking for a good story.

In the end, it comes down to the story: is it compelling? Will it make people buy books? Will it make people love it so much they will talk about it online? Can I sell a sequel? Will I make my numbers? This is what editors are worrying about.

Thanks for contributing to the discussion. Cheers!

Best,

Colleen Lindsay

Re: Great reasoned response!

[oyceter]

Or really, ghettoizing their books in any way that detracted from the actual STORY.

I think this is a much more complicated issue, because to some of us with non-privileged identities, categorization as "Asian book" does help make it easier to find stuff with Asian protagonists. On the other, I feel it's less the clients and more the market that does the ghettoizing; clients probably wouldn't be as inclined to put their book in a category if they thought they wouldn't get highest visibility that way. I talk about how the responsibility isn't just on readers, and it's not, but looking at bestseller lists and what most of my friends talk about, books with white protagonists get discussed more because even when a book isn't marketed as "Native American" or "LGBT," people see it as such.

Maybe in an ideal world, it all comes down to the story, but in the end, having things like POC on book covers matters, which is why so many covers end up getting whitewashed. And although editors may be consciously only thinking about the story, we live in a society where there are underprivileged identities, and that does influence how people think about a story with an underprivileged protagonist, and it matters. I don't think that many people go about discriminating consciously, but because these things are structural, social oppressions, it's not as easy as just saying "The story is good!" Societal values influence what we think of as "good."

[oyceter]

So when they look at a queer YA project that (as is their *job*) they pretty much know is unlikely to sell for any decent amount of money, but still has a core plot/world/set of characters that could be much more salable if the queer element was removed - and in their opinion, could be removed without disturbing the story too much - should they keep their mouths shut? Should they just pass and wish the authors luck? Or should they let their prospective clients know that if they're willing to change certain aspects of the story, it would dramatically increase the salability and therefore be worth the agent's time to represent?

I don't know the answer to that either, and I suspect it differs with different people and circumstances. But that's also why I think the solution isn't to just say it's one party who needs to change, but rather, everyone. Frex, as a reader, I have limited amounts of time and money, and sometimes the queer YA that's out there isn't to my taste or doesn't hit the mood I'm in. And I respect that, because everyone's personal circumstances are different. But on the other hand, if I also end up always not being in the mood for queer YA and somehow pass it up the majority of the time... I may have my own personal reasons for it, but the result is still that I read less queer YA. And maybe I'm ok with that if I have certain reasons (I want to support some types of queer YA and not others, who knows), and maybe I'm not. But I think all parties involved need to have that sort of dual realization that a) they can't fix everything by themselves but also b) nothing will be fixed if everyone thinks a).

And this is not to lay all the blame on agents, because I think publishers have a lot to bear (especially putting money where your mouth is), as well as consumers, but I guess more of a.... "It's big, and it's complicated, because it's structural oppression, but you have to start somewhere, and usually that place is you." (General you, not you-you.) Which is why I am actually glad that Rachel and Sherwood posted, because silence usually doesn't help, and the more people who are aware of the larger issues, hopefully the more people who do stuff. Including readers decided to vote with their pocketbooks. And readers who maybe can't vote with their pocketbooks at the moment (hi!) but can still try to read and rec and bug their libraries (if they have libraries and the librarians are amenable).

(Btw, I am totally fine with anonymous comments, especially considering how fraught this discussion can be, but would you mind signing with a pseudonym? Something like "Anon 1" works, but it's just to keep track in case several people end up commenting anonymously.)

[oyceter]

I have full sympathies as to doing your job and getting paid, as I often make that choice myself, but you don't undo oppressions by doing your job and getting paid. This isn't to say that I fully blame the agent, but rather that I'm not interested in the question of blame or intent. It's great that people may have the best intentions, but in the end, if they just end up going with the flow and not risking anything, it's letting things stand as they are. And sometimes you do that and you take what comes with it, and sometimes you don't. It's every person's choice, and everyone makes their own balance. But when you have a lot of people saying "I support this personally but it doesn't sell," the effects aren't that different from "We'll only take it if you de-gay so-and-so," even if I do think the first has better intent and am a little more sympathetic for that.

In the end, like I say in my post, I care more what people do. I'm a reader and a blogger, so I mostly work from that side of it. I think many of the writers banding together sharing their own experiences are doing the same, especially in light of fear of financial reprisal. I'm not in the publishing world, so I don't know what publishers and agents are doing, but props to the people who are trying to change things. And... not blame to those who aren't, because like I said, I do things to make sure I am fed and clothed and housed too. But also just awareness that going with the system is going with the system.

[oyceter]

I don't think it's an easy balancing act either, but on the other hand, while I have a lot of individual sympathy for people struggling to figure out that balance, in the larger view, like I said, I care what they end up doing. Ditto for people who aren't in it primarily to undo oppression. I get that, but it doesn't change the effects of those actions.

And I apply this fully to myself as well: I have limited resources and often my ideas of what I have to do contradict what I think I should do. But at the end of the day, there's only so much I can console myself with intent before I start thinking I'm all talk and no real commitment.

[geekturnedvamp]

I still stand by everything I posted here, but I've gone back and deleted all my comments because something a friend said to me made me realize this isn't the right place to be having the conversation I want to have, and I can see her point now. If anyone is really curious about what I said, please email me privately and I can send a screenshot.

[oyceter]

Not a prob, and thanks for letting me know!

[gold-alarm.livejournal.com]

But I think all parties involved need to have that sort of dual realization that a) they can't fix everything by themselves but also b) nothing will be fixed if everyone thinks a).

and

"It's big, and it's complicated, because it's structural oppression, but you have to start somewhere, and usually that place is you." (General you, not you-you.)

These remarks struck me, profoundly. I love dropping in here because reading you helps me a lot in my raising-my-own-social-consciousness program, which is not indeed as programmatic as I'd like it to be, but I do seem to be moving in a forward direction along that axis nonetheless. And I've been wanting to ask you for a while: What do you think of Terry Eagleton? I single him out just because he's the only Marxist/political/etc. critic I've read.

[oyceter]

Thanks for your comment, and I'm really glad something here helps!

I... heh, actually do not know anything of Terry Eagleton, sorry!

[cofax7]

Bravo, Oyce! Great post.

[oyceter]

Thanks for reading!

[glass_icarus]

Thiiiiiiiis.

[oyceter]

^_^

[octopedingenue]

If I can have your mailing address, I have an ARC I should send you; a tween novel about a biracial Jewish-Indian-American girl that deals with her father's clinical depression. I liked it a lot!(I see NetGalley also has the ARC.)

[/off-topic!]

[oyceter]

OOOOOOOO AWESOME!!! Will ping you.

[(Anonymous)]

Hi!

This is a bit of a late comment, and you don't know me because I found you through link-hopping, but I did want to say that I very much agree with your last paragraph, particularly:

I want to see all the ANDs and the intersections that go into identity, how it's never as easy as picking "I am female" or "I am Chinese" or "I have depression."

~bookaddict88 (who has an LJ, but no dreamwidth account)

[oyceter]

Thanks for the comment!