Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Victoria Brownworth and the RWA of Gay

In the wake of her first Lamba Literary post branding all M/M writers as pro-rape perverts, Vicky B continues to act like an Asshat

Now she is falsely suggesting Erastes, in managing her LJ, banned VB and deleted her comment.  And leaning on that old (male imperialist) yardstick of real worth--how much money an author makes.  I (clearly) support selling a lot of books as much as the next person, but it is bugger all to do with the morality or literary worth of any given endeavour.

As Lamba Literary continues to give this ridiculous discourse a soap-box and it is consistent with the Lambda award policies.  So I continue to want nothing to do with them either.  They are fast becoming the RWA of Gay... in fact worse.

But for those of you playing at home she VB has now ticked off:
  • Dog in the Manger (1 drink): The only right way to be gay is my way
  • You're oppressing me (1 drink): I wuz censored the the wo/man (+ 1 drink for getting it wrong)
  • Hypocrisy (5 drinks): I can write male gay porn but you can't
  • Pointing at the Pornographer (1 drink): my sex is art, yours is pro-rape fetish
Have I missed any?

Oy.

See also:
Victoria Brownworth ~ Real Authentic Gay Porn Writer Strikes Back

28 comments:

M Barnette said...

Lambda has become a parody of what it once used to stand for: Excellence in fiction featuring GLBTQ positive characters.

Now they want the authors to be GLBTQ AND want to check their plumbing to make sure they're the 'right kind' of author.

They can go bugger themselves.

FYI they also bitched at Elisa Rolle for doing reviews of gay and m/m books.

Emily Veinglory: said...

Good forbid that a nice woman should read and review books. Jeez. Anyone who picks on Elisa has needs a big pile of pointy Karma to come crashing down on them.

Teddy Pig said...

Why do those clowns always pick on the nice people. Sure I am angry and bitter and would bite their head off if they said boo to me but I expect abuse.

Erastes said...

If this carries on I'll have to start paying her commission on all the extra sales I'm getting.

M Barnette said...

Victoria Brownworth seems to have removed her comment from her site.

Vicki said...

Honestly . . . I agree with a lot of what she says in her post. I both read and write M/M fiction. I am female and gay. I have not read either of the authors mentioned in the post so I can't comment on their works, however, I have read a lot of M/M fiction with definite "top" and "bottom" roles, where the main plot of the story is a straight man realizing he's gay, where there is a question of non-consent in relationships, and where the M/M dynamic is more a M/F dynamic with one character being the "feminine" character. I have real issues with some of the portrayals of gay men or lesbians for that matter.

Selah March said...

I have real issues with some of the portrayals of gay men or lesbians for that matter.

As a straight woman, I have real issues with many of the portrayals of women I see in mainstream M/F romance (and mainstream media in general), but I'm not insisting the authors are fetishizing my second-class citizenship as a woman in a male-dominated society. Partly because I understand that my reading of the material isn't the ONLY valid reading of the material (and I can always keep looking till I find books and authors to whom I can relate).

But mostly because I haven't built my identity around my victimhood, which leaves a lot more room for A) intelligent, open-minded dialogue on any given subject, and B) a sense of friggin' humor.

Emily Veinglory: said...

I am confused that I have several email notification of commenets from VB that do not appear here. So to avoid any accusation that I censored them, there they are:

QUOTE FROM VB


I had no idea that I had so much power that tthe M/M crowd has to lie about me the way the Tea Party lies about Obama. Pretty amazing stuff, actually.

This is to correct a few of the lies in the postings on this blog that is apparently dedicated solely to trashing me. (You people really need to get lives in the real world off the Internet. I appreciate all the attention, but really....)

First, the article I wrote on Lambda about some of the problems of M/M writing, which apparently none of you was actually able to read yet commented on anyway, was far from my "first posting." If you actually knew anything about real LGBT writing, as opposed to straights or lie-sexuals writing about queer lives, you'd know that I have been writing in the queer and mainstream press for decades and that I have been with Lambda since the outset two decades ago. (And when all else fails, read the masthead.)

Not that any of you ever apologizes for lying and misrepresenting on purpose, but it will help with you not having so many lies to your names. Real publishing is a small world and word gets around.

MBarnette, another one of the "just say something to hear myself speak" crowd, says: "Lambda has become a parody of what it once used to stand for: Excellence in fiction featuring GLBTQ positive characters."

Actually, Lambda has ALWAYS been a literary magazine reviewing and profiling ALL LGBT books, not just fiction. The awards have ALWAYS been for the same--ALL LGBT books. And the awards have ALWAYS been chosen by individual panels of judges. So once again--wrong, wrong, wrong.


Also, Elisa Rolle was NEVER "bitched at" (whatever that means, since you seem unable to speak in anything but epithets) for doing reviews of gay and M/M books. I defy you to NAME THE EDITOR who allegedly "bitched at" her. It never happened. Ever.And yet everyone immediately jumped on the lie and propelled it forward. Typical.

One more lie upon lie.


Also--I haven't changed any of my bio info on any of my sites. Not on my political blog, not on my Amazon author's page, not on my writer's blog.

One more lie.

My name is now and has always been Victoria. Calling me "Vicki" is the typical diminishing of women by men that has been done by sexist pigs or just Teddy Pigs from time immemorial. Where's Lee Rowan to scream about "gynphphobia"? Oh right--that's just for M/M writers, not actual lesbians or real world women.

I had to laugh at the idea that Erastes thinks she already knows her sales have gone up. In real world publishing royalty statements reflect the PAST three months and are given quarterly. But I know she worries about being kept in cream cakes, so I wish her the best.

I am sure that this post will be deleted as my other posts were because in the little clique in which you all live, real responses from real writers are verboten. You trash people and then bar them from responding (yes, I am talking to you, Erastes and Lee Rowan and Teddy Pig).

Try actually reading some gay or lesbian writers. Or meet some actual queers OFF LINE. Or walk into an actual bricks and mortar bookstore. It might be an education for you. Of course it also might vie with the legends you've created for yourselves in your own minds and among your carefully hand-picked fans.

You lie, cheat, manipulate and then when all else fails, name-call and flame, because you haven't a shred of civility or professionalism. It's appalling.


Take the lies down now and post an apology. Otherwise be known as liars and cheats. Again.Because as Teddy Pig noted,"Why do they always pick on the nice people." I am one of the nice people. And I am tired of being picked on by liars and manipulators.---Victoria Brownworth

Emily Veinglory: said...

p.s. for a blog devoted to trashing VB I sure haven't spent enough time posting about her. Note to self, must do better.

erastes said...

I'll ignore most of this diatribe and put right the erroneous facts about royalties. Running Press's royalties are SIX MONTHLY. Not all publishers are the same. Some are monthly, quarterly, some even yearly.

Victoria A Brownworth said...

Erastes: stop ignoring FACTS (not a synonym for DIATRIBE).

My point about royalties is that you couldn't POSSIBLY know that your sales had gone up in a week. Because yes, real publishers don't post royalties more often than quarterly. Thanks for proving my point and acknowledging your "mis-statement" for once--Victoria

Teddy Pig said...

"Because as Teddy Pig noted,"Why do they always pick on the nice people." I am one of the nice people. And I am tired of being picked on by liars and manipulators.---Victoria Brownworth"

No the exact opposite is the truth in your case.

elisa-rolle said...

Just to not create more misunderstanding, no one directly told me that I have not to read and review Gay Novels (or Romances). My point was, after reading Victoria Brownworth's article on LLF website, that, since she started it saying she was upset of married couples reading Lesbian pulp fiction and then continued saying that straight women writing M/M fiction are fetishizising the gay sexuality, my assumption was, for correlation, that also the straight women reading M/M fiction were fetishizising. And I didn't like that assumption.

True, no one from the LGBT world has ever said to me not to read, moreover I have various LGBT publishers (also of Gay Novels, not only M/M fiction), sending me book to review.

The same LLF website, in some occasion (2 and I can count them :-)) link my LiveJournal.

More than Victoria Brownworth's attitude, and her comment (but she said it was mean of her, so it's okay), I didn't like the attitude of some other commenters, who refused to consider my opinion since I'm, indeed, a straight woman. I had even one commenter (not on LLF website), telling me that, since I gain from the LGBT authors, I should not be there, on their website, attacking them...

First, I don't gain anything, if not some pocket money from referrals links that I use to buy other books to read and review, but the amount of 1/2 books per month I don't think it qualify for "gaining".

Second, I have never attacked anyone, LGBT or not. It's not my nature. I reply, but not attack.

Erastes said...

Dear Ms Brownworth. I can and I do. I am in close contact with my publishers and I know exactly when sales increase. Small publishers may be the sort of thing you look down your nose at, but they are able to give that information out. Obviously RPs figures aren't available until the next statement, but considering all of my books shot to the top of the gay lit branch of Amazon--which updates hourly, and I can get reports of how many books sold there monthly--I can keep very close tags on what my sales are. Sorry to disappoint.

Emily Veinglory: said...

What keeps this topic going is not this blog. Any VB post is now well of the main page. I am more than willing to roll my eyes and move on when VB is.

Emily Veinglory: said...

p.s. VB's comment ended up tagged by Blogger as spam because that happens when you post the same thing four times in a row. Posts more than two weeks old have their comments moderated, soley to blog the increasing amounts of spam I was getting.

Emily Veinglory: said...

Re: "p.s. for a blog devoted to trashing VB I sure haven't spent enough time posting about her. Note to self, must do better.


yes, everyone on this blog must do better. i suggest getting a life and finding something better to do with your time than trashing things you haven't read and people you don't know. makes for a change, as well as possibly something POSITIVE in what appears to be a wholly negative/negating life in m/m cliquesville.....victoria"

I haven't blogged about y'all in weeks and don't plan to unless something new happens. I was being sarcastic and suggesting that 3/1000 posts isn't entirely all about you. But perhaps you missed that.

Lee Rowan said...

Brownworth, are you still a steaming.. er, are you still steaming because I refused to give you chapter and verse of my sales and royalties?

What part of "none of your damned business" don't you understand?

You've got power? "Only the power of lies, Darth." You do have a certain amount of internet 'airspace' to spread your innacurate accusations, but the same is true of Flush Dimbaugh. And your fact-checking appears to be on the same level--make it up if the truth doesn't support your allegations.

I'm beginning to think you've got a crush on me, or Erastes, or both--this stalkerish obsession doesn't say anything good about you. And when you accused of us "inserting" ourselves into your conversation by refuting the lies you were publishing... well, you and Freud know why you chose that term, I certainly don't.

As for dealing with you point-by-point... Why bother? You don't accept any (verifiable) facts that don't match what's already in your head, and I don't try to have a rational discussion with someone who's got an idee fixe.

Also, I've got work to do. Don't you? Or are you trying to gain fame and fortune as a character assassin?

Emily Veinglory: said...

The botton line is VB made a lot of very negative staements about M/M. If she is surprised that writers, readers and enthusiasts of that sub-genre responded in kind... well that is very naive. Because the accusation of spreading "lies" applied more to the original articles than to any of the responses.

Lee Rowan said...

To Vicki (comment #6)

The difficulty with the 'discussion' framed by Ms B is that yes, there is a valid argument to be made in some of what she says. Some books are not all that one might wish. The problem is that in attacking all m/m written by women, the valid points get lost in the obfuscation. Some straight women are very good writers. Some gay men aren't. As for us bisexuals... I know what it is like to make love to a man. I also know what it is like to be in a same-sex partnership. And I like, equally well, stories written by Charlie Cochrane (married het mother) and Don Hardy (single gay man). The writing is what counts.

It's true that a some m/m stories have objectionable stereotypes, but a) sometimes things become stereotypes because many people do engage in particular activities (for instance, my gay beta likes to cook and his partner is a hairdresser... and that's about as far as the stereotype goes for either of them) and b) some writers are less skilled than others, and some are downright ignorant and don't want to learn anything that upsets their stereotypes.

I think the latter could use a wake-up call. But does objecting to sterotypes mean, for instance, that the drag performers in Birdcage or Priscilla, Queen of the Desert are objectionable?

I do wish you'd read one of my books (I'd be happy to send you a download of one) because the thing I like best about same-sex romance is that gender roles can be thrown aside; I like to write the same kind of 'partnership-of-equals' story that I enjoy in my own marriage--each partner having different strengths and weaknesses, but making a strong team because those factors balance. I don't write tops and bottoms because both roles strike me as dreary and confining. Some days I'm strong; some days I look to my wife for leadership. (I suspect some het women enjoy m/m because such equality is rare in mixed marriage, but that's just a guess.)

Yes, let's talk about problems and issues in portrayal of men in gay romance--but let's talk about them as issues of style and technique and not turn it into personal attacks on the writers. I don't object to a critical review of anybody's book (including my own) that states an objection and gives evidence of what the reviewer finds objectionable. The reviews in the Speak Its Name blog are typical of what I mean by that--ratings go all the way from 0 to 5 stars, and the reviewers are expected to explain why they felt a book was good or bad.

Ms. Brownworth has not done this; without reading the work of the authors she attacks, she has launched ad hominem attacks on our stories, our professional behavior, and even our sexual identities. I've spoken out against this because I don't believe in letting lies go unchallenged... and also because, after the Amazon bio that stated she writes m/m porn under a pseudonym, because I really dislike hypocrisy.

Never mind the identity of the writer: review the books you like or dislike and state what you find problematic! But at the same time... be aware that tastes differ: one reviewer found a gay male portrayal 'unconvincing' only to find the author was a gay man who didn't appreciate being told that one reader's view of 'convincing' didn't match his personal experience.

If critics would stick to the quality of the story instead of what the writer's got in hizzer undies, I think readers would benefit. Is the quality of the story what's important, or the tabloid details of the writer's personal, private life?

And, again.. Would we not be better off if we turned our energy to fighting the unconstitutional blockage of equal rights in California, rather than get into witch-hunts against people who are portraying glbt love as a thing to be celebrated?

Lee Rowan said...

To Vicki (comment #6)

The difficulty with the 'discussion' framed by Ms B is that yes, there is a valid argument to be made in some of what she says. Some books are not all that one might wish. The problem is that in attacking all m/m written by women, the valid points get lost in the obfuscation. Some straight women are very good writers. Some gay men aren't. As for us bisexuals... I know what it is like to make love to a man. I also know what it is like to be in a same-sex partnership. And I like, equally well, stories written by Charlie Cochrane (married het mother) and Don Hardy (single gay man). The writing is what counts.

It's true that a some m/m stories have objectionable stereotypes, but a) sometimes things become stereotypes because many people do engage in particular activities (for instance, my gay beta likes to cook and his partner is a hairdresser... and that's about as far as the stereotype goes for either of them) and b) some writers are less skilled than others, and some are downright ignorant and don't want to learn anything that upsets their stereotypes.

I think the latter could use a wake-up call. But does objecting to sterotypes mean, for instance, that the drag performers in Birdcage or Priscilla, Queen of the Desert are objectionable?

I do wish you'd read one of my books (I'd be happy to send you a download of one) because the thing I like best about same-sex romance is that gender roles can be thrown aside; I like to write the same kind of 'partnership-of-equals' story that I enjoy in my own marriage--each partner having different strengths and weaknesses, but making a strong team because those factors balance. I don't write tops and bottoms because both roles strike me as dreary and confining. Some days I'm strong; some days I look to my wife for leadership. (I suspect some het women enjoy m/m because such equality is rare in mixed marriage, but that's just a guess.)

Yes, let's talk about problems and issues in portrayal of men in gay romance--but let's talk about them as issues of style and technique and not turn it into personal attacks on the writers. I don't object to a critical review of anybody's book (including my own) that states an objection and gives evidence of what the reviewer finds objectionable. The reviews in the Speak Its Name blog are typical of what I mean by that--ratings go all the way from 0 to 5 stars, and the reviewers are expected to explain why they felt a book was good or bad.

Ms. Brownworth has not done this; without reading the work of the authors she attacks, she has launched ad hominem attacks on our stories, our professional behavior, and even our sexual identities. I've spoken out against this because I don't believe in letting lies go unchallenged... and also because, after the Amazon bio that stated she writes m/m porn under a pseudonym, because I really dislike hypocrisy.

Never mind the identity of the writer: review the books you like or dislike and state what you find problematic! But at the same time... be aware that tastes differ: one reviewer found a gay male portrayal 'unconvincing' only to find the author was a gay man who didn't appreciate being told that one reader's view of 'convincing' didn't match his personal experience.

If critics would stick to the quality of the story instead of what the writer's got in hizzer undies, I think readers would benefit. Is the quality of the story what's important, or the tabloid details of the writer's personal, private life?

And, again.. Would we not be better off if we turned our energy to fighting the unconstitutional blockage of equal rights in California, rather than get into witch-hunts against people who are portraying glbt love as a thing to be celebrated?

Lee Rowan said...

To Vicki (comment #6)

The difficulty with the 'discussion' framed by Ms B is that yes, there is a valid argument to be made in some of what she says. Some books are not all that one might wish. The problem is that in attacking all m/m written by women, the valid points get lost in the obfuscation. Some straight women are very good writers. Some gay men aren't. As for us bisexuals... I know what it is like to make love to a man. I also know what it is like to be in a same-sex partnership. And I like, equally well, stories written by Charlie Cochrane (married het mother) and Don Hardy (single gay man). The writing is what counts.

It's true that a some m/m stories have objectionable stereotypes, but a) sometimes things become stereotypes because many people do engage in particular activities (for instance, my gay beta likes to cook and his partner is a hairdresser... and that's about as far as the stereotype goes for either of them) and b) some writers are less skilled than others, and some are downright ignorant and don't want to learn anything that upsets their stereotypes.

I think the latter could use a wake-up call. But does objecting to sterotypes mean, for instance, that the drag performers in Birdcage or Priscilla, Queen of the Desert are objectionable?

I do wish you'd read one of my books (I'd be happy to send you a download of one) because the thing I like best about same-sex romance is that gender roles can be thrown aside; I like to write the same kind of 'partnership-of-equals' story that I enjoy in my own marriage--each partner having different strengths and weaknesses, but making a strong team because those factors balance. I don't write tops and bottoms because both roles strike me as dreary and confining. Some days I'm strong; some days I look to my wife for leadership. (I suspect some het women enjoy m/m because such equality is rare in mixed marriage, but that's just a guess.)

Yes, let's talk about problems and issues in portrayal of men in gay romance--but let's talk about them as issues of style and technique and not turn it into personal attacks on the writers. I don't object to a critical review of anybody's book (including my own) that states an objection and gives evidence of what the reviewer finds objectionable. The reviews in the Speak Its Name blog are typical of what I mean by that--ratings go all the way from 0 to 5 stars, and the reviewers are expected to explain why they felt a book was good or bad.

Ms. Brownworth has not done this; without reading the work of the authors she attacks, she has launched ad hominem attacks on our stories, our professional behavior, and even our sexual identities. I've spoken out against this because I don't believe in letting lies go unchallenged... and also because, after the Amazon bio that stated she writes m/m porn under a pseudonym, because I really dislike hypocrisy.

Never mind the identity of the writer: review the books you like or dislike and state what you find problematic! But at the same time... be aware that tastes differ: one reviewer found a gay male portrayal 'unconvincing' only to find the author was a gay man who didn't appreciate being told that one reader's view of 'convincing' didn't match his personal experience.

If critics would stick to the quality of the story instead of what the writer's got in hizzer undies, I think readers would benefit. Is the quality of the story what's important, or the tabloid details of the writer's personal, private life?

And, again.. Would we not be better off if we turned our energy to fighting the unconstitutional blockage of equal rights in California, rather than get into witch-hunts against people who are portraying glbt love as a thing to be celebrated?

Victoria A Brownworth said...

Thanks to Elisa Rolle for once again being the only person here to be honest and truthful. And yet she was immediately ignored by everyone else because the game here is attack me. Three people propelled that particular lie forward, but none of you acknowledged it when Elisa acknowledged it.

This endless attacking of me has been the focus for weeks. And if Veinglory wants to say otherwise she should look at the top of the page. Titling your blog page with my name, a little list of lies and then a link to more lies--all with my name--is not exactly NOT focusing on me.

Here's a question: If you SO support LGBT writing, why attack REAL LGBT writers all the time? That seems your sole focus. Certainly the sole focus of Lee Rowan. You are no different than the religious right you so mimic in your behavior and tactics and supreme nastiness. It's despicable homophobic behavior. Nothing less.

Here's what one gay male (actual gay man, not a lie-sexual)writer said to me yesterday about this:

"As I have said before and will say again--if their work was well-written and honest (Mary Renault, Patricia Nell Warren, etc.) I would have no problem with it. If they didn't marginalize and dismiss gay male writers, I would have no problem with them.

"If they would leave us alone, I would have no problem with them and would leave them alone and they could write their illiterate garbage all they wanted to and could pat themselves on the back all they want to. I don't care.

"But do not demean me. Do not demean my work, and that of my colleagues, and my colleagues themselves. Do not claim you speak for a community you cannot comprehend based on selling 300 copies of an e-novella. Do not insist you have a 'right' to our awards, and our readership, and our respect. You haven't earned it, you will never earn it, and you expose yourselves as homophobes on an almost daily basis."

That says it all for me. This has always been about your straight/lie-sexual oppression of gay men and disturbing representations of women. Nothing else. YOU made it personal.

There were a few other posts agreeing with me on that score here, but like all truths on this site, went ignored. Only Elisa was willing to address the lie that Barnette and Veinglory and Pig proferred in her name. Once again, good for her. Even with English not being her first language she seems able to understand the difference between fact and fiction. Perhaps you could take a lesson from her--and from the gay man quoted above. Oh and at any time feel free to address any of the points I made yesterday.---Victoria
p.s. Erastes, if you really DO want me to respond to your comments about me on your blog then you will have to unblock me. Because that is one more lie you told as you perfectly well know. Liar.

Victoria A Brownworth said...

Thanks to Elisa Rolle for once again being the only person here to be honest and truthful. And yet she was immediately ignored by everyone else because the game here is attack me. Three people propelled that particular lie forward, but none of you acknowledged it when Elisa acknowledged it.

This endless attacking of me has been the focus for weeks. And if Veinglory wants to say otherwise she should look at the top of the page. Titling your blog page with my name, a little list of lies and then a link to more lies--all with my name--is not exactly NOT focusing on me.

Here's a question: If you SO support LGBT writing, why attack REAL LGBT writers all the time? That seems your sole focus. Certainly the sole focus of Lee Rowan. You are no different than the religious right you so mimic in your behavior and tactics and supreme nastiness. It's despicable homophobic behavior. Nothing less.

Here's what one gay male (actual gay man, not a lie-sexual)writer said to me yesterday about this:

"As I have said before and will say again--if their work was well-written and honest (Mary Renault, Patricia Nell Warren, etc.) I would have no problem with it. If they didn't marginalize and dismiss gay male writers, I would have no problem with them.

"If they would leave us alone, I would have no problem with them and would leave them alone and they could write their illiterate garbage all they wanted to and could pat themselves on the back all they want to. I don't care.

"But do not demean me. Do not demean my work, and that of my colleagues, and my colleagues themselves. Do not claim you speak for a community you cannot comprehend based on selling 300 copies of an e-novella. Do not insist you have a 'right' to our awards, and our readership, and our respect. You haven't earned it, you will never earn it, and you expose yourselves as homophobes on an almost daily basis."

That says it all for me. This has always been about your straight/lie-sexual oppression of gay men and disturbing representations of women. Nothing else. YOU made it personal.

There were a few other posts agreeing with me on that score here, but like all truths on this site, went ignored. Only Elisa was willing to address the lie that Barnette and Veinglory and Pig proferred in her name. Once again, good for her. Even with English not being her first language she seems able to understand the difference between fact and fiction. Perhaps you could take a lesson from her--and from the gay man quoted above. Oh and at any time feel free to address any of the points I made yesterday.---Victoria
p.s. Erastes, if you really DO want me to respond to your comments about me on your blog then you will have to unblock me. Because that is one more lie you told as you perfectly well know. Liar.

Victoria A Brownworth said...

Thanks to Elisa Rolle for once again being the only person here to be honest and truthful. And was immediately ignored by everyone else because the game here is attack me. And of veinglory wants to say otherwise she should look at the top of the page. Titling your blog page with my name, a little list of lies and then a link to more lies is not exactly NOT focusing on me.

And here's a question: If you SO support LGBT writing, why attack REAL LGBT writers all the time? You are no different than the religious right you so mimic in your behavior and tactics.

Here's what one gay male (actual gay man, not a lie-sexual)writer said to me yesterday about this:

"As I have said before and will say again--if their work was well-written and honest (Mary Renault, Patricia Nell Warren, etc.) I would have no problem with it. If they didn't marginalize and dismiss gay male writers, I would have no problem with them.


If they would leave us alone, I would have no problem with them and would leave them alone and they could write their illiterate garbage all they wanted to and could pat themselves on the back all they want to. I don't care.


But do not demean me. Do not demean my work, and that of my colleagues, and my colleagues themselves. Do not claim you speak for a community you cannot comprehend based on selling 300 copies of an e-novella. Do not insist you have a 'right' to our awards, and our readership, and our respect. You haven't earned it, you will never earn it, and you expose yourselves as homophobes on an almost daily basis."

That says it all for me. This has always been about your straight/lie-sexual oppression of gay men and disturbing representations of women. Nothing else. YOU made it personal.There were a few other posts agreeing with me on that score here, but like all truths on this site, went ignored. Only Elisa was willing to address the lie that Barnette and Veinglory and Pig proferred in her name. Once again, good for her. Even with English not being her first language she seems able to understand the difference between fact and fiction. Perhaps you could take a lesson from her--and from the gay man quoted above.---Victoria
p.s. And Erastes, if you honestly want me to respond to your negative comments on your blog then you will have to unblock me as you know you have. Lying comes so naturally to you all. Scary. But then homophobes are frightening people.

Victoria A Brownworth said...

Thanks to Elisa Rolle for once again being the only person here to be honest and truthful. And was immediately ignored by everyone else because the game here is attack me. And of veinglory wants to say otherwise she should look at the top of the page. Titling your blog page with my name, a little list of lies and then a link to more lies is not exactly NOT focusing on me.

And here's a question: If you SO support LGBT writing, why attack REAL LGBT writers all the time? You are no different than the religious right you so mimic in your behavior and tactics.

Here's what one gay male (actual gay man, not a lie-sexual)writer said to me yesterday about this:

"As I have said before and will say again--if their work was well-written and honest (Mary Renault, Patricia Nell Warren, etc.) I would have no problem with it. If they didn't marginalize and dismiss gay male writers, I would have no problem with them.


If they would leave us alone, I would have no problem with them and would leave them alone and they could write their illiterate garbage all they wanted to and could pat themselves on the back all they want to. I don't care.


But do not demean me. Do not demean my work, and that of my colleagues, and my colleagues themselves. Do not claim you speak for a community you cannot comprehend based on selling 300 copies of an e-novella. Do not insist you have a 'right' to our awards, and our readership, and our respect. You haven't earned it, you will never earn it, and you expose yourselves as homophobes on an almost daily basis."

That says it all for me. This has always been about your straight/lie-sexual oppression of gay men and disturbing representations of women. Nothing else. YOU made it personal.There were a few other posts agreeing with me on that score here, but like all truths on this site, went ignored. Only Elisa was willing to address the lie that Barnette and Veinglory and Pig proferred in her name. Once again, good for her. Even with English not being her first language she seems able to understand the difference between fact and fiction. Perhaps you could take a lesson from her--and from the gay man quoted above.---Victoria
p.s. And Erastes, if you honestly want me to respond to your negative comments on your blog then you will have to unblock me as you know you have. Lying comes so naturally to you all. Scary. But then homophobes are frightening people.

elisa-rolle said...

Of course, I know that both Michael than TeddyPig than Emily are trying to protect me. They know that I don't like the wank feast, and only since I really felt the problem I commented on the LLF website. So I can't not honestly say thank you to them to their encouraging comments.

Cat Grant said...

I've read this thread through two or three times, and I'm still not clear on what exactly (according to Ms. Brownworth) the LGBT community finds so "demeaning" about m/m fiction. Nor do I understand how calling Ms. Brownworth on her erroneous, poorly-researched conclusions regarding m/m constitutes an attack.

If the LGBT community is indeed offended by the fact that I write m/m ficton... well, too bad. I don't need permission from a community that considers me a "lie-sexual."

If Ms. Brownworth doesn't like what I write, there's a very simple solution.

Don't read it.