on the Lambda Literary Awards and the art of disappearing

[rm]

This is quite nearly one of those things I don't feel like talking about. It is not something I want to have to take a position on, nor is it something I am entirely sure of my position on. But I also don't feel like I can do what I do, live as I live, speak as I speak and believe and advocate for the things I fundamentally believe about stories if I don't comment on it.

The short summary, for those of you who may not be aware is that there's been a series of discussions/statements/shifts on what the Lambda Literary Awards are and should be, specifically whether they are designed to honor LGBT writers or LGBT books. (To my discomfort, the LLA don't include Q -- I know "queer" is a controversial reclaiming word, but there are absolutely, positively members of our community who self-identify as queer (myself included) and are, as such, more appropriately defined with a label that includes the Q).

One of the ideas most tossed around in the discussion has been this idea that gay writers are sick of seeing straight people win awards for books about their world. And one of the responses I see most tossed around is "the Lambda Literary Awards want to know what you do in your bedroom."

Can anyone see why I'm upset yet?

One of the many things that has me upset is the fact that everyone involved has some valid points. The idea of awards honoring queer authors is good. So is the idea of honoring queer stories. Meanwhile, what is and what should be the purpose of the Lambda Literary Awards?

And even if the Lambda Literary Awards were to come up with a solution similar to that of the Carl Brandon Society (which offers awards both for a work of spec fic by an author of color and for works that deal with issues of race and ethnicity regardless of author identification -- which I think is a fantastic solution that I whole-heartedly support; I just don't think it works in the case of the LGBTQ community and the rest of this post is about why), we're still left with a discussion of "queer cred" that hurts, and, in fact, threatens, a lot of people, especially people who are bi, genderqueer, and/or trans.

In fact, as soon as there is a "queer litmus test," we've turned ourselves into the enemy. Searching out the queer for good reasons is still as potentially harmful as searching the queer out for the bad reasons. If we decide there's a checklist of what makes you queer, it gives anti-gay folk ammunition: it for bisexual people in heterosexual pairings creates the idea of thoughtcrime; for trans and genderqueer people it creates public rights to private bodies. That, in short, sucks.

But it also does nothing to resolve the issues of privilege within the LGBTQ community (and that's without my getting into the misogyny and racism that the LGBTQ community as a whole simply has not done enough work on addressing). Being able to be out privileges you (sometimes at costs); being closeted can allow you access to other privileges (at a cost), and each identity within the LGBTQ spectrum comes with yet more privileges and costs: we all know the degree of suspicion bisexual women are met with (there's a separate, different set of suspicions we throw onto bisexual men), and we all know the mainstream "rewards" (said loosely and bitterly) and headaches of fetishization (gay men in slash fandom; femme gay women in mainstream culture; various body types in the porn industry).

These types of issues, to some degree, plague all oppressed groups (again, see how the Carl Brandon Society has chosen to navigate the awards issue -- it looks sensible to me). But they are particularly weird in the LGBTQ community, because when I go outside and you see me, and you don't know anything about me, do I look gay? What does that mean? Am I gay because of who I fuck or who I love or because of my gender or the role I see for my body in the world? Where do the awards classify non-op trans people in same-gender relationships which some people, not having a clue, might argue are actually heterosexual in nature? What do we say about the person who has been married for ten years to someone of the opposite gender, but was married to someone of the same before that? For that matter, what about queer women who write about queer men or vice-versa? Do our bodies and creative impulses have to be in line with our sexual preferences as well? And what do we say to poly people who may have good reasons not to want to be out and take their circle of relationships with them?

How do we, as queer people, prove who we are?

That's the crux of it, really. That's always been the crux of it, with our little in jokes and code words (did the straight people get all the Wizard of Oz amusement at the end of The Rachel Maddow Show last night?) and gestures and habits that some of us don't like or engage in or even know? Who are we and what is our culture? How is that changing as we're more accepted. Are we losing things unique to a fictional, monolithic gay culture in the fight for marriage equality? I'm so struck by all the people I don't see marching in the Pride parades now like I did ten and twenty years ago, the Bears and the Leathermen, people who, despite the fact that I'm such a weird, queer, bi, lesbian, girl, man thing in my head, are the people who were my role models, who taught me about being gay and being an activist and living in this hidden place of codes between the worlds.

You people and your quaint little categories.

I think sometimes, often even, that the future of the gay rights movement largely includes our letting the boundaries blur. We don't get to be the big gay exclusionary fortress of secret coolness anymore, or whatever the fuck it is we were telling ourselves we were doing while we were just trying to stay alive.

Gay is more things than it used to be. And maybe, one day, in my lifetime even, it'll be a word that doesn't even matter, doesn't even mean anything, except to people who remember, and people who are old-fashioned, and people who see loss even in the advance of the best progress imaginable.

That's the moment we're at, and that this controversy with the Lambda Literary Awards defines: progress and loss, fear and regret, and a need to redefine community.

So what's my answer? I'm still not 100% sure, other than knowing that awards should do good things, not bad things. That's sort of the point. Awards = good, right?

Look, I do know this: stories matter.

Sometimes they come to me in the middle of the night, I wake up and I know there was once a person with a name, a history, a life -- and sometimes they died a hundred years ago and sometimes they haven't been born yet, but they're so real, they're right there, like I can touch them. I write them, when I can, and grieve them often, in ways I've learned to be smart enough not to talk about.

At times that bothers me, the silence I feel obligated to that comes with storytelling. It bothers me when I write, which is one manner of inhabiting a character, and it bothers me when I act, which is another. But I've learned to live with it because stories, and the people they are about, are, in the telling, more important than me.

I'm just a translator, a medium, a canvass and a liar. Their stories matter so much that in the telling of them, all I can wish is to disappear.

And I love them so much, the people I tell into being.

Which means that when it comes to the business of awards my gut says, honor them. Not me. Not writers. Characters. Stories. Honor them.

Which is just one more way of saying, I'm gay, I'm out, I am verrrrrrrrrry queer, but you know what? I'm pretty sure the Lambda Literary Awards don't actually need to know any of that.

Comments

[halfeatenmoon.livejournal.com]

I saw this yesterday - I kind of lurk on your journal occasionally - and got up this morning to find people getting very heated about these awards all over the place. So I came back just to say thank you for such a thoughtful response to the issue.

I'm finding this debate highly frustrating and even hurtful because so much of the commentary I've seen on it has been an idea that I don't have a problem with - it's the writing and the stories that matter, not who wrote them - but expressed in language that repels me. So thank you for writing something to which I can wholeheartedly say yes.

[kokibi.livejournal.com]

Just answer this simple question.

There are other awards for GLBTQ-themed fiction.

So, why does the one award specifically created to promote writers that are not cisgendered/straight have to become one of those, too?
Why does it need to change its purpose?

You have not answered this at all. You put up a smoke screen, in terms of "queer cred", but Lambda isn't even checking anything. It's just asking for honesty (and you could still lie about it and be a complete and utter jerk).

Is it really so much to ask for to have something to promote non-straight/cisgendered writers? Seriously? Do we really have to celebrate straight, cis-gendered people everywhere?


And yes, opening this award to non-GLBTQ people will automatically cause GLBTQ people to be pushed out. It's a game of simple math: GLBTQ people are a minority. If they are as good writers as non-GLBTQ people, their chances to win are much, much smaller, naturally.

And there would the purpose of the award go. No more promotion of GLBTQ writers. Just another regular award. Yay.

Why does it need to change its purpose?

[newsbean.livejournal.com]

I think the point is that it was not explicit that this was Lamda's purpose.

Making it explicit is one thing. Making it explicit in the middle of the year? Changing what people believed to be the rules? Not cool. It causes significantly more strife when you are perceived to be actively pushing people out. Instead of defining boundaries and *then* letting people decide whether they were going to participate, Lamda explicitly excluded people who were already involved.

There are plenty of other important things being said, particularly about the bi and trans people this has the potential to alienate.

[elf]

This post has been included in a Linkspam roundup.

[karathephantom.livejournal.com]

This. Yes. Just, this.

So far I've seen "You're oppressing the straight people!" and "The LLA haven't done anything wrong/anything worth criticizing". And I don't buy into either of those positions for a minute.

There is nothing wrong with having awards just for LGBTQ authors. The LLA can go that route if it likes an be perfectly in the clear morally. It is not "keeping the straight women from writing m/m slash". It's defining its own purpose and goals. Coolness.

That said, that doesn't mean that what they've done (or rather, the way they've done it) has been wise. As someone who is completely queer but not strictly L, G, B, or T, your words regarding line-blurring and "queer litmus tests" really hit home for me. And so, I think there's a good argument for the POV that even if you support making the awards only for queer authors, that's been executed poorly.

Then comes the issue of whether or not it's wise to limit who can enter. Not about whether or not it's fair, because I don't personally find that a serious question for my consideration. But as to whether it's a good move? I don't know that I think it is. If the problem is that straight people can't write good/accurate/quality LGBTQ stories, then... They probably won't win. And if they do win, that means that they probably got something right. And if they're getting it right, then I'm all for it, and for reading it, because in my book, more good queer fiction? Is a great thing, regardless of the source.

That... was a much longer comment than I intended to leave. I guess I'll end it there. I just wanted to say thanks for falling in a nice middle between "Stop oppressing the straight people!" and "Anyone who has any issues with this is crazy!" Yeah. So, thanks.

[darthhellokitty.livejournal.com]

Wish you'd been in Seattle for Pride - there was a large, wonderful bear contingent!

This included a float with the theme of Gilligan's Island - one or two Gilligans, and at least a dozen Skippers.

[kattahj.livejournal.com]

I hadn't even heard about the Lambda awards until this morning, but I think you speak good sense. Because on one hand, I can absolutely understand the need for separate spaces, just like there are awards for black writers or female writers...

...but GLBTQ isn't like being black or female. The gray area is much bigger. And that's why, when people are dismissing protests as "straight girl privilege", I feel bothered, personally bothered, because after all these years I still can't get rid of the feeling of "how many women do I have to date to count?" I understand the desire to draw the line, but how on earth do they intend to draw it?

Also, it's said that there are other awards for straight authors - but there are other awards for queer authors too (up to and including the Nobel prize), just not for queer stories. So to me, it's primarily the stories that need the space. And yes, I can see the danger of straight people exoticizing queer people, but wouldn't a good portrayal be necessary to win the award anyway? Judging by other GLBTQ areas, I doubt the straight writers are so prolific and excellent they could drown everyone else out.

And if it's about authenticity, writing one's own experience, then that's... even harder to determine, and I don't envy the Lambdas the kettle of fish they've set brewing.

[riverrocks.livejournal.com]

I haven't been following this current dust up, but this is not the first time that the Lambda Literary Awards folks have fumbled dealing with issues of who "belongs" in the scope of their awards (or the first time that assumptions about people's sex lives have played a role in that).

I don't know what the solution is but as I read what you have to say about what's going on (and as a queer trans disabled writer/performer), I find myself wondering who all from the LGBTQIAA community will get left out this award (this time) in the name of keeping it in the community.

[lady-ganesh.livejournal.com]

Here from metafandom.


And even if the Lambda Literary Awards were to come up with a solution similar to that of the Carl Brandon Society (which offers awards both for a work of spec fic by an author of color and for works that deal with issues of race and ethnicity regardless of author identification -- which I think is a fantastic solution that I whole-heartedly support; I just don't think it works in the case of the LGBTQ community and the rest of this post is about why), we're still left with a discussion of "queer cred" that hurts, and, in fact, threatens, a lot of people, especially people who are bi, genderqueer, and/or trans.

I do wonder if the split was made to be "Best novel with GLBT content," open to everyone, and then a second award for "Best GLBTQ author," it might yet work, though. Because rather than two exclusionary categories, it'd be an overlap. Sometimes a winner might get both awards, and that would be okay. Maybe a closeted author would only get the 'content' award, etc.

But, you know, I'm always afraid I'm trying to make things easier for my non-queer self, so I don't know.

[impertinence.livejournal.com]

I don't disagree that sexual orientation and gender identity are two very complicated concepts - but the Lambda controversy seems to be about people who identify as straight being excluded from the awards. And to be honest, I don't see anything wrong with that. As members of the gay community, all of us need to be fucking careful about what we consider straight, gay, queer, cis, etc., but if someone identifies as straight then they have a whole set of privileges that people who identify as queer don't. Awards honor stories, but they also honor authors. A queer person writing about queer characters is coming from a very different place than a straight person writing about queer characters. I don't think there's anything wrong with privileging the former over the latter when it comes to an award for stories that deal with the queer experience.

[rm.livejournal.com]

but the Lambda controversy seems to be about people who identify as straight being excluded from the awards.

Which I had missed when I first wrote this, as it was written in response to concerns raised by personal friends who are trans and/or bi.

Let me tell you, when I've got room for more rage, the whiny straight people are going to hear it next.

[lexin.livejournal.com]

This is interesting...because I'm not sure where I'd fall even if the Lambda guidelines did identify 'queer' as an option, (because last time I looked at them they didn't). As someone who identifies as asexual, would I be queer enough?

I'm not straight. I'm not gay. I'm bi-romantic, but not bisexual. I'm not even unstraight enough to be allowed to attend my trade union's GLBT event. It occurs to me, you see, that if I were a writer of GLBT fiction rather than a measly fanfic writer, and lucky enough to be nominated for and award, I'd be a wankstorm waiting to happen for the LLA committee.

[isagel.livejournal.com]

I was linked here via my flist. And as a queer (that is the word I want to use to self-identify, although often in actual life I will say "bisexual", because that's something the straight people I'm around are more likely to understand) woman, I applaud everything you've said here. As someone who is not clearly gay or clearly straight, who doesn't believe in those categories as objectively real, I find it infinitely problematic that people who claim to represent this large and sprawling community that I, as a non-straight person, am a part of, should want to make these types of distinctions, should want to draw these lines. I cannot see that ending well.

To me, it is about the stories. I don't care who tells them, and I'm concerned that the Lambda people apparently do.

[monanotlisa.livejournal.com]

If we decide there's a checklist of what makes you queer, it gives anti-gay folk ammunition: it for bisexual people in heterosexual pairings it creates the idea of thoughtcrime

Oh, this resonates with me.

[kaizoku.livejournal.com]

Let me preface this by saying that I've come here after reading a lot of bullshit put out by people with straight privilege and cis privilege. I don't want to vent at you. But that is what is informing me and my understanding of the LLA decision - that we are surrounded by homophobia and transphobia even from some of the people who claim to be acting and writing in our interests.

Yes, identity can be fluid and hard to define and impossible to prove. And I've totally been on the side of the debate decrying the need for a "litmus test" and saying it's more complex than that.

But I don't see the LLA actually proposing any kind of test at all. Granted, I don't know how the nomination process works... from what I've heard informally on people's blogs, it sounds like the publisher submits the book, and I can see how problems might arise from that. But nowhere is the LLF saying "you have to prove your GLBT status to us."

Really. Nowhere.

There's no checklist. There's no bedroom investigation. There's no ticky boxes!

Yes, they are drawing lines... but they're the same kind of lines that get drawn when trans people say "this is a group for trans people." They're semi-permeable. If you don't want to be identified as XYZ, then don't come in. And if you're in the closet, do you really want your name attached to a GLBT book award (assuming you're using your actual name, anyway)?

I don't think this is about "that gay writers are sick of seeing straight people win awards for books about their world." I think it's about straight, cis writers having straight, cis privilege - in the world, in the publishing world, in fandom, on the internet, everywhere. In terms of straight female writers of M/M already having ready audience, even. It's about there only being a handful of novels with trans characters that are actually written by trans authors. And this is one small place where an organization dedicated to raising the status of openly lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people is putting the voices of LGBT writers first.

About not including "queer" writers - I agree and sympathize. I'm keeping in mind that it's a 20+ year old organization and I'm betting (though I have no idea) that their board of trustees is mostly older generation gays.

purpose

[kaizoku.livejournal.com]

Okay, I went through the web archive (http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.lambdaliterary.org/) of the LLA website and they did change their mission statement. It used to say "Our mission is to celebrate LGBT literature and provide resources for writers, readers, booksellers, publishers, and librarians – the whole literary community." Though supporting LGBT writers has definitely been a focus of theirs for a long time.

[scotchsour.livejournal.com]

One thing:
But nowhere is the LLF saying "you have to prove your GLBT status to us."

Really. Nowhere.

There's no checklist. There's no bedroom investigation. There's no ticky boxes!

With the new rules isn't submitting the book a form of ticky box LGBT status to them.

here from metafandom

[undomielregina]

I'm firmly on the "straight people shut up" side of things, but I'll admit that this post got me thinking about my relationship with the LGBTQ community again. I'm bi, and I just got married to a man. I've never felt queer enough to be comfortable in LGBTQ spaces, even when I was dating a woman. Now I feel like even though I have these experiences and identify this way, I'm not welcome at all even if the space supposedly welcomes bi people. It's bad enough having to do the "no, really, I'm still attracted to women" dance with straight people without feeling excluded from places that are supposed to welcome me. All of which means that, assuming I wrote something that qualified for the LLA, I wouldn't feel like I was qualified to enter it. That's something that bothers me, even though every time I try to articulate it, I worry that this is just my privilege showing.

Re: here from metafandom

[dunmurderin.livejournal.com]

I've never felt queer enough to be comfortable in LGBTQ spaces, even when I was dating a woman.

This isn't aimed at the Lambda Award or the LLF so much as it's just something that struck me when reading your comment in general and this bit in particular.

I think what bugs me is the idea that you or me or any other LGBTQ person should have to worry about whether we're 'queer enough' to be part of the LGBTQ community. I don't worry about being female enough to be a woman or diabetic enough to be, well, diabetic (though, if the diabetic community wants to revoke my membership, I'd happily step down...). So why the hell should I have to worry that I'm not bisexual enough to meet somebody else's standards of proper bisexuality/queerness when it should be *my* standards that matter for my self-image of myself as a bisexual person?

[kijikun.livejournal.com]

Well said.

[evewithanapple.livejournal.com]

Thank you. For expressing so clearly the things I was trying and failing to explain. I'm a bisexual woman wiith no romantic history- how many people in the queer community are going to look at me and say "Oh yeah? Prove it!" How many out bisexual women have been met with disappoinement or accusations of "posing" when they fall for men? So much of the queer identity hinges on feelings that are privy only to the person in question. I'm not sure that giving awards only to queer people- even if they are taking it on faith- is a good idea.

[imyourally.livejournal.com]

I got linked here from somewhere. What with all the linkedy link stuff surrounding this whole thing, it's hard to know where I started. I also don't know whether or not I'm able to form an opinion on the awards.

Mostly I just wanted to comment on your eloquent phrasing regarding stories and storytelling. The characters, these fictional people that start out in my head, they're real and they're important. They're a part of me, but they're also their own entities. It's impossible to explain that to people who don't experience it for themselves. I just really, really liked what you had to say.

[gavinatlas.livejournal.com]

First, I've been waiting to find a post about this that would explain to me how I feel. Thank you for this.

Second, hello! We know each other from GW. This is my semi-anonymous erotica author persona, but maybe you recognize me. I was a friend of yours, Cat's and Nikolas Eisele's. You seem incredibly busy, but if you want, you can e-mail me at GavinAtlas@sbcglobal.net, and I'll confess who I am in the event you don't know/remember.

Thank you very much again for your exquisite reasoning. Take care.

[rm.livejournal.com]

Oh my, not quite recognizing you (it's like a thing I remember not remembering or something?) but almost able to pull it to mind. Dropping you email.

[natf.livejournal.com]

A short reply from a het woman. Reading your discussion of the LGBTQ abbreviation made me think to myself, "Where to intersex people fit in that equation? Should it be LGBTQI?"

[rm.livejournal.com]

There are various versions of the abbreviation that I've seen include both A and I, but I've yet to see any standardization around them. To my mind, Q can encompass those, but I also recognize it might not be comfortable for everyone who does identify I or A. So, yes, you are right!

[electricpower.livejournal.com]

This is a fantastic post, and you've articulated a lot of the things that I wanted to say as well. Thank you!