So my question to you is:
What do you want to read about?
Talk to me, folks!

Date: Sunday, October 16thLastly, Anton Strout interviewed me recently for his FANTABULOUS new weekly podcast, The Once & Future Podcast. We talk about ComicCon, Book Country, growing up a genre reader, the publishing industry and my irrational fear of gelatinous foods. (DON'T JUDGE.) Click here to listen (or, ya know, MOCK ME).
Time: 2:30 pm to 3:30 PM
Room: 1A23
Panel: "We're No Angels: The Leading Ladies of SF/F"
Panelists: Patricia Briggs, Alison Goodman, Kim Harrison, Jeaniene Frost, Marjorie M. Liu, Sabrina Benulis and Kristen Painter. (Can you believe this line-up???)
On Being Used, the Lack of LGBTQ Characters in YA, and Why It’s Important to Work Together
by Joanna Stampfel-Volpe
It is imperative that Young Adult literature reflects the diversity of our world.
Unfortunately, that’s not always the case. Which is why conversations like #YesGayYA (on Twitter), and posts like Malinda Lo’s “How Hard Is it to Sell an LGBTQ YA Novel?” are so important. This is a topic that should be discussed, and brought to everyone’s attention. We (as peoples of the publishing industry—authors, agents, editors, booksellers, etc) should be working together to promote diversity of all kinds to readers.
Two authors this week published the article “Say Yes to Gay YA” on Publisher’s Weekly’s blog Genreville.
It describes the experience an author-writing team had with an agent who told them that he or she would offer representation if the authors would either make a gay male character straight or cut him from the book all together. Though this may have happened with previous authors and agents, this time it is completely untrue.
We had read the manuscript, and had spoken to the authors to learn more about the story. Later, when this article was posted, we discussed in-house how awful it was they'd had to go through this.
Then we got a surprising call from an agent friend who had heard that this article was supposedly about us. Initially we thought it was just an unfortunate rumor.
Then the emails started pouring in
Did we know what people were saying about us?
Why were they saying this?
This can’t be true!
Well. It isn’t true.
Let me repeat this: there is nothing in that article concerning our response to their manuscript that is true.
We spoke with the authors on speakerphone in our office, and the conversation we had with them was very different than the experience they describe.
The first bit of editorial feedback we gave was that they change the book from YA to middle grade, which would mean cutting most of the romance entirely (for both the straight and gay characters). The book included five character points-of-view (POVs). Our second bit of editorial feedback was that at least two POVs, possibly three, needed to be cut. Did one of these POVs include the gay character in question? Yes. Is it because he was gay? No. It’s because we felt there were too many POVs that didn’t contribute to the actual plot. We did not ask that any of these characters be cut from the book entirely. Let us repeat that, we did not ask that any of the characters in the book –gay or straight—be cut from the book. Also, we never asked that the authors change any LGBTQ character to a straight character.
We suggested this editorial feedback, because it’s our job, the initial step of the ongoing author/agent dynamic.
The authors felt differently, and that’s okay. It’s a business, but it’s a creative one. And it’s vitally important that an author and agent be on the same creative page. We have these conversations precisely so we can see if our vision aligns with the author’s before we offer representation. Since it didn’t in this case, we did not offer representation, though the authors of this article say we conditionally did.
Unfortunately, this rumor has reached the point where our clients and colleagues have heard from their peers that this article is supposedly about us. Above all else, our concern and responsibility is to our clients, always. And it is also to our agents.
One of our agents is being used as a springboard for these authors to gain attention for their project. She is being exploited. But even worse, by basing their entire article on untruths, these authors have exploited the topic. By doing that, they’ve chipped away at the validity of the resulting conversation.And it’s a conversation that should be had.So let’s continue this conversation, and let’s base it on the truth, which is: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.There are not enough mainstream books that depict characters of diverse race, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, and physical and/or mental disabilities.
How do we reach the readers who are looking for these types of books? And more importantly, how do we reach the readers who aren’t specifically looking for them?
We would love to start this conversation. It is one that our agency believes in and feels strongly about. Let’s discuss.
- JoannaNote from Colleen: When the PW blog post was first posted, I was asked by several people to retweet the piece help to spread the word. Because this piece was printed in PW, I felt safe in assuming that the facts of the story had been checked.
And the mixture of the people who stood on line was just as amazing. German tourists standing next to dust-covered firefighters who were using their precious free time to witness this unusual grassroots outreach, before turning around and climbing back atop the pile of rubble twelve blocks to the south. Weary Red Cross workers on their way to pick up supplies. Groups of young children with their teachers. A band of Buddhist nuns who stood and prayed outside the gallery for hours. Actors. Stock-brokers. Janitors. Chefs. Homeless men and women. All standing together to witness one another's memories.
