Jules Jones

Janet at the romance blog Dear Author has posted an excellent essay discussing the three main strands that go into a reader's reactions to a book (correctness, style and taste), noting that only one of these is objective, and considering how that can lead to misunderstandings in online discussions.

The subject is something I've often seen discussed in fanfic circles, which has a whole critical vocabulary to indicate stories/books which have a high score on one aspect but a low score on another. But this is one of the best single-post discussions of the subject that I can remember seeing, and while it's written from a romance reader's perspective, it does not rely on prior knowledge of any particular fiction genre or fandom in-group knowledge. The comment thread has some good discussion as well. If you're interested in meta, you may well find this an interesting read regardless of your preferred genre.

This week we have had not one but two romance blogs start talking about why there is so little f/f romance about. And in both cases, the usual thing has come up with some people claiming that the only conceivable reason why straight women won't read f/f is because they are terrified that they will like it and this will make them lesbians. Even after other women have posted to the thread that it's because guys turn them on and women don't, and thus f/f is *boring* if they're only reading it for the porn. Not repellent. Boring.

This... is annoying me. Because I'm one of the women who finds f/f boring if I'm only reading it for the porn. I'm Kinsey 0. I don't find women's bodies disgusting. I just don't find them a turn-on. So many books, so little time, and why would I want to waste time reading about women slapping their bits together when I could be spending it reading about men doing likewise?

And the theory that bi and lesbian women liking m/m is proof that we've all internalised hatred of women's bodies doesn't wash either. There are *other* reasons for women to find m/m more interesting to read than f/f, regardless of their personal sexual orientation, and for some it's all about the hurt/comfort and emo!porn. Women are allowed to express love and fear and other squidgy emotions, and men aren't. So it's fun to watch them being forced to open up and deal with those emotions. For many readers that's part of the point of the romance genre in the first place. M/m gives you double the man-angst for your money, while f/f gives you none. I'll point here at my Girls who like boys who do boys essay and its comment thread for a more detailed discussion of this and other reasons for the appeal of m/m.

Which isn't to say that I don't read f/f stories. I do. I've read some superb f/f fanfic, and published some of it in my zine series.[*] But what I'm reading there is generally not PlotWhatPlot. A lot of commercial f/f is PWP, or at least doesn't have any other story elements that are sufficiently interesting to me personally to make up for my lack of interest in the sex scenes. This isn't just because it's f/f -- I react the same way to m/f contemporary romance. I generally don't read either unless I have specific recommendations from people I trust, because prior experience suggests that it is far more likely to be a boring waste of my time or an active wallbanger than something I'll really enjoy.

Yes, some women do indeed read m/m but steer clear of f/f because they're homophobic, or because of internalised misogynism. But sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and a liking for real phalluses is just a liking for cock.


[*] I'm not linking to examples because the very thing that makes them good reads for me means that they may not work for people not familiar with the fandom.

ETA: I'm using "porn" here in the fanfic/sf fannish sense, which doesn't have the derogatory connotations that it does in romance fandom. Given last week's explosions in the romance blogsphere about the word, I thought I'd better clarify.