#thinkpiece
Disclaimer: We are not in the industry at any level, though many of us are avid read of the MM romance genre since its early days.
In light of recent scandals in the MM romance genre and the toxic reputation the community has gained it’s time to talk about the all but absent professional boundary between content providers and consumers. It’s something that has been present in the genre since the beginning.
Many early authors published online for free for years, even decades. In the days of LJ communities, the line dividing fan from author was very thin. As they began to publish for pay, authors built a brand out of their personalities to draw a larger audience. These authors also did not have the benefit of agents or publishers to inform them of appropriate author behaviour online.
As a result of this early history, authors and readers now commonly interact on a friendly personal level. This solidarity is a definite selling feature of the genre. Yet that very transparency between author and reader can lead to an exploitative dynamic.
It can lead to authors publicly humiliating reviewers. It can lead to reviewers giving undeservedly low ratings. It fosters inner circles versus outer circles. It allows authors to publicly air their grievances with others in the industry. It empowers fans to attack others on their author’s behalf. Publishers, agents, and editors of the genre are complicit in this.
This is not to say an interactive relationship is inherently unethical. Most authors maintain healthy relationships with their readers. But the repetition of similar SH cases tells us that something about our community attracts this breed of predator. It is not really possible to prevent another SH as these predators are master manipulators. It is possible to change our environment to make it more difficult for the next SH, and to detect the next SH earlier at lesser cost to the future victims. The question becomes, how do we preserve the positives of our genre’s roots while inhibiting the ability of bad faith actors to manipulate and exploit?
The current state of affairs has consumer confidence at a low. Already, we see people dividing authors and reviewers into “good” and “bad” based on perceived moral virtue, informed by how they respond to the current situation. The problems with this approach are many and varied, not the least of which being further abuse and questions of sincerity. Compounding the matter is that some readers still believe in the myth that SH misrepresented themselves to be, and continue to attack others on SH’s behalf. None of this alters the root factors that allowed SH to flourish.
The community needs to change. An option is to adopt the code of conduct used by many other content providers. For an author, this means not publicly engaging with a bad review. It means not directing abuse at others in the community, and encouraging fans to do the same. This is even more important for publishers, editors, and agents, because they are also representing their company. In turn, fans need to reconsider the wisdom of attacking others to support an author. They should also understand that they are only entitled to what an author chooses to reveal. However, once that information is revealed, the author has given implicit permission for the consumer to ask further questions or discuss the subject.
MM genre’s environment of cliques was a direct contributor to the long-term exploitation SH enacted upon countless victims. Further, this environment prevented victims’ stories from being believed for far too long. Finally, it made it possible for SH to launch a near-successful counterattack against their detractors.
We have seen SH face the consequences of being dropped by their publishers and have their books refunded en masse. We have also seen readers turn against other industry professionals for their bad faith actions, and consumer confidence drop. To their credit, some of those in the wrong have worked to rectify themselves in various ways. In the end, this storm will blow over one way or another. Yet knowing that this is just another iteration in a long line of hauntingly similar stories, we acknowledge that something is broken here.
