When is a genre not a genre?

Last night, I went to Kelly's RA class again.  The genre for the week was GLBTQ (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered and Questioning) literature, and since I didn't get to have a GLBTQ week when I took RA, I thought it might be useful.  Plus, I can't deny that I wanted to hear what a room full of middle-aged women had to say about the subject.  (I was not disappointed, how about that?)

The class left me feeling pretty disgruntled, for different reasons than I would have predicted.  There were, inevitably, comments that skirted the edge of out-and-out prejudice, but mostly things were pretty respectful.  No, what really got me going was the attitude that GLBTQ literature is something removed from every other genre on the planet.  Because the more I think about it, the more and more I think that GLBTQ isn't a separate genre.  It's very easy to place it in that position--how many heteros do you think actually read gay romances, or gay mysteries, or whatever?  (One student even said that while she enjoyed her book, now that she's done with it for class, she's going to go back to reading "HER" books.  She won't be reading about gay people in the future, because well, she's not gay.  As if gay people aren't reading/watching/etc things about straight people.)  It's a nice way to make sure that people are being exposed to things other than the dreck they normally read.  But is it fair?

I think it sets up the perception that there is something different about gay people--they need their own literature, after all--and there's not.  I mean, not at all.  I know that seems like it's a point that doesn't need to be made, but it does.  I really think that the some of the attitudes in that room reeked of privilege and ignorance.  It was eye-opening; it made me realize that while we might say we're getting more tolerant, we're not.  But back to the literature question.  When the small book group I'm in read African-American Romances, the question was:  Where are these books in bookstores?  And honestly, they were in the African-American Literature section, even though the books were categorically, 100% romances.  I can honestly say that I don't expect to find romances in any section called "Literature" and so I would never have found them there.  (I adored the one I read.  It was excellent; it led me to read more books by the author.)  Why aren't they in the romance section? 

I guess I'd ask the same questions about gay romance, etc.  A gay romance is still a romance.  The main characters just happen to be gay.  I assure you, the books by Scott and Scott are no different than any other contemporary romance on the market.  Same.  I really think that those books belong in an RA unit on romance.  It sends the right message.  It's telling librarians that acquiring gay literature, in whatever form it is--genre, etc--isn't "special".  It's part of any well-rounded collection.  It doesn't need a separate section, it doesn't need to be singled out.  It just needs to be there.  (Which, my friends, it isn't.) 

What frustrated me so much about the class was that almost every single woman in it was arguing that if gay people want "gay books" in their library, they should ask for them.  Do they really think it is as simple as that?  Do they wait until people who want books in Spanish ask for them?  No, they anticipate the need.  But apparently, suburban libraries are unable to anticipate a need for any sort of book beyond the most obvious gay and lesbian titles.  I wanted to bash my head against a wall.  Furthermore, earlier in the class, every single woman in the room said they'd have no problem recommending GLBTQ books to patrons.  No, apparently the problem is that they'd rather not deal with the fight to get those books in a library.  It's their job to show people the books, but not their job to buy the books.  The argument literally went:  It's our job to give people the information they want, but it's our job!  And we don't want to risk it by putting books in the collection that might be controversial. 

What a load of bullcrap.  If it's your job to give people the books/information they want, then it's your job to make sure those books/informational items are in the library.  Point blank.

It's insidious, and it's discrimination.  Even though every single one of those women would have denied it.

Comments

[Cyn]

Can't they anticipate the many, many reasons a patron might feel uncomfortable requesting gay romances (or literature in general) if they weren't available? I mean, really.

[jmc]

Hi, Manogirl. I bounced over here from a link at The Library Diva's blog.

I'm fairly new to GLBTQ lit, having first read Hot Sauce after reading a review of it at Smart Bitches Trashy Books. Loved it. I've read a few other books since then, but am quite frustrated by the lack -- in my library and in my local bookstores. When I asked about particular titles at the library, I got a strange look (why would a woman be asking for a lovestory about two men?); when I asked at the book store, I got the same look. I end up buying e-books, which I am not fond of, or ordering online.

I don't get it. Because I'm a straight woman, I shouldn't enjoy a romance between two men because it isn't traditional? That sounds about like saying that I shouldn't enjoy AA romances because I'm not white.