Over the last decade or so, one of the fastest growing sub-genres in the romance market has been queer romance – mostly male/male romance, which is by far the largest and most popular part of that particular sector. Apart from Harlequin’s Carina Press, LGBTQ+ romance has mostly been the province of smaller independent publishers such as Riptide, Nine Star, Bold Strokes and the now-defunct Samhain, and of an ever increasing number of authors who self-publish.
This got me thinking. I’ve been with AAR since early 2013, and have been editing and inputting reviews since 2015, so I read pretty much every review we publish. Obviously, I can’t say I recall EVERY review we’ve published since 2015, but I do have a feel for the overall… balance, if you like – of the subgenres of the books we review. My gut instinct tells me that AAR has been doing a pretty good job over the past few years of reviewing queer romances, but that it wasn’t always that way, so I decided to trawl back through the last few years to see how we’re doing.
The news is good, broadly speaking. It will probably not be too much of a surprise when I say that in 2010 – according to our Power Search – we reviewed a grand total of ONE queer romance – an m/m title – out of a total of 496 reviews published of books published in 2010. (Note: the overall number of books reviewed that year was 564 – I’m just counting books published in 2010). It’s hard to find figures for the actual number of LGBTQ+ romances published that year (or any year, actually), but I’m willing to bet it was more than one!
Fast forward to 2018, and we’re doing better. Of a total of 564 reviews (of books published in 2018) 45 were of queer romances – 43 m/m and 2 f/f.
2019 – total reviews of books published in 2019 – 655 (a bumper year!), and 65 were of queer books – 58 m/m and 7 f/f
And in 2020, of a total of 565 reviews of books published in 2020, we published 79 reviews of queer books – 72 m/m and 7 f/f.
And for what it’s worth, at time of writing, 25% of our reviews published 20 far in 2021 are of queer books. (13 of 52 in total).
When you add the number of reviews for queer romances published in 2020 to the number of books we reviewed by authors of colour, AAR’s coverage of diverse romances sits at a pretty healthy 33.45%, (189 reviews of a total of 565 reviews – again these are books that were actually published in 2020) – just over one third of our reviews last year featured LGBTQ+ characters and characters of colour.
We’re pleased with how far we’ve come and are committed to continuing that upward trend. We hope you are too!
A small correction to this article–I believe that most of Hall’s Spires series was published by Riptide and Hall took back the rights after Riptide’s harassment scandal. Also, I think for a while the Spires books were self-published by him.
Yes, I think you’re right. I’ll amend.
Wow, what a great topic of discussion! I have enjoyed reading all the comments so far, agreed with quite a few, and hope to add something that isn’t too repetitive.
First, while I think it’s great that Harlequin is going to publish their first m/m category romance, I am also worried that it could mark the beginning of flattening out these m/m narratives a lot of us are currently enjoying. Think of it this way. Until recently, m/m was widely regarded as something edgy, deviant, and/or niche. As such, the genre ironically had the freedom to tap into characters, stories, and narratives that a mainstream publisher wouldn’t be willing to touch. Because if you’re an outlier, why not pull out the stops and hold nothing back? That’s not to say certain clichés didn’t emerge, but there was a kind of freedom writing and reading within a subculture as opposed to the mainstream.
But now that m/m is becoming a mainstream subgenre, there’s a real risk of major publishers whittling down m/m category romances into a corporate-approved, highly structured formula for mass consumption. It’s like how self-published author Ellen Finnigan lamented that major American publishers are in the business of producing “ideological cheeseburgers” rather than unique reading experiences.
I hope I’m terribly wrong about this and that we continue to get great stories in a variety of pairings- including more outside-the-box m/f. But if the declining quality of HR is any indication, I’m not too hopeful. It would be naïve of me to think that the overly formulaic The Vicar and the Rake was just a fluke. If anything, it might be a terrible harbinger of the future of HR m/m. *shudders*
Second, I think one of the many reasons why certain m/f subgenres have gotten so clichéd and annoying is because those formulas sell big time. I’ve always gotten the impression that the commenters at AAR tend to deviate quite a bit from the standard sales pattern of romance. I don’t mean this in a disparaging way. I just mean that for a lot of romance readers, the clichés many of us at AAR find appalling make big bucks in the mainstream. From a business perspective, our opinions don’t matter much because we make up a smaller portion of the readership than those totally satisfied by the “ideological cheeseburgers” mainstream publishers are producing. Am I onto something with this?
The book The People’s Guide to Publishing described a similar phenomenon, saying that mainstream publishers have gutted their midlist titles expected to sell only 5,000 – 10,000 copies because that’s penny-ante stuff for the Big 5. Therefore, the author argued, you’ll see more of these titles among self-published work and small presses while traditional publishers keep a narrow but mainstream focus in their content selection.
Finally, I think AAR does a great job ensuring variety in their reviews. Keep up the good work!
I don’t think that’s disparaging at all – I think it’s a fair comment. Let’s face it, when hyou read as much romance as we do and have been reading it as long as most of us have, we’re bound to get more and more discerning and look for the deviations from those standard formulae or for authors who can make them work in a different way. I’m sure we all regularly read reviews of books we think are C/D grades but which make the Big Bucks.
I am pretty sure that Harlequin category is going to be written by someone good (I’ve got Garrett Leigh in my head, but I couldn’t find the announcement to check, so I could be wrong – but it’s someone already active in the genre and a recognisable “name”.)
I read a post on Harlequin’s blog stating that Roan Parrish’s m/m book The Lights on Knockbridge Lane will be published by Harlequin Special Edition in October. It’s going to be a Christmas story. Here is the link for those interested: Q&A with Carina Press author Roan Parrish – Write for Harlequin. I don’t know whether or not it will be the first Harlequin category m/m, but it will be one of them anyway.
That might be it – I had GL and RP in my head actually, but I just finished a GL book, so she was at the forefront of my mind!
That’s absolutely true Nan. Most big romance novels are aimed at the casual reader not the voracious ones that like to post here (myself humbly included).
It’s also why Siskel and Ebert and other movie critics were/are often criticized for being out of touch with the mainstream audience and how award winners often don’t line up with public taste. In general, most audiences aren’t going to choose smaller, arty films with a lot of symbolism over large tent pole, blockbusters.
Same with romances. Think of the most original, well written romance you have ever read and wonder why it (likely) never hit the bestseller lists like “50 Shades of Grey”.
I think it’s almost inevitable that with the popularization of m/m romances things will get watered down and flattened out when they are mass produced. It’s just the way things go when they are pumped out to try and appeal to the widest possible audience.You start off with a gourmet Italian meal and end up with Chef Boyardee.
I agree. And it happens all the time, in romance, I think:
The tides in and out that stick out:
Woodiwiss and Rosemary Rogers, (and at the same time Gellis was published by one of the same imprints, with the same bodyce ripper covers). Then the HR pirates and the sheiks with harem slaves got mass appeal, and everyone wrote them. And apart from Woodiwiss being horrible when I try her today, she was writing a good story for then! And so many of those follow up books were really bland and trite. And there were gems like Judith McNaught (again, grew out of her, but great writing then).
Judith Krantz was another type of book that started a whole industry.
Suzanne Brockmann’s SEALS…
When the whole vampire thing started, it was edgy and the first trailblazer books were exceptional. Laurell K Hamilton’s first 8 or 9 books – wow. Tanya Huff – wow. Charlaine Harris first few books – wow. Then everyone got into vampires, and it go to be difficult to find good ones.
Kushiel’s Dart by Jacqueline Carey…
I am sure I am leaving out a lot of trends, those are ones were I feel I was there, so to say, and read some of the totally new, totally outstanding book(s) that started it all.
Probably m/m will be like that.
We will still find good books, and enjoy them, but we will need to have more advice like AAR to weed out the stuff that really wastes our time.
The one lovely thing in the sadness of quality loss / mid-list shrinkage is that there are options outside rigid publisher mass appeal. Publishing independently is possible, and so, I am not just losing an author because a publisher is not picking them up.
Here, I truly bless the internet & amazon!
Before that, finding books by new authors that were not already filtered through many many layers (publisher, importer, few foreign language bookshops) was near impossible. I remember traveling to US and trawling bookstores, and used bookstores, and being so grateful that at that time, US airports mostly ignored luggage weight restrictions and I could get away with super heavy suitcases full of used books to take home – and the duds I could not weed out without sites like this one … Discovering Romantic Times magazine that in all its weaknesses was still so much of a good resource to me then…
Memory lane :-)
Here’s your queer tags list!
male/male romance
Queer romance
LGBTQ+ romance
f/f romance
We don’t currently have a separate tag for trans characters – we don’t have a lot in the DB – but I can always create one if there is interest.
We also have a tag for romances with bisexual protagonists; you’d have to look at the individual stories to see if these end up m/f, f/f or menage.
OR m/m derp
As one of the site’s openly queer reviewers, this pleases me. More of this.
I wrote my first romance novel when I was in graduate school, and at the time had only three people in my life who identified as Not Straight. Those people are still in my life, but now there are a lot more. During the many years before I picked up writing again, my whole view of the world changed. (Moving from Georgia to Los Angeles helped with that.) Knowing more different kinds of people made me more interested in people.
Which may be one reason that since 2018 I have not only been writing at a fast pace, I’ve been reading subgenres I never read before. I’m writing about 60/40 M/M vs M/F and reading roughly 90/10.
Part of the reason is that from 1977-ish (when I discovered romance) to now I’ve read a lot of M/F romance. Bodice-rippers, ‘category’ romance, Signet regencies, big fat historicals, angst-ridden contemporaries, rom-coms and romantic suspense. There is always something new to discover – Joanna Bourne’s Spymaster series, for example, is new to me – but in many cases when I glance at a M/F book review I think ‘read that, moving on.’
The same doesn’t apply to M/M. I’m fascinated by the way different authors approach storylines or scenaria that I’ve seen in M/F and spin them out for M/M. When a M/M couple wants children, or if a character has experienced abuse, it’s going to play differently than in M/F. When there is a career conflict, there’s no built-in expectation about which character will compromise. There are countless very good reasons why moving to, or staying in, a small town is a giant NO for a lot of gay men. In every time period, men simply have more freedom to act than women do.
In historical settings, you’re dealing with relationships that could lead to prison or worse. It’s a conflict with no comparison in the world of M/F, because there are still a lot of places in the world where gay men are at risk of being killed in the street for no other reason than they’re gay. In the bad old days of romance, a gay character was usually the villain. So there’s considerable satisfaction in seeing these men as heroes now.
I’m a hero-focused reader (and writer). As a reader, I like to see how an author explores relationships between men. As a writer, ensuring that my male characters are not Same Guy Different Name is a joyous challenge. Playing around with conventional tropes has led me to some interesting subtext and backstory that might not have occurred to me in writing a M/F couple. Maybe because I have to wholly imagine it, and also consciously take myself – a straight woman – out of the story. And the flip side of that is that the character work I’m doing for M/M is leading to much stronger character work for my M/F stories.
Of course that’s all subjective, but everything about reading is. :-)
I only got into romance in a big way in the early-mid 2000s, but this:
but in many cases when I glance at a M/F book review I think ‘read that, moving on.’
describes many of my reactions, as well.
This is a great comment that crystallises many of the reasons I prefer m/m these days. Of course, like all genres, there is plenty of dross, and I don’t think I’ll ever understand mPreg, but what you say about dynamics and expectations makes a lot of sense.
LOL mPreg, yeah, I’m not a child-oriented person so I tend to skip anything that’s obviously About Having Babies.
I have kids, but even I draw the line at that! And I’m not a fan of m/f babylogues either.
Things have definitely come a long way. When clearing out my old email folders a while back I came across my folder for when I was reviewing for Audiogals and Speaking of Audiobooks here on AAR. In it was an email in response to my wish to review a m/m book on Audiogals. The site founders had decided not to review m/m books “at this time.” That was, I believe, 2011 or 2012. I’m not sure when they reversed that decision. Maybe Caz knows. I stopped reviewing around the time Lea left (and my life sort of blew up). :-)
I haven’t been drawn to f/f books and I’m not sure of the reasons. I need to try a few and see how they hit me.
I was aware of that (AG not reviewing m/m) but not the reason why. I have theories, but nothing concrete. Of course now, AG probably reviews a higher percentage of m/m than AAR does! But then, AG publishes fewer reviews per year, and I write a large percentage of them, so it means the proportion of m/m to m/f is much higher – I reckon about 50% of the reviews at AG are m/m these days. I confess that the only f/f book I’ve read so far is Proper English by KJ Charles – which I picked up because it was KJC, not because it was f/f.
Honestly the reasons for not reviewing m/m romances was a fear of upsetting their readers and losing readership. M/m was still a little scandalous at that time and they feared blow-back. I’m very happy things started to change.
Well, yes, that was my feeling as well. Also, I remember that the founder came from quite a conservative background and family – which is why she used a different name; she didn’t want them to know she listened to books with sex in them, and obviously had no issues publishing the reviews we wrote of books with sex in them!
Things have changed so much in just the last 10 years or so it’s really amazing. I was talking to a friend of mine last year about how much society has changed and opened up and he was saying he never could have dreamed when he was younger that he could be married to another man, live openly and happily with him and have the support he does. He had some very tragic experiences with hate when he was a young man and for him to be living the life he has now seems like a dream he never would have allowed himself to imagine when he was younger. Like the old Virginia Slims ads used to say… We’ve Come A Long Way Baby.
And that gives me comfort, that we are actually getting some big stuff right, in all that apparent horrible wrongness that we are living in the last few years.
It’s hard to believe that 10 years ago I couldn’t review an m/m book, but today we think nothing about it. Whatever the pros and cons of how the books are written and by whom and for whom, there is no denying that they are now out there and mainstream. Acceptance is there even as we debate some of the details. I’m glad the discussion has moved on from whether or not it’s “allowed” to the writers and readers and representation. At least we’re talking about the right stuff now.
Similar to how my tastes gravitated from historical romances to contemporary romances over the past five or so years, so I see my tastes moving from almost exclusively m/f pairings to about 50/50 between m/f and m/m now. In fact, for the past two years, my favorite book of the year has been an m/m romance (Rachel Reid’s HEATED RIVALRY in 2019 and N.R. Walker’s THE MISSING PIECES Trilogy in 2020). I can’t really account for the change—possibly there are simply more m/m romances available now or perhaps because in m/m romance male-female gender politics don’t come into play.
That last one is interesting. How do you see gender politics playing out differently? Because the patriarchy isn’t a thing in m/m? Or women and men have trickier minefields to navigate today? Something else?
It’s an interesting question, and I do think the gender politics issue is a valid one. I’ve gravitated from reading almost exclusively HR to reading mostly m/m romances – romantic suspense and contemporaries – and I rarely read contemporary m/f romances. I read an interesting study recently called – A Consumption of gay