And it's erotica of a…er…unusual kind. A beastly kind. Not for those looking for sweet m/m loving :)

Oh, very, very true. I should have mentioned that.

And it’s erotica of a…er…unusual kind. A beastly kind. Not for those looking for sweet m/m loving :)

Although this particular story is definitely more erotica than out and out romance.

My primary take away from Custom Ride was a) unbelievable in the closet guy i.e., he was prone to having sex in public places and going on “dates” with guys for someone who was trying to keep it hush hush.

And

Given that anal sex always has some element of pain, I would think a caring lover would want to be patient and that this shouldn't be viewed as a generosity.

to say (and I asked Paul to comment from his own experience, in case I had it wrong) these may not be all that unbelievable.

BUT – you are absolutely within your right to say these elements, realistic or not, didn’t work for you as romance, or failed to convince you. It’s one of the things about this genre that realism != romantic a lot of the time.

I can’t say if it worked for me, as I haven’t read the story. I’ve read plenty of m/m and gay fiction which is undoubtedly true to life, but which left me completely cold. Sounds like that’s what happened here, and romance is about carrying the reader away. It’s not a documentary.

@Paul Bens what are you guys trying to convince me of? I didn't find the story romantic or believable within my metrics. If it worked for you based on your differing experiences, great, but it didn't for me.

=-) Not trying to convince. Didn’t mean it to come off that way. If it didn’t work for you, it didn’t. That’s ultimately the bottom line…if it doesn’t work for any particular reader it just doesn’t work them.

closeted men will do things which look absolutely insane to everyone else

Just speaking from my experience only, I find this to be true. I’m not sure why it is, but I’ve been approached in public situations (cottages, etc.) by more “straight” or closeted men than by gay men. And my ex who was deeply closeted used to cruise in public places all the time (which is one of the reasons he’s my ex).

Part of the attraction of cottaging appears to be the risk of being caught, and I have no doubt some closeted men subconsciously hope to have their secret exposed.

Again, I’ve found this to be true. Although I do think at times it isn’t necessarily about being caught as it is about some measure of surrendering control. Being closeted (from what I recall of those day…centuries ago now) for some is a very control oriented undertaking. You have to be so careful all the time so your secret doesn’t get out, that sometimes — logically or not — you have to find some way to release that control. Taking risks and cottaging I’ve found can often be about letting go of a control that can dominate your life. Also, I think cottaging is also sometimes specifically about “guaranteed no strings attached.” Living closeted, you still need that interaction and sexuality, but a long term thing isn’t possible. So, cottaging gives you a quick anonymous way to satisfy your needs, emotionally, and sexually, without engendering any long term issues that might threaten to out you. Of course, if you get busted, it creates a whole new set of problems.

Anal sex does not always hurt, I am reliably told. A little discomfort, maybe, but outright pain means you're doing it wrong.

From my experience, that pretty much sums it up.

Again, from anecdotes, that degree of consideration is often lacking, especially from casual encounters – male-male sex is often a lot harder and nastier than women like to read about.

Hmmmm…I have to think about this one. I’m guessing that can be true, but as I’m not one for rough stuff, I dunno that I have a frame of reference. If it gets harder and nastier, I really am not all that interested. From viewing pr0n, I’d say that’s accurate, but then again pr0n isn’t the best yardstick. And from the limited casual sex I’ve had, there are some really, really aggressive guys out there. SOme in a scary way. =-)

And a considerate lover isn't a given, regardless of the orientation. There are just as many straight men whose idea of foreplay is ‘Roll over, Ethel' as gay men who think ‘biff boff, I just got off' is a perfectly acceptable approach to sex.

Oh, so very true.

I will say that from reading anecdotes and true life stories, closeted men will do things which look absolutely insane to everyone else – look at George Michael, and that American senator picking up men in a public bathroom. Part of the attraction of cottaging appears to be the risk of being caught, and I have no doubt some closeted men subconsciously hope to have their secret exposed. Living in the closet is extremely stressful.

Given that anal sex always has some element of pain, I would think a caring lover would want to be patient and that this shouldn't be viewed as a generosity.

Again, from anecdotes, that degree of consideration is often lacking, especially from casual encounters – male-male sex is often a lot harder and nastier than women like to read about. And a considerate lover isn’t a given, regardless of the orientation. There are just as many straight men whose idea of foreplay is ‘Roll over, Ethel’ as gay men who think ‘biff boff, I just got off’ is a perfectly acceptable approach to sex. So I wouldn’t, personally, have thought that being noted by a man used to casual sex as being odd.

(Anal sex does not always hurt, I am reliably told. A little discomfort, maybe, but outright pain means you’re doing it wrong.)

There are lot of short, romantic stories available (which I have to say, don’t usually work that well for me either – short story writing is an art and romance particularly unsuited to the form). You might do better aiming for novella or novel length, which, as it does in K A Mitchell’s case, gives the author room to develop the relationship and tenderness. If you really want to go for short stories, I could suggest some excellent ones in anthologies etc, but I think they’re all print, and I believe you don’t like anthologies much anyway?

I do hope you persist. There’s some excellent work in the m/m genre, and some truly talented writers. K A Mitchell is one of them.

@K.A. Mitchell:

Seconding what Jane said. Your gracious response is very heartening, and I’m sure this mature attitude is one reason you continue to improve, and so much, as a writer.

I thought the dialogue was excellent and that it might be a situation where short stories just aren’t for me which is why we are changing the format of the liveblog to more of a book club discussion for next week.

I don’t have a problem with anal sex, but I found my friends’ comments pretty interesting. There was a part early in the book where Ryan has just been topped by Jeff and Ryan thinks to himself that Jeff is being so patient with Ryan and that it was really generous of Jeff to do that. Given that anal sex always has some element of pain, I would think a caring lover would want to be patient and that this shouldn’t be viewed as a generosity. I think that combined with the fact that I didn’t see much tenderness in the story made me view the story as not very romantic.

But again, I think that this was alot in part due to the length of the story and not necessarily tropes of the m/m genre but I could be wrong. I’m still interested in reading in the m/m genre and I know my friends were too.

As a writer, I love hearing what other people have to say about my work. Writing is a lonely occupation, but you really want to share what you create. I’ve always loved reading and discussing books in live time with many of my friends. Everyone brings a different perspective to the work. It’s really fascinating when people are sharing their perspectives on mine.

Thanks again for reading and commenting on my work. I also appreciate the time you’re taking to include the m/m genre. It can only mean more good books for me to enjoy and a bigger market for me to share my stories in.

Why I’m interested is that I recently did a poll about m/m reader habits (which is still open if anyone wants to share their opinion) and it gave substance to my impression that over two thirds of readers of m/m do not read het of any kind. Of those het readers, about half said they read as much m/m as het, and the others either only occasionally read m/m or did so very rarely.

That indicates to me that there’s a large untapped audience out there for m/m, and what I’d like to know is – what’s deterring them from giving it a go? Is it the ‘anal sex, euww’ factor? Is it the tropes of the genre? Is it that gay sex and romance strikes them as inherently nasty and immoral (which I immediately discount as a reason for you and most readers here, who are very open-minded, liberal crowd)? Have we as m/m writers lost the plot and are we creating stories which are only unusual because of the gay aspect, and which, stripped of that, are silly and uninteresting?

I’d really like to know what you personally think, and what other readers here think.

I’m assuming that since you used that word, with a strikeout, with the anon (*especially* with the anon), you are very familiar with the discussions that have taken place around the connotations of that word *in the context of a book title* at various blogs. And that someone who was familiar with those discussions, who had read Jane’s comments on Karen Scott’s blog, could only be using it as a goad of some sort. And if it’s a goad, why should she give the rest of the comment serious consideration, since the goad sets a definite tone, placing the rest of the comment in suspect territory, as well. Unless, you know, your entire point is to find yet one more reason to dismiss anyone who might not follow the TP line on cocksucker. In which case, have at it. I suspect any response at this point would be forced into qualification.

As for the commentary beyond that point in your initial post, I can’t tell whether you are critiquing Jane’s comment or Ann Somerville’s, especially since you seem to be making a similar point as Somerville — at least about the recognizability of conventions to readers familiar with a genre or sub genre. Although I also think Somerville’s point about how the outsider’s view of certain conventions can point out how silly they can look, even to the jaded insider reader, is a good one, because it addresses the myopic nature of certain genre patterns.

If your point is simply that readers familiar with a genre are also familiar with its conventions, I don’t think you’ll get any disagreement from anyone on this blog, since we’ve all made similar statements. There is a secondary question begged, though, about whether (sub)genre books are being written to a core audience, and whether/how that limits their readership. And a related question emerges around whether there is universal agreement on how those conventions are read even among “insider” readers.

Perhaps someone who reads the term in question on a regular basis in erotica, and who assumed that someone capable of reading an explicit, erotic novel that likely used the term in question more than once would be able to take the phrase as intended (in that it's slang that accurately describes behavior of those-who-are-sexually-attracted-to-men), the very quality that Jane seemed to put up as a badge that disqualified the sample readers of this book from having to understand the tropes of m/m – or even being interested that they exist.

I have no idea what you mean here. Who is Jane disqualifying and when does she say she’s not interested in the m/m tropes?

But hey, if more name calling and perjoratives makes you feel like you are making your point even clearer, have at it.

Perhaps someone who reads the term in question on a regular basis in erotica, and who assumed that someone capable of reading an explicit, erotic novel that likely used the term in question more than once would be able to take the phrase as intended (in that it’s slang that accurately describes behavior of those-who-are-sexually-attracted-to-men), the very quality that Jane seemed to put up as a badge that disqualified the sample readers of this book from having to understand the tropes of m/m – or even being interested that they exist.

I tried twice to engage in meaningful discourse over the topic at hand – namely that simply being a member of the target audience for M/M isn’t in and of itself going to familiarize you with the tropes – which is what she seemed to be implying the response to Ms. Sommerville that I initially took issue with. But at no point, either before or after the use of the terribleawfulnogoodverybad word was my point addressed. Nor was it even acknowledged that I had a point.

Instead, the (contextually accurate) use of the term – a term I was using to make a valid point – was used as an excuse for pearl clutching and *again* ignoring my point. Which is totally your perogative. You’ve got your hot buttons, fine. I don’t begrudge you that. But it seems terribly disingenuous in a review of an explicit novel with (presumably) explicit language to pretend that the use of that one word means the rest of my comments don’t exist, or that I’m *just* a troll.

The fact that you can’t see that word without reacting doesn’t mean that other people can’t use that word without the deliberate and sole intent of provoking you. I wasn’t. Believe me or don’t, that’s fine, I’m just sad one word rendered you incapable of responding to the content of my comments, both before and with its use.

Civil Disobedience is a freebie, BTW. Velvet Mafia is a free ezine.