Romance, Historical, Contemporary, Paranormal, Young Adult, Book reviews, industry news, and commentary from a reader's point of view

About Sunita

Sunita has been reading romances since she ran out of Cherry Ames, Student Nurse and Chalet School books and graduated to Mary Stewart and Georgette Heyer. Other old favorites include Mary Burchell, Betty Neels, Elsie Lee, and Edith Layton. Among current writers, she reads and rereads Anne Stuart, Tamara Allen, Sarah Morgan, Marion Lennox, Josh Lanyon, and Susanna Kearsley. She blogs as VacuousMinx and tweets as @sunita_p.

Posts by Sunita :

Dear Author

The Facebook Emotions Study Controversy

The emotion-manipulation study conducted by Facebook has drawn a lot of attention in the last week, much of it negative. Many DA readers are on Facebook (like so much of the online world), and many DA readers have children with Facebook accounts. Everyone is free to make up her own mind about how much it matters, but I’m a big believer in people making informed decisions, so I thought it might be helpful to have a more comprehensive post and discussion.

I’ll start by summarizing the main points. On June 2, 2014, two academics and a Facebook data scientist published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which is the flagship journal of the most prestigious scholarly society in the United States. In this journal article, they reported the results of a study which attempted to manipulate the emotional content of Facebook News Feeds. More than 600,000 users were included in the study, with some being in treatment groups (their feeds were manipulated either positively or negatively, according to the study protocol) and some in control groups (their feeds were not).

The two requirements to be included were: (1) posting in the English language; and (2) having posted in the previous week. The study took place over seven days in January 2012.

US government-funded research that involves human subjects is required to conform to the Common Rule, which protects subjects from mistreatment and stipulates that they give informed consent before they participate. Informed consent is a technical requirement that places certain burdens of explanation and disclosure on the researcher. Not all studies can provide complete information to subjects before the experiment takes place because knowledge may alter behavior in ways that invalidate the study. In these cases, sometimes termed deceptive research, investigators are permitted to mislead subjects about the true aims of the study while they are preparing them for participation and in carrying out the data collection, but the subject must be debriefed after participation, ideally directly following participation but in all cases before the data are analyzed. Consequent to this debriefing, the subject has the right to have her data removed from the study.

Studies that do not receive federal funding are not required to conform to the Common Rule, but many private and public institutions (and some companies) voluntarily choose to meet these requirements.  Versions of the Common Rule are in force in many other countries but by no means all.

The data collection and analysis for this emotion study were conducted by the Facebook data scientist. The academic authors, according to the notes provided by PNAS, limited their participation to designing the research and writing up the paper (together with the Facebook data scientist). This means that the academics were effectively siloed from the human subject part of the researchi.e., they were separated from the sources of the data and the subsequent collection and analysis. This is important because had the academics interacted directly with the subjects or their data, they would have had to submit their proposed research and their methods of obtaining informed consent to their institutions’ IRBs (Internal Review Boards). Not all academic research involving human subjects requires informed consent (there are various conditions under which consent rules can be waived), but that is the IRB’s decision to make, not the researcher’s.

Facebook, whose data scientists gathered and analyzed the data, asserts that they received informed consent from their human subjects. Their justification is that all Facebook users agree to Facebook’s terms of service conditions when they set up their accounts. These conditions currently include assent to research for internal operations purposes, but they did not include such provisions in January 2012, when the experiment was conducted, and there is no equivalent to an IRB within the company even though they conduct considerable social science research, with and without academics’ collaboration.

The bottom line: three Ph.D. social scientists conducted experimental research on Facebook users. Facebook did not obtain informed consent from the users before the research was conducted. The academic researchers designed the study (together with the Facebook data scientist) but then absented themselves until it was time to write up the paper. They submitted the project to their own IRB at Cornell University, and the IRB deemed informed consent to be unnecessary because they were not involved in data collection or analysis. Cornell University released a statement asserting:

Because the research was conducted independently by Facebook and Professor Hancock had access only to results – and not to any data at any time – Cornell University’s Institutional Review Board concluded that he was not directly engaged in human research and that no review by the Cornell Human Research Protection Program was required.

This is not the first time Facebook and academics have joined forces to manipulate user behavior for non-commercial (or not solely commercial) purposes.  In 2010 they conducted a political experiment to increase voter turnout and claimed that the manipulation resulted in up to 340,000 more votes cast. That research was approved by the academic co-author’s IRB on the grounds that “minimal risk” was involved and therefore informed consent could be waived. Minimal risk is another technical category.

If this study is another “minimal risk” study, why are so many people, including many psychologists and social scientists, so outraged at what the three researchers have published? I can’t answer for them, but here are the reasons I find the research so problematic.

  1. We can’t know if the risk was minimal or not without knowing more about the population. We know that the median substantive effects were small, but we don’t know what the distribution of effects was, or what the outliers look like. Say 1% of the distribution (of emotion effect) lies at the upper end, with more than minuscule effects. That’s more than 6000 people.  In addition, the total population of Facebook is not necessarily a “normally distributed” population, emotionally speaking. Its users definitely comprise a skewed sample of the world (and world’s English-speaking) population, and we don’t know if and/or how it’s skewed on this particular trait.
  2. There were no pretests or pilot studies reported. If there was an effort made to see what the overall effect on more than 600,000 people might be before carrying out the main experiment, it wasn’t reported. Failing to pretest is analogous to ignoring the hair-coloring manufacturer’s advice to pretest on a patch of skin before dumping it all on. Most people don’t pretest, and most people don’t have a reaction. But for the ones that do, the usefulness of the test cannot be overstated. Where the analogy breaks down, of course, is that when I color my hair, I’m responsible for following or not following the advice; the study subjects had their choice made for them.
  3. The results are not about emotion directly; they are about changes in behavior which the investigators infer is based on changes in the emotions of interest. There are any number of unrelated-to-the-study reasons (omitted variable bias for you stat types) why users might have posted more or less. To assume that changes in posting behavior reflect changes in users’ emotional states is a leap that cannot be credibly sustained without more data. Therefore, we don’t actually know how much or how little the experimental manipulation affected emotions.
  4. Facebook and other online companies run experiments all the time, but most of these experiments are not about manipulating unmediated, general states of mind. A study like the 2010 get-out-the-vote study is about politics. Other studies are about advertising. In these cases, users enter the study with prior expectations about being manipulated by politicians and companies, and they subconsciously adjust for that manipulation when they engage with the material. But we don’t get on Facebook thinking “hey, sometimes Facebook just fucks with my feelings for science,” so we don’t protect ourselves against that. We may well be more vulnerable in a general manipulation than in a specific one.
  5. Academics do research on emotions all the time. It’s an important topic for us to understand. Frequently, emotions research is deceptive research, so we can’t tell subjects exactly what we’re doing before they participate in the experiment. But we make sure they know they’re being experimented upon, and we debrief them honestly afterward. There are protocols that cover just about every kind of research social scientists conduct. Those protocols can be used for 6 people or 600,000 people. Use them.
  6. If Facebook is going to fuck with our feelings for science, especially if they’re doing it using the imprimatur of academic legitimacy, they need to follow academic rules, especially if they’re going to reap the benefits of that legitimacy (and offering academic research and publishing opportunities has been part of their pitch to social scientists). Academics work with IRBs. IRBs require informed consent. Get informed consent or don’t do the research. Even now, Facebook’s TOS specifies that their research is for “internal operations.” There is nothing internal about an open-access article in a prestigious journal.
  7. This study’s sample selection failed to exclude minors. No one should be able to experiment on minors in any way without the explicit, informed consent of their parents, guardians, or other legal agents.

I’ll close by reiterating what I said on Twitter and at my personal blog when I first heard about this study, before we had the whole story, but which still sums up my feelings as an academic and as someone who spends a lot of time and emotion online:

The history of human subject research is full of horrible examples of abuse and exploitation. As an empirical social scientist, I know how lucky I am that people are willing to spend their time, effort, and emotions, and even risk their reputations (however hard we try to anonymize their identities) to increase human knowledge. Their generosity is a gift that should be honored and respected.

Facebook just told us how badly they fucked with that gift.

I’m happy to answer specific questions about the study in the comments, so feel free to ask. And I apologize for my language. I guess I’m still angry.


Dear Author

Reading m/m: a guide for the perplexed

The debate at AAR and elsewhere over m/m books and authors got us to thinking about whether the differences between m/m and m/f romances are as great as some readers on both sides seemed to believe. Four of us here at DA regularly read and review m/m in addition to m/f these days (and Janine and Jayne have read and reviewed both as well, with Jayne also reviewing f/f). We talked for a while about how the two genres are similar and different in terms of the books we read, and we thought it would be fun to write a post and ask DA’s readers for their opinions in the comments.

(1) Do you remember the first m/m you read? What worked? What didn’t?

Kaetrin: Not really. I think it might have been Off The Record by Matthew Haldeman-Time which was (at least at the time) available online for free. I think I first read m/m in about 2008. Whatever it was, I enjoyed it enough to try more and more.  But I had read a m/m romantic storyline first in Suzanne Brockmann’s Troubleshooter’s series.  Jules and Robin remain favourites.

Sirius: My first original m/m book (I am not counting Harry Potter slash I was reading for years before coming to m/m) was The God Eaters by Jesse Hajicek.  I do not remember for sure when I read it, but it was sometime in 2007-2008. I remember thinking that the world building was very imaginative, that the author took some things we know from history and science fiction/fantasy and managed to create something if not unique, something original and fun. Great world building is a must for me in a fantasy/science fiction. I also remember being impressed by the character growth of the two leads. Basically a lot more worked in this book for me than did not and I was eager and interested to read more m/m.

In very close succession I read The Charioteer by Mary Renault and Wicked Gentlemen by Ginn Hale. These books also set a standard for me which I defined as “less sex, more story and characters”. Unfortunately for months after these three books I encountered the books which I thought of as “sex, sex, sex, sex, sex and a tiny bit of story and characterization”, and I was almost ready to give up. Thank goodness I eventually found many authors to enjoy and I’m not planning on giving up any longer.

Willaful: Like Kaetrin, my first romantic m/m storyline was in the Troubleshooters series, and I loved Jules and Robin. My first specifically m/m romance was The Dickens with Love by Josh Lanyon. What didn’t really work for me with that book was the sex scenes — not that they’re bad in any way, I just wasn’t into them at that time. I guess it’s an acquired taste. Come to think of it, pretty much all sex scenes have been an acquired taste for me.

What most interested me about the book at that time was the difference in the couple dynamic when one member isn’t much more physically powerful than the other. I came to it from a lot of category romances and older historicals, where violence by the hero against the heroine is fairly common. The Dickens With Love has positively traditional romance themes — deception and betrayal. At one point, one hero even calls the other “a liar and a cheat and a whore”; I felt so at home. But their conflict is expressed almost entirely in words, without the threatening aspects so common in older romance.

Now that I read more current and contemporary romance, in which authors are much less prone to having heroes overpowering heroines, this no longer stands out for me as specific to m/m. But the dynamic when a couple negotiates around physical control is still somewhat different.

Sunita: My first book was a sports-themed book by T.A. Chase, I think, that was free through the publisher. In retrospect it wasn’t great, too much sex and not enough characterization, but I loved the sports part and the novelty was intriguing. I read a few more free books and then started to look more systematically for authors I would like. I wound up with Fair Game and Tigers and Devils, and those set a high bar for the future.

(2) What would be the first book you’d offer someone who wanted to try reading m/m, and why?

Kaetrin: I think I’d say Tigers and Devils by Sean Kennedy.  It’s not an explicit romance but it is deeply intimate and romantic as well as funny and it has secondary characters (including a female) who are fleshed out and well-drawn. It’s one of my favourite romances and I recommend it to everyone and anyone. Other recommendations would include Muscling Through by JL Merrow, Blessed Isle by Alex Beecroft, Strawberries for Dessert by Marie Sexton and No Souvenirs and Regularly Scheduled Life by KA Mitchell.  I’ve had the opportunity to look at my co-reviewers’ recommendations and I think I have all of them in my own collection – most of them are on the dreaded TBR which goes some way to explaining why they’re not included in my own recommendations list.

Sirius: It depends on what this person is looking for. For m/m fantasy I suggest The Lord of the White Hell or The Rifter serial by Ginn Hale. or The Magpie Lord by K.J. Charles.  They have action, magic, great characters and of course a love story. For m/m romantic mystery, I suggest Josh Lanyon’s Adrien English series or Death by Misfortune by AM Riley. Actually, since Adrien English is five books, Death by Misfortune would probably be the one I recommend first. I think this book encompasses what m/m romantic mystery is for me. For me it is a close to perfect blend of mystery and romance. For a contemporary gay romance, I would suggest Almost Like Being in Love by Steve Kluger. For a historical m/m romance, oh, who am I kidding, if the person would just ask for m/m romance I would suggest, no I would push on them as hard as I can, Whistling in the Dark by Tamara Allen. I have been pushing this book on my suspecting and unsuspecting friends both those who are already reading m/m romance and who have never read m/m romance before.   This book is just so great in my opinion – it is about two young veterans of First World War coming home, meeting each other, falling in love. Remember what I said before about wanting to get to know the characters in m/m romance as people as opposed to just sexual beings? This book delivers that in spades.

Willaful: Like Sirius, I would want to know their tastes and what they’re looking for. One of my most frequent recommendations is Pricks and Pragmatism by J.L. Merrow, just because it’s so beautifully characterized; it would be my first choice for someone hostile to romance, like my mom, because it’s atypical in many way. For someone with a literary bent, I’d suggest Harper Fox’s exquisite writing in Winter Knights. Tamara Allen’s lovely historicals are a great choice for a nervous newbie, for the reasons Sirius mentions, and I’d second Almost Like Being in Love for anyone who enjoys humor or epistolary novels. I think of it as a novel rather than a genre romance, but it’s delightful either way.

Sunita: My favorite introductory books are Fair Game and Come Unto These Yellow Sands by Josh Lanyon and Kennedy’s Tigers and Devils. For readers who want a historical I’d recommend Tamara Allen’s Whistling in the Dark and The Only Gold, or Joanna Chambers’ recent Enlightened trilogy. For readers who are interested in darker books with non-standard characters I strongly recommend Aleksandr Voinov’s Dark Soul series. All of these are as good as the best genre fiction, in my estimation.

(3) What are your most and least favorite tropes in m/m?

Kaetrin: Least favourite would be the evil woman who is evil.  There are villains in fiction but I want more from them than a one-note performance. I’m looking for nuance and depth to characterisation.  I have read books where the evil woman who it evil could have been given motivation but instead it’s come down to “she’s just a bitch” and that’s not a good enough reason for me.  It’s not that a woman can’t be the villain in an m/m story for me, but if she is, I want more than she’s just “bad” and I also want to see other female characters who are sympathetic without also being stereotypes.  I’d like a sense that they have their own lives and stories and they’re not there merely to serve the plot or as foils for the villain. While I do see the evil woman in m/f it seems to me that she’s far more common in m/m and often, she’s the only female character.

When I first started reading m/m I read a bit of “gay for you”.  I’m a little embarrassed about it now but I do still enjoy “out for you” stories.   I think you told me, Sunita, that you have friends in real life who would fit the “gay for you” paradigm but I gather it is not at all as prevalent in real life as it is in fiction.  I don’t believe that people choose their sexuality and the “gay for you” trope in m/m fiction tends to suggest otherwise.  I don’t think it’s as easy as “who would you turn for?”   Out for You stories however are a little different because there is an acknowledgement that the character has had homosexual/bisexual attraction before, whether or not he has acted upon it.  I like the idea of a love so great that the person is willing to make sacrifices (in any fiction, not just m/m) – in m/m that is most commonly seen in the out for you trope.  Coming out is, or can be, full of risk and being willing to be vulnerable for someone else is inherently romantic and intimate for me.

In general terms, I like the same tropes across all romance – friends to lovers, second chance at love and I love a good rescue. Except in an AU book, you won’t see marriage of convenience (I love MOC stories) in an m/m but most other tropes are available in both m/f and m/m and I’ve seen great examples of in both as well as awful ones.

Sirius: I happily glom books which deal with “from enemies to lovers” trope in any way, shape or form. The men do not even need to be full blown enemies – any kind of initial antipathy which transforms into friendship and love would do.   But as much as I love the books with the varieties of this trope, I will get cranky if the men are enemies on one pages and best buds and lovers on the second page. I think the main reason why I love this trope so much is because if it is well done, it provides me with tons of unresolved tension between the characters (sexual and otherwise) and I love it in my romances.  And if the change is done too fast, here goes my tension.  I think my favorite book which deals with this trope is Kei’s Gift by Ann Somerville. The leads are initially on the different sides of war, they are really and truly enemies as the book begins and at the end they are not and I completely believed in the change.  My other favoritebook with the variety of this trope (the men are not war time enemies in this book, but they certainly do not like each other much when the story begins) is The Only Gold by Tamara Allen. Otherwise I do not look for tropes when I pick up a m/m book – if the topic interests me here I come.

My least favorite trope – “rape him till he loves me”. With only a couple of exceptions where I thought the author managed to make me forgive the rapist, this trope almost never works for me, ever.

I am not a big fan of “Gay For You” either. I do not hate it and I even like a variety of this trope where the guy just repressed his feelings for men and  because he meets a guy whom he falls in love with, he is ready to acknowledge his feelings and admit that he is gay or bisexual (preferably bisexual). However “I meet you today and I never ever felt an inkling of attraction to men before and now I am gay” makes me roll my eyes. Recently I started a book where the guy seemed to turn gay after he read an erotic gay story written by the other guy. I did not continue reading that book.  I realize that all varieties of this trope are fantasy, but I guess when I read I can believe in some of those easier than in the others.

Willaful: My least favorite, because I’ve run into it so many times, is “We’re totally straight, really, but earning money by pretending to be gay for a porn site.” Some surprisingly good books use this plot, notably Hot Head by Damon Suede, but it’s just been done to death at this point.

I don’t think I have a favorite trope as of yet. Most of the wacky themes I love in m/f romance — convenient marriages, amnesia, revenge — aren’t common or likely in m/m. I also enjoy “second chance at love” stories, and I don’t think I’ve yet run into an m/m version. (Recommendations?)

But I enjoy the same general qualities in m/m as m/f. Heartbreak. Tenderness. Wit. Sincerity.

Sunita: Least favorite is Gay For You by a country mile, although I’m not very fond of Out For You either. I think few authors pull off the complexity of the issues for the person coming out in the latter, and the former is too often a shortcut way to signal The One True Love. If it’s well integrated into the story I’ll read it, but I’ve read so many that aren’t that I’m allergic at this point. Favorite is probably reunited lovers or relationship in trouble. I like reunited lovers in the m/m context because the good ones blend external and internal conflicts and take advantage of the idiosyncracies of same-sex relationships, and I always like relationship in trouble wherever I find it.

(4) Are there ways in which m/m romances are like m/f, and are there ways in which they are different, aside from the obvious?

Kaetrin: I think they are the same in many ways. Let’s face it, there’s not all that much that two guys can do sexually that a girl and a guy can’t do. Anal sex is not confined to m/m – it’s all over m/f.  The only thing I can really think of that is in m/f and that isn’t in m/m is a vagina.

I read across both genres and I want the same kinds of things from my m/m reading as my m/f .  I want well drawn characters, demonstrated courtship and intimacy, showing not telling, a HEA/HFN (mandatory).  While, on its face, in an m/m book both protagonists start off equal in terms of gender (I think this is not always true but more later) and in an m/f it could be said that they do not because of the patriarchal nature of our society, I think it’s a fallacy to suggest that there is no power differential.  When it comes down to it no two people have equal power in all things.  They have equal value. But power can be about class, employment, finances, race,culture, social structure, age, personality.  Ultimately, I think any book about a relationship between two people has, at its core, either explicitly or implicitly, an examination and negotiation of power dynamics.  And they will look different from book to book.  There are m/m romances where one partner is younger or less affluent or where one stays home and keeps the house – they have to negotiate their power both with the other protagonist as well as with the wider world. Because our society still sees many of these things as “weaker”.   I think that there can be a gender power differential between two gay men, particularly when one is more “traditionally masculine” and one is more “femme” (and the more I read, the less I like either term). I don’t think that our patriarchal society views a “femmy guy” in the same way as a “manly man”.

Typically of course, an  m/f books isn’t going to put homophobia and bigotry at the forefront of the story and queer romance (of any stripe) can and does (although not always). And in general terms, m/m isn’t going to explore feminism  or women’s issues terribly much.  But what I’ve learned from reading m/m romance is that  the difference between them and m/f is very often more about the individual characters than their gender identity.

Sirius: I feel significantly less well read in m/f romance than I am  in m/m (or some other genres), however especially in the last few years I have read at least some m/f books which I really enjoyed. So I decided that I will try to answer how the good ones are similar rather than different.  I mean the differences are of course based on the obvious difference – the issues of homophobia, coming out are not going to be addressed in m/f romance. Although I’ve noticed that some m/f romances now include secondary gay romances (The One That Got Away by Kelly Hunter, for example). But these issues would not be present as a source of conflict for main couple in m/f romance.

Besides as I stated before, m/m for me had always been an umbrella term not just for m/m romances, but for mysteries, fantasy,  sci-fi which include a romantic storyline with two men falling in love (or being in love and saving the world, finding the murderer, etc.). This is a huge difference for me, because I do not believe that mysteries and fantasy with m/f romantic story are being included under romance necessarily.

But m/m *romance* where the central storyline is about the couple working through the initial pitfalls to form a relationship or trying to make their existing relationship better and getting their happy ending has a lot of similarities with m/f romance in my opinion. In several m/m romances that I have read one guy is really rich and another is either very poor, or just regular middle class on the lower part of middle scale. Mary Calmes’ books are great example of that. In “Frog” one guy is a rich doctor, and another poor cowboy, who is literally struggling to support himself and won’t agree for the other guy to support him financially, that is why he won’t agree to stay with him permanently.  In “Old Loyalty, New Love” one guy is a young billionaire and his love interest is his bodyguard. I think the power dynamics they have to work through are similar to m/f romances where the guy is a billionaire/millionaire, and falls in love with the woman from poor family. I read plenty of Barbara Cartland when I was young though and this is what I am reminded of when I read those stories.

Stories that I love most in m/m and m/f have the partners respecting each other, leaning on each other if needed, helping each other in tough situations. All the  books  I would have recommended to the reader who is a newcomer to m/m deal with it in a way I love – I would also add Jordan Castillo Price’ books to that mix. M/f books that I read last year that come to mind which have the power dynamics that I loved were the Chocolate series by Laura Florand.

Willaful: The largest difference I currently see between m/f and m/m romance is that m/m seems less constrained by traditional ideas about sexuality; without the outwardly imposed double standard coming into play, there’s less baggage (probably not no baggage) about what is and isn’t okay. I don’t think I’ve ever encountered an m/m hero worried about whether he’s being slutty, for example, which is surprisingly common for heroines of erotic romance.

And of course, the type of plots available are somewhat different — though authors do sometimes use fantasy worlds as a way around that. I confess to having been unable to resist an m/m fated mates/forced marriage vampire story.

Other than that, I think most m/m romance is… romance. It focuses on love, intimacy, physical pleasure, and commitment, just as m/f romance does. It can be just as beautifully written or just as dismal.

Sunita: I think the ways in which they are same are in terms of the romance tropes deployed. You see most of the same ones across the two genres, or what I think of as ones that serve essentially the same purpose even if they look different (Gay For You is analogous to the Virgin Heroine, for example). In terms of difference, I think the biggest difference is that in m/m you have two people who are socialized to be in charge, but good relationships often require that authority be shared. Watching two (cis) people from the same side of the gender binary negotiate that sort of compromise is fascinating to me. I don’t find many books that explore this issue (or do it well), but the ones that succeed are among my favorites.

Readers, how about you? For those of you who read both, how do you compare reading m/m and m/f romances? For those that only read one, what types of books from the other genre are most likely to appeal to you, if any? What would you like to see more or less often?