Aha, I have seen it and I eat (some of) my words.

A couple of people have now sent me a copy of what was written in Rolling Stone magazine and I feel I owe the reporter an apology.  It turned out not to be an article so much as just a mention, and it went like this:

Hot Broken Paperbacks
M/M Romances

Around 2007, amateur online scribbler and UK housewife Alex Beecroft discovered a burgeoning small-press genre called “M/M Romance” – books in which men fall in love, get it on and get it on some more in assorted historical settings. Today, Beecroft (alongside writers Erastes, Laura Baumbach and Donald Hardy) is one of M/M’s premier authors, and women just like her abound in her audience. Says Beecroft, “There are straight women who just don’t connect with society’s construction of what it means to be a woman.”

And apparently was illustrated by a picture of  the cover of Tangled Web by Lee Rowan.

The line that I objected to so strongly, in the Hot List 2010 about m/m romance being “Man on man porn for straight women,” was not actually the title of the article.  The reporter, therefore, was telling me the truth when he said he wouldn’t use that as a title, and I apologize unreservedly for thinking otherwise.  Furthermore, he says “women just like her abound in her audience,” and this is entirely true, and does not imply that there are no other sorts of people who read m/m romance. Donald was mentioned too (and his name spelled right!)  So it seems I went off half cocked in being insulted that GBLT readers and writers were being deliberately excluded.

I can’t say I like the description of the genre, which appears to have been lifted entirely from the Out magazine interview and ignores the many different heat levels and different sub genres (it really isn’t all historical!) of m/m romance, but I can’t expect too much of a single paragraph. And I did actually say what I’m reported as saying, so that’s good too.

I stand by my annoyance at the “Man on man porn for straight women,” thing, but I’m a lot happier now that I’ve seen that the article itself was not guilty of that. I feel I was listened to after all, and that’s something for which I’m grateful.  I’m also grateful to see the genre get a mention in such a huge thing as Rolling Stone magazine, and I can only assume that whoever wrote the introduction on the Table of Contents was not the same person I talked to at all.

Leave a Reply

19 Comments on "Aha, I have seen it and I eat (some of) my words."

Notify of
avatar

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Donald Hardy
Guest
5 years 11 months ago

I WAS MENTIONED IN ROLLING STONE.

Woh.

I’m sorry, but my mind went blank after that.

WOOH!

Aleksandr Voinov
Guest
5 years 11 months ago

Good to hear it wasn’t as bad as that last time. And yeah, the table of contents blurb is written by the editor or deputy (at my mag, I do that job).

JoAnne Soper-Cook
Guest
5 years 11 months ago

The other thing to remember is that YOU GUYS WERE MENTIONED IN ROLLING FRICKIN’ STONE MAGAZINE.

Ahem. I rest my case. 😀

Daniel Christian Juris
Guest
5 years 11 months ago

Well dangit I miss everything! But after catching up – Gawd, I’m happy it wasn’t the horror of the last interview escapade, and yes, I still agree the whole “gay sex for straight chicks” (to paraphrase) is f*cking annoying… ‘Cause, you know, no one else reads it. :-/ But yes, I’m glad you got a better showing this time!! And, on that note…can I just say… HOLY CRAP, woman! Rolling Stone interviewed you. Rolling Fucking Stone. That’s…Wow. 😀

Aleksandr Voinov
Guest
5 years 11 months ago

Any publicity is good publicity… might mean more readers…

Aleksandr Voinov
Guest
5 years 11 months ago

But then again, I don’t trust the media – hey, I work as a journalist… I KNOW you cant’ trust 99% of all hacks out there.

Alex Beecroft
Guest
5 years 11 months ago
Yes, I think that it was last time that made me so willing to believe the worst on the grounds of the introduction paragraph alone. Not that Out was the only culprit on that score! This paranoia comes from way back 🙂 I’m actually really relieved that the reporter didn’t do the usual hatchet job. I liked him and thought he sounded honest and genuinely interested, so it was a bit of a personal disappointment when I thought he’d done the same as everyone else. My faith in honest journalism is restored now 🙂 And yes, as Daniel says, Holy… Read more »
Alex Beecroft
Guest
5 years 11 months ago

*g* Thanks Daniel! Yes, Holy Crap, Rolling Stone! was my first reaction too 🙂 Then I got to worrying that they would be just like all the others, and when I saw the introduction thingy I was disappointed, because it looked like they really were. Now it turns out that I was jumping to conclusions, I’m back to being made up at simply being mentioned in Rolling Stone. It is pretty amazing 🙂

Daniel Christian Juris
Guest
5 years 11 months ago

::hugs:: I’m so very pleased for you!

Alex Beecroft
Guest
5 years 11 months ago

Hee! Thank you 🙂 *Hugs back.* Here’s hoping that it will get lots of people to investigate the genre and find us all 🙂

Donald Hardy
Guest
5 years 11 months ago

Holy crap. ROLLING STONE. How cool. =-)

Donald Hardy
Guest
5 years 11 months ago

And thank for for mentioning me and helping them to get my name right. =-D

Alex Beecroft
Guest
5 years 11 months ago

No problem 🙂 After they got it wrong in the email I thought it would be a good idea to check 🙂

Donald Hardy
Guest
5 years 11 months ago

=-D I’m basking in the reflected glory.

Dianne T.
Guest
Dianne T.
5 years 11 months ago

Well I’m late to the party (thus you are spared my tirade on “journalistic hacks”) , made some popcorn and read through you last two blogs, comments and the Rolling Stone article. So glad it all sorted out in your favor (And Donald’s). 🙂

wpDiscuz