Apologies but this is going to be, like, A THREAD.

I sometimes get told, about my writing … that I’m letting the side down.

& I honestly don’t know how to respond when I get told this.

I usually say “thank you for your feedback”

because I guess I feel readers should be able to say things to an author without the author getting all defensive about it.

Problem is, tho, there’s a lot going on in ideas like this.

Where they come from. What they mean.

I don’t just mean for my books specifically. But how we think about the work of marginalised authors in general.

In summary, then, this is what I get told about writers like me.

We are letting the side down because:

1. we write romance (& not lit fic)

2. we write about queer characters being happy (& this is not realistic)

3. our work is sentimental (& not political)

Let’s start with 1: lack of lit in my fic

Writing in the shadow of litfic is kind of like being a teacher.

When you tell people you’re a teacher, someone will be sure to imply that you’re only teaching because you can’t “do” the thing you’re teaching.

Never mind that teaching is its own job, with its own skillset & rewards.

When you tell people you write in a particular genre, someone is sure to snidely imply that you’re only writing that genre because you’re not good enough to write ‘real’ literature.

(Real literature being litfic)

Never mind that litfic is just another type of genre.

A genre, by the way, I often enjoy.

It’s just my genre tends to have more kissing in it & is more open about being a genre.

Which leads to point 2: my queer characters don’t have enough sads.

Please don’t get me wrong.

I think works by marginalised people which speak of their experiences of marginalisation, of pain and inequity and injustice, are hugely valuable & important & need to be in the world.

I just think kissing is important.

Also wizards. Also spaceships. Also vampires. Also rakes. Also dragons. Also billionaires.

You get the picture.

Frankly you need work by queer creators in ALL genres.

Otherwise you are telling queer people that they can only have one story

& non-queer people that we exist only through our suffering.

Works in which marginalised people suffer are not morally or aesthetically superior to works in which marginalised people, um, don’t.

They’re both expressions of identity.

They are all our stories.

So to point 3: my work is about feelings & therefore not political

& I confess this is the complaint I have the most trouble with because it ties all the messed-up assumptions of the first two ideas into a big shiny bow of ick.

It takes as read that the only valid form of queer fiction is self-consciously literary.

It takes as read that the only valid exploration of queer identity involves suffering.

It takes as read that romance, because it focuses on emotion, cannot be revolutionary.

& clearly this is all just total bollocks.

The central tenet of any romance is that, whoever you are, whatever form it takes, if you want love, you deserve love.

That remains an intensely powerful statement.

Yes, romance can offer escapism, yes it can be fun & sexy & sweet, but romance—for marginalised writers—is ultimately a genre of subversion & of resistance.

It is taking something that some people believe doesn’t belong to us & making it our own. Making it true & joyous.

I am proud to write the books I write. Every HEA feels like a battle won.

Because here’s the fucking thing: queer joy is, & always has been, political.

Err. The end.

Thank you.