(Which was part of the knee-jerk reaction that I alluded to at start: this implication that LGBT writers are being implied to only have one good book in them, what, what?) So. Yeah. I went blind. Whoops. Will edit to correct that mistake.
I interpreted that more as "may only be able/afford to get one book published" but yeah. The "despair of our own writers" bit was also rather patronizing.
and the cherry on top being 'clarifying' the rules such that now it's "all along we were always just content!"
It's funny how spelling things out - saying okay XYZ is what we're taking into consideration - makes things more complicated, versus just saying that they want to focus on work by GLBT people. The LLF mission statement seems to me a thing of beauty - rewarding and promoting excellence among LGBT writers who use their work to explore LGBT lives. They could have just stopped at that.
(and I'm still having trouble believing you when you say there are folks referencing my post... say what? uhm. you are kidding, right?
Ahahaha, sorry but it's true! The thread I was talking about is here. (There's also a post that quotes you here.)
a) that part of the post refers to points I didn't have room/time to make in this post and so put off to address in a second part, and b) the realistic chances of retracting are null, anyway.
a) I'm looking forward to it! b) Oh yeah, PR nightmare... again.
Looking at this it definitely seems like they didn't conceptualize GLBT lit in the way you're talking about. Someone needs to point them at this post, because they really should...
Come to think of it, this fiasco is a lot like lolcats, but with sequins.
That would explain why the later it gets, the more ridiculous it all seems...
no subject
I interpreted that more as "may only be able/afford to get one book published" but yeah. The "despair of our own writers" bit was also rather patronizing.
and the cherry on top being 'clarifying' the rules such that now it's "all along we were always just content!"
It's funny how spelling things out - saying okay XYZ is what we're taking into consideration - makes things more complicated, versus just saying that they want to focus on work by GLBT people. The LLF mission statement seems to me a thing of beauty - rewarding and promoting excellence among LGBT writers who use their work to explore LGBT lives. They could have just stopped at that.
(and I'm still having trouble believing you when you say there are folks referencing my post... say what? uhm. you are kidding, right?
Ahahaha, sorry but it's true! The thread I was talking about is here. (There's also a post that quotes you here.)
a) that part of the post refers to points I didn't have room/time to make in this post and so put off to address in a second part, and b) the realistic chances of retracting are null, anyway.
a) I'm looking forward to it!
b) Oh yeah, PR nightmare... again.
Looking at this it definitely seems like they didn't conceptualize GLBT lit in the way you're talking about. Someone needs to point them at this post, because they really should...
Come to think of it, this fiasco is a lot like lolcats, but with sequins.
That would explain why the later it gets, the more ridiculous it all seems...