@Becky I do agree with you that it’s a whole network of people up and down the supply/demand chain who are making book-by-book decisions to take on/publish/promote/stock and read certain books over others.

It disappoints but doesn’t surprise me that libraries in some areas won’t buy YA books with gay characters. People in the red states are still trying to ban Harry Potter, for Pete’s sake. We have a really outstanding library system here, but I can imagine that things are different elsewhere.

I don’t see the book business as any more culpable as the movie or tv or music businesses in terms of being gay-friendly. That’s just the business under discussion here. Again, I agree that getting your book published is not a right (although I’m sure some authors who feel otherwise). I feel that books have a unique role in moving our cultural and moral standards forward, but I sure don’t expect them to go broke doing it. I just hope that people with moral courage will continue to be found at all levels of the book business.

And while you’re bashing publishers, spare some ire for booksellers. Publishers are not the only ones who determine which books reach an audience—they do not sell their product directly to consumers, after all. Historically, when the bookseller (or even—gasp!—libraries) says “I don’t think there’s much of an audience for that”, and places a tiny order, or no order at all…the book’s going nowhere and it doesn’t matter how principled a stand the publisher took.

One of the good things about self-publishing an e-book is that the author doesn’t have to rely on the brick-and-mortar booksellers to get their work out to the public. It opens up a lot of doors for people whose books otherwise wouldn’t sell enough copies for a major house to publish them.

I absolutely think it’s important to prove that books with queer characters are marketable by voting with our pocketbooks. But I don’t think that means we shouldn’t simultaneously call the power brokers on their bullshit.

@Becky: I knew you’d tear me a new one. Belonging to a country club isn’t a human right either, and I’m not saying it should be actionable when a publisher turns down a book because of gay content. But it surprises me that you’re letting the majors off the hook so easily. Since when is “we’re in business to make money” an acceptable excuse to promote bigotry? Would it have been okay 50 years ago to turn down a book that had a Jewish or African-American lead character?

Oh, come on. Having your book represented by a “major literary agency” and published by one of the big 5 New York publishers is not a human right. Saying publishers are a “controlling group” gives them way too much power. Remember, the vast majority of books published in the US are done without literary agents or big publishing houses. There are MANY smaller, on-line, or niche publishers who publish things that big houses don’t publish and mainstream retailers don’t carry. It’s discouraging for authors to hear that gay characters are less saleable, but it’s not a human rights abuse perpetrated by The Man; no one is denying them a chance to publish their book because they are gay.

The agent thought the book was less saleable because of the gay characters. S/he is almost certainly right. It’s a tough world out there when library budgets are cut to the bone and retailers are stocking fewer books. And since a literary agent works on commission and does not earn money unless s/he sells the book, s/he may politely turn down something they think will not sell, or will offer suggestions about how to change it so it might sell. This happens all the time.

Which brings us back to Anna’s point about creating demand and showing there’s demand. Publishers and booksellers are in the business of making money, and are very responsive to demand.