quoththeraven

That's why it was suggested to read The Perfect Spy first.

But many of the m/m novels written by women focus on how sex feels, smells, tastes as well. The emotions during such scenes aren't about love but lust or maybe protectiveness or how well the top is being served if the characters are into kink. Not that there aren't some books by women that go pretty far in the sentimental direction - there are - but a lot of male-authored books seem episodic and meandering. To the extent the gender of the author is known, I find sex scenes written by men, whether straight or gay, boring, perfunctory and very much insert tab A into tab B. If you're going to write them like that, why bother? From what you're saying, that may be authentic, but it's not exactly scintillating reading. And really? Little goes on in the minds of both participants during a blow job, hand job, frot, or anal sex? Wow. I've read a lot of them too and still find a wider variety of looks, personalities, body types and careers in m/m romance compared to m/f, but lately I've read more m/f because there's more of it, it's less expensive, and the review site I got m/m recommendations from is defunct. I also forgot to mention Alexis Hall. Despite the name, Hall is a dude, though he identifies as queer, not gay. I've read his columns and blog and a short story of his but none of his books. I started reading For Real but stopped because I realized it required more sustained concentration than I could muster at the time.

No, but I had LeCarre's The Perfect Spy, which was recommended as a good first book of his to read. I saw the movie of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and found some of it hard to follow. I'd like to read the book someday.

Keeping in mind Lolita is the only Nabakov I've read and The Swimming Pool Library the only Hollinghurst I've attempted, I don't see the artistic connection between him and Hollinghurst other than that they're both writing literary fiction in English. My desert island needs to have internet access, a comfortable bed, flush toilets, and a reliable shower, which probably obviates the whole desert island concept.

I tried reading Hollinghurst's The Swimming Pool Library and quit because not only did I not much like the narrator, he didn't seem to like himself very much, either. (This may be projection, but to me and every other reader, the book is what we see in it.) But because the narration is (IIRC) first person, the narrative comes across as self-centered and self-indulgent. Ruth Rendell/Barbara Vine has written several novels with gay themes, acts, or where gayness is central to the narrative. (Examples: The Child's Child, A Fatal Inversion, The Chimneysweeper's Boy.) Maybe it's the difference between literary fiction (itself a genre) and genre fiction, but I'd much rather read Rendell/Vine. Her characters are no less flawed, but their stories are told in a way I find more interesting.

I've had discussions about the book with people on Twitter and just put out a call for personal reactions if they've read it. From reviews, I can tell you without spoiling the plot that its main message is the importance of friendship. It is not just about suffering, although I gather there is a fair amount of that going on. Of course, that doesn't mean you should continue reading. If I learn more via Twitter, I will post it here.

To answer the question: There's general gay fiction that skews literary with mostly unhappy endings and not a lot of on-page sex and then there's gay or m/m romance wth happy endings (both kinds) and a predominance of on-page sex. I've read more of the latter and tend to prefer it if for no other reason than symbolism: see, queer people can have and are deserving of love and happiness, too. That's still something of a fucking revolutionary message and is part of the reason I prefer to read female writers. They're committed to the happy ending. So far, too many of the male writers I read seem defensive or brittle or write in an unadorned Hemingway-influenced style that gets boring after awhile. That said, here's a smattering of both, starting with cismale gay men: Tales of the City and sequels, Armistead Maupin Boystown and other books by Marshall Thornton Afflicted, Brandon Shire Victor J. Banis, who wrote a lot of pulp of varying quality back in the day Jeff Earno (don't remember titles) Anything by Eric Arvin Wade Kelly Of literary novels, I tried reading Alan Hollinghurst's The Swimming Pool Library but didn't like it well enough to finish. There are other men like Rick Reed, TJ Klune, Sean Michaels and Damon Suede who write genre but whose books I haven't read. (I read a sample of Suede's Hot Head and decided not to buy the book; Klune was accused of plagiarizing his first novel from a movie, fwiw.) Women: Jordan Castillo Price, my favorite gay romance/fiction author. The first couple of books in her best-known work, the Psycops series, are weaker because they're among her first pro novels. (She started out writing fanfiction.) But the rest of the series doesn't nake sense without them. K.A. Mitchell - don't read if you don't like reading explicit sex; however, her books are far from stroke fiction. Amy Lane - queen of angst. For me, the quality of her books varies, but Chase in Shadow, whose depiction of how gay porn is made may be as fictional as all depictions of sex work in romance novels (for one thing, the performers all live in the same geographic area), is one of the most emotionally intense books I've ever read. There are others I like too. Harper Fox J.L. Merrow P.D. Singer Josh Lanyon (quality varies, but the best books are among the best in the genre. I'm not as fond of the Adrien English series as everyone else is.) Kaje Harper Heidi Cullinan, although I find her ambition/good intent often exceeds her reach. Tamara Allen (historical, no explicit sex). Ouside the romance genre, I recommend Cecilia Tan's coming of age series about an 80s rock musician, Daron's Guitar Chronicles. This also has no explicit sex, which is weird, because Tan mostly writes m/f erotica and erotic romance. Litfic/gay fiction: Anything by Mary Renault, herself a lesbian. I've only read The Charioteer. That Renault is welcome and is thought of as an icon of gay fiction (just as Radclyffe is an icon of lesbian fiction for and by lesbians) whereas later female writers are not welcome says something. The ladies write about group and multiple sex (there's a subgenre called menage that is mfm (no sexual contact between the men) or mmf (sexual contact between everyone)). While most books end with a committed couple or trio without suggesting that other people might be welcome to join in on occasion, that's as much a function of a desire for narrative finality as an adherence to monogamous norms. The sex in their books is sometimes awkward but is mostly joyous and transformative. There is less of a disconnect between the physical and the emotional than I see in books written by men. (Also true in the mystery genre in my experience.) Also see these posts in the Book Forum? thread. I particularly recommend Joseph Hansen (excellent writer, interesting and well put together mysteries) and Richard Stevenson (laugh out loud funny and more sexual content than is the norm without being anything like a stroke book).

1. If it's well-written and reasonably accurate as to physiology, why does it matter? (I acknowledge that there are sometimes reasons to quibble with some of the psychology and ways in which romance is thought of, but it's also true that not all men are unsentimental and unromantic, just as not all women are sentimental and love traditional romance.) 2. The female readership may be predominantly straight, although there are no good or definitive studies, but a not insignificant number of the most well-known, prolific authors identify as queer (bisexual, lesbian, trans or genderqueer, if the specifics matter). Ones I can think of off the top of my head: K.A. Mitchell (lesbian) Harper Fox (lesbian) Josephine Myles (bisexual) Alex Beecroft (genderqueer) Erastes (bisexual) Aleksandr Voinov (trans) James Buchanan (trans) I haven't read all these authors, and I don't feel the same about all the ones they've read, but Mitchell, Beecroft and Fox are among the best there are. I enjoy Myles' stories, just not as much as the others; Beecroft writes mostly historical, while I prefer contemporary, and leans toward the more descriptive/flowery end of the spectrum of writing style. CS Pacat is a woman. So is Josh Lanyon. But an even more important point is this: there is no longer an impenetrable barrier between gay and straight love stories. Increasingly, romance novelists are writing so-called "mixed" series: ones where some of the couples are m/f and some are m/m or f/f. Where one character is bisexual and doesn't feel that changes because of the gender of the person they're with. They are writing trans characters in relationships with cis characters, both same and oppsite sex. They are writing asexual characters. They're writing genderqueer characters. One New York Times and USA Today bestselling writer is currently working on a manuscript about a character who heads a tech firm remarkably similar to Apple who is as irascible as Steve Jobs and as gay as Tim Cook but who has a son and is closeted. She's already written a secondary f/f romance in one of her historical novels set in Victorian England. She has tweeted her support of gay rights, an analysis of the opinions in the Obergefell case (as a former clerk to Justice Kennedy, she has insight into this most of us don't have), and told people that if her stance on social issues bothers them, they would not like her books. This expansion is driven by female and trans male writers, editors and publishers, not by cis men. I think it constitutes social progress. Maybe you don't.

I didn't watch porn until my late 30s. That would have been videotape on a 23" (or so) TV. While I have watched porn on computer monitors (19", approximately), it's easier to watch on my tablet. Not for the reason you may be thinking, either.

I don't know who is more foolish: the people who manufacture and sell the things, or the people who buy them. They seem like a product liability lawsuit waiting to happen. That we like the same things I take as flattery, not stalking. I've heard that rhyme too, but it was later in life from my ex. It was probably a blessing that the kit did not contain sulfuric acid. Please don't take this the wrong way, but given the mischievous nature on display in some of your posts here, I suspect that as a child you bore some similarity to Calvin of Calvin and Hobbes, who would be a menace with any form of acid.

Unicorn - Those puns are all groanworthy. Well done!

Let's hope!

Not an engineer, but wtf?!! Who designed this?

Sorry; that was meant jokingly as well as seriously. This is Friday Funnies, after all. I'll remember not to try to soften a disagreement next time. (And no, I'm not mad about it, just bemused.)

I have! I like them. (Though I usually order the seven layer burrito and the Mexican pizza.) You knew we weren't going to agree on much, didn't you?

Since almost anything is healthier than crystal meth, that's not much of an endorsement.

Uber is on paper a great idea for the consumer, but the company's embrace of the Wild West "do what we want" philosophy is backfiring. They should lose the fight over whether their drivers are independent contractors or employees; that alone may invalidate their business model.

Some people, especially in management, need to learn this.

I like puns. That said, *groan* Also, some required more thought to figure out than the typical pun. Two thumbs up for that!

*smh*

Groan!

That was a nice pic. As for the photos we can actually see, I prefer the ones that look more natural, less "I just stuck glasses I don't need on my face for the effect." I agree with Honcho (though for different reasons) that most of these are props. I have hereditary bags under my eyes. (They're actually fat deposits, but they look like bags.) So I'm actually thankful for my glasses, although not so thankful that my frames came apart and I had to get new glasses. It was time, though; I'd had them for seven years. Also I'm not big on big lenses. #12 and 21 are probably my faves.

I am also a binge-reader and, sometimes, a binge-rereader. So many of my earliest internet buds are into SFF and I'm (mostly) not. They consider it anything but lightweight. There seems to be a consensus that SFF, particularly the sci fi/ speculative end, is more highly regarded today. Many SFF books play with received ideas. Some "classics" or books now highly regarded for literary purposes are technically SFF: Frankenstein, Dracula, 1984, Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, A Clockwork Orange, The Left Hand of Darkness, The Handmaid's Tale (though I am no fan of it - super implausible and not very original). Can't think of any more now.

Could you be more specific as to what gay romance means to you? The Nava, Hansen and Stephenson series mentioned by me and WilliamM above might qualify. There are long-term relationships running through at least two of them. Then there are the books I recommended to Glennn, which are straight up romance with explicit sex scenes, but they're all written by women. There are a few men who write gay romance as opposed to gay fiction. Try Rick Reed, Victor Banis (I like his non-romance stuff), TJ Klune, Sean Michael, and Alexis Hall. I particularly recommend Hall.

Butler is great! I want to read more of her stuff, especially Kindred, but I read her collection of short stories (Bloodlines, I think), Fledgling, and another book, the name of which escapes me. And I'm not primarily a SFF reader. But practically everyone I know from LJ/DW is.