Hannah Rickard’s first published novel, Guarded Hearts (Bella), is romantic suspense with a twist. Both Rickard and her fictional protagonist, Alyssa, are lesbian. However, the ways in which this fact impacts them is different. Rickard, like Alyssa, lives in a small Michigan community. Unlike Alyssa, Rickard does not live an entirely open life. The complexity of gay and lesbian social negotiation does not allow her to do so, and this grim fact has, due to the current political climate, recently become even trickier. Fertile ground for a fiction writer, and Rickard’s next novel takes on some very tough questions. Speaking of questions, the final one in this interview, and Rickard’s enlightening (and frightening) response, is of particular interest to Michigan voters.
Cindy: What made you want to write lesbian fiction?
Hannah: Well, deciding to write a romantic suspense novel featuring lesbian characters involved quite a dance for me. Or maybe it was more of an obstacle course than a dance. Or maybe it resembled running blindfolded through a field of landmines. I’m not sure.
My initial intent was to write romantic suspense featuring straight characters, for many reasons. When I seriously began work on writing this kind of novel, I was not partnered and I was not out at all to anyone. As I worked on the book, I considered using lesbian characters, but decided not to for one main reason: being connected with such a book could cost me my job, a job I love. And quite frankly, my ego got in the way. I couldn’t imagine publishing a novel-achieving a life dream!-and not being able to tell anyone about it! I thought the silencing would enrage me and I didn’t want to go through life that way, angry at my employer and my colleagues and the world. So I made the decision to write a straight book and stuck with it.
Of course, the irony here is that I was silencing myself instead of being true to myself and deciding how to deal with others around that truth. Isn’t it funny how we can so often be worse to ourselves than others would ever be? Or how we’ll treat ourselves badly so that others don’t have a chance to?
Anyhow, the book as a straight novel did well-won a regional contest, got read by agents and publishing houses, and everyone said the same thing, basically: well-written, good plot, but something isn’t quite right about the hero. I’d laugh at every rejection and think, “don’t I know it.” And I’d think again, “just let it be what it really is,” and I’d chicken out.
So, what made me brave? The sappy stuff of movies and romance novels-I met my beloved and discovered right away I was not going to surround this relationship with the fear of being discovered. I began to carefully out myself to trusted people and it turned out I had many, many trusted people in my life! I hadn’t really realized how blessed my life was. And then I realized it was time to let the book be what it needed to be. So I rewrote it, submitted it to Bella Books, and it got published. I’m only sorry now it took me that long to get brave.
And in case you ask how I’ve handled the book’s publication (HINT HINT), then here’s the answer. Everyone who I trust enough to know about my relationship and keep it well knows about the book. And that’s more people than the house can hold for a celebration party!
But there are limits: I will not claim the book as a professional achievement because I still need my job and health benefits and the risk is too great. My supervisors are supportive of me but also caution me. And while I sort of hate having to shrug my shoulders when students and colleagues ask how my novel-writing is going (that ego of mine is sensitive), I also acknowledge a need for a certain respect for my employer.
Though I think they are wrong in their approach toward gays and lesbians (which is fundamentally don’t ask, don’t tell), I choose to remain employed there. As a result, I think it’s only fair I play by their rules, or work within that system to try to change their views. I’m not in a place where I’m ready to do that-yet.
Cindy: Had you read a lot of lesbian romance before writing your own?
Hannah: I’ve read a lot of romantic suspense featuring all sorts of characters; gay, straight, white, black, rich, poor-it doesn’t matter to me. I read for enjoyment and to learn how to do better at my own characterization and plot. When I write ficton, I’m not particularly interested in the politics of being lesbian.
Many people are and I’m glad they’re writing about what interests them. I’m interested in human beings wrestling through the world looking for love, trying to discover how to behave decently and with respect to others when so many others will not treat you the same, and how to stand up with integrity against rigid, narrow power structures. Whoops-that last statement was pretty political.
But I think it’s about human politics, regardless of sexuality. In any event, I like to write about people trying to live lives of love and justice, and in some of my fiction, those folks just happen to be lesbian.
Cindy: For Alyssa, being lesbian was simply a part of her character. It didn’t cause her a lot of problems in her life, being open and out was depicted as sort of a breeze. Which is fine. Guarded Hearts is a romance, it’s escape fiction and so not supposed to be loaded down with heavy issues. Certainly, lesbians need and deserve this safe fictional space as much as anyone else. Another plus is that Guarded Hearts promotes the idea that lesbian lovers are essentially just like any other lovers, with the same concerns and challenges. What’s different about them is where they stand in status in the country, and Hannah doesn’t deal much with that.
Hannah: You have said what I think so nicely! ESPECIALLY because of the horrifying derogatory discrimination being codified into unjust and anti-American laws all over the country (I’m certain I said earlier I wasn’t political . . . ), I think lesbians, like anyone, deserve the safe space of fun fiction-fiction which features lesbian characters as humans, not as political tools, pawns, or scapegoats. I get enough of that at work, on the television news, out of the mouths of many of the so called “leaders” of today. I don’t want to read it, so I’d do a lousy job of writing it. Plus, if I wrote it, that would be thousands of additional hours I’d have to spend with it. No thanks.
Having said that, my next book is anadventure story featuring a gay woman, a straight woman, and an unhousebroken puppy on a wacky trip around Lake Michigan. But the lesbian is a priest, and even as she’s coping with the adventure, she’s having to deal with the politics of her diocese, and a bishop who is very much against welcoming homosexuals into church as children created by God. This is based on the things going on within the Episcopal church today, though I’m happy to say that all the dioceses in Michigan have bishops open to inclusion and justice (though not all parishes or parishioners do). Maybe it works for me because this political issue, which is the thematic base for the book, is woven in as part of the woman’s life, in which she also has joy and laughter, anguish and fear as she tried to figure out who she is and how she is called to be in the world. That is a completely HUMAN task, not just a gay one.
Cindy: Michigan’s coming elections have a proposal on the ballot that if passed, would make being visible as a gay or lesbian more difficult, perhaps even dangerous. Can you explain a little about what this legislation is and what impact its passing would have?
Hannah:Perhaps one of the most frightening things to me about Proposal 2 as a ballot issue in November is how many people do not know what it actually says. The press has misrepresented it in exactly the ways the religious right would want: by calling it the “gay marriage ban” or the “anti-gay marriage amendment,” the press has led the public to believe that is all it is.
But the proposed amendment goes much farther. Banning gays from marriage is the least of its possible effects. There are many reasons that city governments, labor unions, educators, clergy groups, newspapers (including the Grand Rapids Press which serves conservative western Michigan) and I are urging everyone to vote NO.
The best things people can do are to vote “NO” on Proposal 2 on November 2 and do everything they can to educate people about the loss of civil liberties that will result if Proposal 2 passes. People can contact Coalition for a Fair Michigan(www.coalitionforafairmichigan.org) to find out more about how they can help.
I’ll happily share everything I know with you about the amendment! I hope your readers will pass it on to EVERYONE they know!
Here’s what I know.
First off, here’s what the proposal actually says. Proposal 2 wants to add this statement to the State Constitution: “To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.”
We all wish some proposed amendment actually had the power “to secure and preserve the benefits of marriage” for generations to come. If only a law could make couples stronger, deeper, and more faithful. But a law doesn’t have such power, and this proposal provides the illusion, by scapegoating gay people, that the heterosexuals who have made such a mess of marriage are taking steps to protect it.
Because Proposal 2 includes the language “or similar union for any purpose,” this amendment will limit benefits and legal securities to any couples (gay or straight) who are not married and their children. Proposal 2 will disallow civil unions, end existing legal protections for domestic partners and their children, and stop the provision of health care and other benefits for these people.
What that means to people your readers know and love (both gay and straight) is this: they cannot be sure wills and powers of attorney, so carefully written to honor the special status of their commitments and including the language of “domestic partners”, will be recognized as legal. It means one partner’s ownership of the house could be questioned if the other dies. It means that if one partner is in an accident, the other could be barred from visiting. It means that if a business wants to include partner and children benefits as part of negotiations, the State of Michigan will prevent it, and will allow health care providers and insurance companies to refuse treatment and coverage.
And it goes further. Labor unions across the state urge the members to vote “NO” because the amendment takes away the rights of local communities to make their own policy decisions. It takes away the rights of workers, unions, and employers to freely negotiate contracts. This is why the AFL-CIO, MEA, and other labor organizations oppose it.
And perhaps worst, Proposal 2 would legalize discrimination for the first time in the State’s history. This is why so many people who love America and its national values will vote no. It’s also why so many religious people, conservative, moderate, and liberal, will vote “NO”, regardless of their opinions on gay marriage. As of last week, all 4 Michigan Episcopal Bishops, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America Southeastern Michigan Bishop, the Conference Minister for the State United Church of Christ, the Michigan Board of Rabbis and the entire Detroit Presbytery (80 congregations), have supported the “NO” vote.
But the religious right is strong, willing to preach politics instead of God’s love from their pulpits, and skillful at convincing people to donate a lot of money to political causes. Such churches (including the Catholic Church) have donated nearly a million dollars for television ads devoted to hiding the true nature of this proposal.
As a society, we have already failed in many ways to honor family, care for children, nurture relationships and strengthen life lived in genuine covenant. Passing Proposal 2, which makes civil unions unconstitutional and removes benefits from existing families and their children, will be our next big failure.
Tell all your readers to learn more, share what they learn and vote “NO” on Proposal 2.