Author Diary Entries

188: Subversion & politics of creativity (polyamorous romcom novels, burlesque dancing, personal joy)

• Sagan Morrow • Episode 189

Share episode

“As the world changes, what place do my polyamorous romantic comedy novels have in our society? If the world now understands and somewhat accepts open relationships, is there even a need for my novels? These novels are for pre-pandemic times, BEFORE a lot of things changed — so what happens now? Are they ‘subversive enough,’ and is there a place for them?”

These are some of the questions your host, polyamorous romcom indie author and Life Coach Sagan Morrow, explores in this episode of the Author Diary Entries podcast! 

We discuss the importance of subversion and politics as part of creative expression, Sagan’s thought process in applying this to her Polyamorous Passions novels, examples of what this looks like in burlesque dance (including a play-by-play breakdown of the subtext for one of Babe Maverick’s most recent burlesque performances), and the deeply sinister nature of the seemingly-innocent “You should smile more!” comment that men so often say to women (and the way you can subvert this through the creative expression of living life). 

Resources mentioned in this episode: 

Support the show

You’re listening to the Author Diary Entries podcast — formerly known as Indie Author Weekly. I’m your host, Sagan Morrow, and this is episode #188.

I have an update to share with you on my book writing and editing progress, but this topic about the subversion and politics of creativity has been on my mind lately, so I wanted to take the opportunity to chat about it for today’s episode. Stay tuned; the next episode on our Author Diary Entries podcast will likely be a behind-the-scenes update about my current work in progress!

But for today, let’s explore the subversion and politics of creativity…

One of the things that’s been an ongoing question for me as the years go by is this:  “As the world changes, what place do my polyamorous romantic comedy novels have in our society?”

As you may know if you’ve been listening to this podcast for a while, I started writing my Polyamorous Passions contemporary romance series because I realized that I identify as polyamorous, and I was kinda blown away that it’d taken me so long to figure it out — and I knew that if I’d seen more representation of alternative relationship styles in the media, it would have helped me get there a lot sooner. 

At the time, in 2018, writing contemporary romantic comedy novels that featured polyamory WAS subversive. There wasn’t a lot of that kind of thing out there! I certainly couldn’t find it, anyway, and trust me, I was looking. 

That was 7 years ago. The world has changed considerably since then — and one of the cool things that has happened is that open relationships HAVE become more normalized. Back in 2018, the term “polyamory” wasn’t in the public lexicon. Your average person had never heard of it before. I certainly hadn’t heard it before!

…but nowadays, I think it’s fair to assume that the average person has heard that term. They know roughly what polyamory means. The concept of an open relationship might still not be super normalized, but it’s certainly not unheard of. 

There are also many more open relationship stories featured in books and on the screen, compared to 7 years ago. In fact, there’s literally now a trope called “why choose,” which subverts the love triangle. I hadn’t heard of it when I first started publishing my novels in 2018 — I have no idea when it became a thing! Maybe it WAS a thing back in 2018? At any rate, it wasn’t something I’d heard of at that point, and now it’s becoming a more common trope, which is very cool.

This is really the goal of subverting things, and why it matters so much: We’re identifying something within the status quo that isn’t good enough, or that we want to dismantle and replace with something better, or that needs to be shifted to create space for more people, perspectives, etc. Progress occurs through subversion, and creative expression is an incredible vehicle for that. 

Now, my novels are a really lovely primer for people who are very new to the concept of alternative relationships, and who may be questioning things about what they want vs what society expects of them — especially in the context of how they go about experiencing a relationship.

The question then becomes: “If the world now understands and somewhat accepts open relationships, is there even a need for my novels?”

Now, there’s an easy answer to that: Yes, of course. There are still going to be people out there who haven’t heard about it, or people who have misconceptions about it, or people who might secretly like the idea of it but aren’t sure it’s right for them, or people who haven’t considered it through a more joyful lens of the romantic comedy genre, and so on.

Another piece that we can’t ignore is the way in which we can find ourselves experiencing something like an echo chamber the deeper that we get into a culture. 

→ Is it factually correct that polyamory and ethical non-monogamy are becoming more mainstream, OR does it appear that way to me BECAUSE I’m part of the culture, so I’m paying attention to it and more likely to SEE it than before? Was it always there, to this degree, but my perspective was previously too narrow to notice it?

That possibility can’t be discounted. If I were to hazard a guess, I’d suspect that it’s a combination of both: It IS becoming more mainstream, and also I AM much more aware of it any time it crops up.

There’s another interesting answer that adds a layer of complexity here, which is this: My novels are very reflective of a pivotal moment in our society. An author’s work does not exist in a vacuum; it is a reflection of a moment in time or the society that author lives in; sometimes their work can be timeless, and other times it is deeply radical for a particular point in time and gives us an insight into history (sometimes, it’s both!).

Between summer 2018 and December 2019, I wrote and published the first 6 novellas in my Polyamorous Passions series. The next book in the series came out after the pandemic had started, in August 2020; the next book after that was released in July 2023. I have not published another novel since then.

That’s a very interesting span of time, isn’t it? There’s a lot that happened in the world after the pandemic began! And I think those first 6 novellas especially are very representative of pre-pandemic times. 

There are many (many!) reasons why it keeps taking me longer and longer to write the next book in the series, and I suspect that THIS is a big part of it: There’s been this question in the back of my mind, going, “These novels are for pre-pandemic times. BEFORE a lot of things changed. What happens now? Are they ‘subversive enough,’ and is there a place for them?”

Again — of course, there’s a place for them. And subversion is certainly not the ENTIRE purpose of the series; they also exist as simply a fun, easy, enjoyable set of books to read. But this has been an underlying question that I think has been holding me back from simply going ahead and releasing them. 

The characters, and the world they exist in, feel as though they’re from a different point in time, and so — while I still connect very strongly with the characters and adore them and their stories — there’s a sort of blissful unawareness within them, of how the world has changed since the series began. And that makes it, sometimes, in some ways, feel as though I’m going back to a previous version of myself when I’m in the process of writing these novels — because the characters themselves aren’t of THIS time. They exist in that pre-pandemic society. 

There’s nothing wrong with this. It simply IS. And frankly, it’s something I did not anticipate experiencing as an author — so there’s a strange quality to it. I don’t know how I feel about it. And I think there’s a lot more to explore and unpack within all of this, so if you have any questions or insights you want to share, please do reach out — you can message me on Instagram (my handle is Saganlives) or email me, hello[at]saganmorrow[dot]com, and I’d be happy to do another episode diving deeper into this if that’s of interest.

Polyamory has become more mainstream, and/but of course that doesn’t mean there isn’t a place for my novels. For one thing, our work never needs to be “different” or “unique” in order to be valid or worthy or have a place in the world. Contributing to concepts that are trendy and mainstream can be just as valid and awesome as concepts that are alternative!

For another thing, there are other aspects we get to still explore outside of the specific topic of polyamory, and which my novels also do pretty well: My novels invite the reader to think about who they TRULY are, at their core, and to accept themselves fully, as well as explore the ways in which other people’s beliefs have permeated through and constructed their own worldview. We examine societal expectations vs personal desires, the question of what do we mean by “right” vs “wrong” and what makes something right or wrong — for example, why is an alternative or unusual relationship style seen as “weird”? 

People in general are often threatened by the “other;” there’s a discomfort in seeing people living life on their own terms, especially when that’s what you might’ve wanted for yourself. One of the beautiful things about my novels — especially because they’re in the light, comforting genre of romcom — is that they provide you with a safe space to explore these ideas, without outright needing to ask yourself these complex and challenging questions. You get to do the exploration through the eyes of these characters as they begin their own journeys with it.

At the end of the day, polyamory just happens to be the lens that I’ve used, as an author, to get across OTHER important messages — such as being the active participant in your own life, rather than going along and living life completely based on what society tells you is the most appropriate or acceptable option.

This is something I’m very passionate about and I help people with in my work as a Life Coach, and it also happens to be an important part of the novels that I write. Because there’s more than “just” relationship styles at play here. There are so many ways in which we go through life without actively making our own choices. 

A good example of this is how, over the years, I’ve had several people tell me that they didn’t keep their maiden name when they got married because they didn’t even consider it as an option — and that they regret that, or that if they were to get married NOW, they would make a different choice. I’ve had other people allude to, or outright say, that they had kids because “that’s what you do” — it hadn’t crossed their minds to do something different (and that, again, they aren’t sure they would have made the same choice). 

This is NOT to say one choice is better than the other! It's lovely to have children, to take your spouse's name, etc. And of course not everyone is going to regret these actions! Just because that person over there has regrets over it does NOT mean that all these other people regret it. What we’re talking about here — as always, and in so many different ways — isn’t a hierarchy or what’s better, but rather, it’s about making these active choices FOR YOU. And only you know what’s best for you. 

ARE you making these choices, actively? That’s a BIG question, and it’s often very difficult to examine it fully and to be able to honestly answer it in its entirety — we’ll always have gaps in what we can see. But the more we explore these questions, the more we get curious about it, the more fully and honestly we CAN answer those questions, because the more that we are able to get to the truth and the heart of the matter.

And in this way, to bring it back to our main topic for this episode of the Author Diary Entries podcast, my novels are very subversive. They challenge the status quo and they invite readers to go deeper. They are political. And the medium itself of the chosen genre is absolutely essential, because again, it creates a safe and light and FUN space to do all of this. 

There are subtle moments woven throughout my novels with a very deliberate intention to guide the reader into new perspectives when it comes to relationships — what I might do in a future episode is to share with you some excerpts that give examples of that from the books I’ve written; let me know if you’d be interested in that.

Another example of subversion and politics in creativity is burlesque. If you’ve listened to this podcast before, you probably already know that I’m a burlesque dancer. 

One of the things I like doing is to use unexpected or alternative versions of songs for my burlesque performances — for example, the Violet Orlandi cover of Danger Zone and Jenny Owen Youngs’ version of Hot in Herre. Later this year, I’ll also be doing a sapphic version of the Phantom of the Opera by RafScrap. (By the way, if you haven’t heard those 3 covers yet, go listen to them! They’re all fantastic versions of classics)

There’s something very fun in that subversive act of choosing women artists for these songs. This builds on the same concept we discussed in Episode 186 of this podcast, about portraying male characters but in a very feminine/female presenting body. 

My style of burlesque tends to align with my style as an author: Light, comedic, playful. AND ALSO, there’s subtext within it that you can read into if you so desire…

For instance, my new Hot in Herre number begins in a somewhat modest (although fully sequined) dress, and the way that I dance at the beginning of that performance is more understated and classy. Within the first 30 seconds, I exit the stage and walk into the audience, and at the first chorus, I have an audience member unzip my dress for me — to reveal that I’m still fully clothed, but now wearing a glittery pair of fringe shorts and a tank top that has my stage name, Babe Maverick, across the front in rhinestones. I interact with the audience more, and then the dance is more suggestive or sultry when I return to the stage shortly before the next chorus — at which point I peel off the shorts to the lingerie underneath, and that’s when the dancing becomes raunchier. 

Then, at the NEXT chorus, the vibe transforms again into more of a tease, and that’s when I do a stocking peel — but the thing is, the stockings are nude. They’re entirely hidden from view when I’m wearing the dress at the beginning (it looks as though my legs are just tanned), and the audience only realizes that I’m wearing stockings when I get on stage the second time and I’m dancing in the fringe shorts. It then becomes very obvious after I remove the shorts.

Okay, why am I giving you this play-by-play? 

Because you can view that dance as a straightforward striptease — there’s no obvious narrative or character, and it isn’t at all inspired by movies the way that my other dances are. 

BUT, there’s actually so much more to it: 

  1. Each layer of clothes is like stripping off different identities — the colours change at each layer (purple to gold and white to black) and the dance style itself undergoes its own evolution, to show how we as people get to be multifaceted and multilayered. We have depth and complexity.
  2. You can’t see the shorts at all, and you can barely see the tank top, beneath the dress — which provides a surprise when I’m actually still fully clothed. It challenges the expectations the audience has about what’s beneath the dress, or what’s beneath the surface of a person.
  3. Having an audience member unzip my dress can be representative of how we do not exist in a silo; our interactions with others helps to shape and reveal our identities.
  4. The tank top that has my name on it is its own statement of confidence and pride in oneself. 
  5. The “invisible” stockings provide another interesting layer of, just because we can’t see something at first glance, doesn’t mean that it’s not THERE — and how first impressions are not always what they seem. 
  6. Each layer is very sparkly, which speaks to how we can have multiple layers and facets to ourselves, without any one of them being “better” than the next; they all have their own special sparkle to them.
  7. When I remove the shorts, there’s a good bit of time before I remove the tank top and go down to pasties — at which point I’m wearing a white top (the one that went with the shorts) and black bottoms (after the shorts reveal), which also brings attention to how we can hold some identities simultaneously. LITERALLY wearing black and white while illustrating that we don’t need to have such black and white thinking. 

…And then of course there’s the fact that the song is Hot in Herre but it’s a cover by a woman, which adds another dimension or layer to how we can read the performance. We could also get into how this is a modern song that makes use of classic burlesque striptease such as the stocking peel (blending classic with neoburlesque), or the way that I remove one of the stockings without any assistance from a chair (thus asserting independence and once again defying expectations, since there’s usually a prop to hold onto), and honestly probably a whole host of other elements!

Does the audience need to be explicitly told all of that? Not necessarily. It depends on the context and your preference as the artist and many other factors. The audience can be told all of that explicitly, or parts of it can be hinted at or suggested to them, or they can be invited to interpret it however they choose, or they can be left to enjoy it as pure entertainment without any kind of direction in terms of how to view it. 

That is part of the immense power of performance art, and really, any kind of art.

If you’re curious to see this Hot in Herre number in action, I posted a few clips from my recent performance of it as a Reel on my Babe Maverick burlesque Instagram account — I’ll add that link to the show notes of this episode.

Burlesque IS subversion. And it’s really cool how we can enjoy a performance as it is — the stage presence a person has, the costumes, the choreography, the reveals, the song, the entertainment, etc — simply for each of those things on their own, and/or we can also explore these deeper nuances and other potential hidden meanings within it. 

I can’t remember if I shared this in a previous episode here on the Author Diary Entries podcast, but when I was attending a burlesque festival a couple months ago, one the other performers at a workshop was talking about their dance style and they said something like, “It’s really important to me that we return burlesque to its political roots.” They might not have said “political,” but it was something along those lines — what I do remember clearly is that their words and tone had the implication that modern burlesque doesn’t address as many important issues, or that it’s too silly. 

And I thought that was such an interesting comment, because — as we were exploring in Episode 182 of this podcast, regarding letting people enjoy things — there is ALWAYS something that we can “read into” and get a deeper meaning from a thing. Just because you don’t immediately see the deeper meaning, doesn’t mean it’s not there. 

No matter how silly burlesque is, there pretty much always IS some kind of deeper meaning or additional layers to it! 

(It can also just be pure silliness and that too in and of itself is still worthy on its own — but even then, that too can be radical: because as adults, we’ve often lost a sense of play and silliness.)

While we’re on the topic of performance art and women’s bodies and agency, I want to make one more point about subversive joy in everyday life.

This might feel like a detour from our topic of subversion and politics in creativity, but stay with me! It connects back: I want to talk about that extremely common, everyday experience when men tell women to smile.

There is something deeply sinister embedded in the seemingly innocent “You should smile more” or “You’d look prettier if you smiled” or the “friendly” single-word command, “Smile!”

It’s not about a woman smiling, or even about a woman appearing more aesthetically appealing. It’s about appeasing men. It’s about controlling women.

Here’s how I know this: I am a very smiley person. I laugh a lot, I smile a lot, I’m generally a happy person with a fairly sunshiney disposition. (Again, we see this reflected in my creative expression — in the romcom novels I write and my usual style of burlesque.)

Men don’t have the opportunity to tell me to smile, because I’m already smiling. 

So you know what they do? They ask me, in a derogatory way, “Why are you smiling?” When I was much younger and had toxic male friends, they’d say things like, “You’re always smiling. Stop that,” or “You smile too much.”

I believe this is directly because when men tell us to smile, and a woman acquiesces, she is smiling for him. Whereas if a man sees me and I’m already smiling, then I’m not doing it because of him or for him. I’m doing it for myself. And that threatens him. Or, he might even think I’m laughing AT him; that I have my own private joke about him and that’s why I’m smiling. 

These men cannot conceive of a reality where women are not thinking about them first, or doing things for them, or existing for them. 

The idea of a woman being happy and smiling all on her own, without HIM being the reason for it, terrifies those men. It takes away their control over women. It takes away the agency that they believe they have; their belief that they have a right to women’s existence — not just their bodies.

And that’s really what it comes down to for men like that: Any attempt at physical domination — including the “Smile!” command — is for the purpose of exerting authority over a woman’s entire existence; not just her body, but her thoughts and feelings and actions. Her. Very. Existence.

A woman’s joy gets to be subversive. It IS political. 

This is not to say you should force yourself to smile! Keep your resting bitch face. I fully support that! (Again, as I always try to reiterate and do the disclaimer, there is no right or wrong, there is no approach that’s better, there’s YOU being you and that’s what matters). So, this is simply to point out that subversion and politics can be deeply embedded in everything we do, and that we get to choose our acts of subversion. 

We get to be subversive in whatever ways have meaning for us. 

Not everything *needs* to be subversive, but most things *can* be subversive. And when we approach creative expression, or living life, through a subversive lens, we get to then help shape the world to be a better, more compassionate, more expansive place. 

And so — in that sense, and to bring this back to what we were talking about at the very beginning of this episode — I think there’s something very beautiful about looking at my romcom novels as subversive simply in their joy. That can be enough. 

Your joy is enough.

That’s a wrap on today’s episode! Find me on Instagram & Threads to share your thoughts on this episode — my handle is @Saganlives. I would love to hear your own insights or any questions that you have about this topic, or to simply continue the conversation with you on those platforms.

As always, you can access the show notes and transcript of this episode at SaganMorrow.com/podcast. And if you are enjoying the Author Diary Entries podcast, please take 2 minutes to rate and review it on your favourite podcast platform — or give it a share on social media so your friends and community can tune in. 

Thanks so much — I appreciate you!

People on this episode

Head Shot

Sagan Morrow

Host