The recent increase in the popularity of queer fiction is undeniable. Yet, it remains hard to track. There are a handful of reasons for this, but the most significant are threefold:
- The historic lack of queer-focused BISAC codes
- The current hesitation to use queer-focused BISAC codes
- An overall lack of appropriate categorization of queer texts
Until 2014, BISAC codes only allowed queer texts to be categorized as either “homosexual” or “LGBT.” While a lot has changed since then—with the current BISAC list housing over seventy-five “LGBTQ+” coding options—there’s still a lot of room for growth. In the decade since 2014, progress has been slow; only a handful of new queer codes have been added each year. But the publishing industry’s willingness to utilize these new codes has been even slower.
But first, let’s back up. What exactly is a BISAC code? The BISAC (Book Industry Standards and Communications) code list was developed by the Book Industry Study Group in order to standardize the subject categorization of books. In other words, they’re what US publishers use to suggest where books should be shelved in bookstores and some libraries. BISAC codes are also critical to performing market research and database searches. For example, Circana BookScan is a database that uses BISAC codes to allow publishing professionals to track sales performance at an industry-wide level. However, there is one caveat to its searchability: it only categorizes books by their primary BISAC code—the one publishers list first because it best encapsulates the subject of the book. For queer titles, this primary code is often not one of the LGBTQ+ tags.
While this isn’t true for all queer titles, it is true for many—especially for those released by Big Five publishers, and for those which are fiction. This is disheartening on a number of levels. We know that queer fiction is one of the only genres which has been immune to falling sales after the COVID-19 “book boom.” BookScan data shows that queer fiction sales have increased by over 200 percent since 2019. But the true extent of this popularity is impossible to measure accurately. And it is often larger publishing houses—with the most reach, market power, and sales potential—which refuse to utilize queer BISAC codes as a book’s primary categorization. In 2017, only seventy-five publishers were using queer BISAC codes. And while that number has undoubtedly increased since then, how many are using queer codes as a book’s primary categorization? Not enough.
Until publishers adapt to the usage of queer BISAC codes, we will never be able to measure the true extent of queer literature’s popularity, which is not only detrimental to accurate sales analysis, but also to the queer community itself. Queer literature has long existed in the margins—published only by independent presses, relegated to “special interest” bookstores, and so on. But with the genre’s significant and longstanding popularity, as well as its movement into the general public’s eye, there is no reason for it to remain on the sidelines. Especially as we look at the current political climate in the United States and the impacts marketing can have on policy and public opinion, it is necessary for the genre to make its way further into the mainstream. For this to happen, it is critical that marketers and publishers are able to gain a full understanding of the genre’s success.
That’s not to say that queer books shouldn’t also be categorized with more general BISAC codes. They absolutely should—but those less specific codes shouldn’t be their primary categorization. At least until we live in a world where queer people experience true equality, queer literature will always be, first and foremost, exactly that: queer. And it deserves to be categorized as such.
Back Matter
Source: Taking Pride in New BISAC Codes
Source: The Complete BISAC Subject Headings List
Source: BISAC FAQ
Source: A ‘Renaissance of Gay Literature’ Marks a Turning Point for Publishing
Source: Keyword Adoption in LGBT Book Metadata: A Case Study