SoPic this week Tuesday, April 17, 2007

This week is easy:

Give us the definition of "A romance book". Cite examples if you want.

There are no wrong answers :)










This is a tough one to define. In simple terms, it's a snapshot of a relationship whether it's a new relationship or an established relationship. The journey in a romance book is about self growth, often overcoming obstacles to be together.

The moment in "Pride and Prejudice" when Darcy writes a bitter letter of explanation that leads Elizabeth to see she had judged him too harshly. The agony when they're both beginning to work towards an understanding and Elizabeth's family is ruined by the thoughtless conduct of her sister, Lydia. But my favorite scene (other than the first proposal scene, which is brilliant) is when Elizabeth is confronted by Darcy's aunt. In that scene, all the growth the heroine has been through is evidenced in her attitude toward Darcy. As a romance book, it's a fabulous formula that works well.

Personally, I'm a stickler for a happy ending. But even that has a different meaning for different people. For my mom, a happy ending would be marriage. For me, a happy ending means a relationship. For someone else, a happy ending may mean freedom. Who knows?



I'm with Jen on this one. A romance novel is one where the characters, no matter their background or sexual preference, grow to be together. (This means gay or non-traditional or three-way-or-more romance fits into my definition)

Also, a happy ending is important to my definition. This could mean they ride off into the sunset and live happily ever after, or they could have a more complex happy for now ending. Either works, but a tragic ending does not work for me.

The way I look at it, chick lit and romance are on the same spectrum. Chick lit is about personal growth to be one with your chi, or whatever. Romance is about personal growth to be one with yourself AND someone (or multiple someones) else. Am I even making sense here or am I babbling? I think I'm babbling.



A Romance Book, huh? Well, I do like happy endings, but if there is a conclusive closure to the relationship, I don't need marriage. Even if there's a distinct indication that is the direction the characters are heading, then it works for me.

What I don't like is a story where there's no tie up, no definitive ending to the emotional growth of the characters.

That being said, a romance book should be about the characters, be it any characters, m/f, m/m... uh.. Dragon/human works for me too, as in Sara Dennis' Dragon Undone.

As Crystal pointed out that could also include multiple characters. My preference is for two. All I ask is for there to be real emotion in the book. Don't lead me on a merry chase of suspense with the story woven around two characters, but not about the characters and call it a romance. It's suspense.

Romance books are for the emotional reader. Feeling what the story portrays and connecting with your character. Most readers are looking for the happy ending, but not all. Some people want to just be in someone else's shoes for a while, to experience feelings that may be two decades buried in a marriage. My opinion (See that, it's mine, no one else's, so don't take offense) is simply this: Romance is about love, meeting the right person, the conflicts that arise from that meeting and then getting through it to be happy. Happy can be in just about any context, as Jen said, even freedom.

You don't see people questioning how scared out of your skin you're suppose to be for a Horror book to be classified as horror, do you?



Good question.

If someone starts raving to me about this "romance" they just read, I'm going to assume they're talking about a genre romance novel. For me, this means a story which is focused on the romantic relationship between the main characters (whether it be straight, gay, menage, or polyamorous) that results in a "happily ever after."

Now, when I say "HEA," I don't mean there has to be a white picket fence 'n all. For some stories, that's the right ending, but it's not fitting for others. In The Twilight Deception, the hero is a vampire assassin, and the heroine is an FBI agent. Both have extreme commitment issues. A "traditional" HEA wouldn't work for them, nor would they for several other plot and character combos.

But there has to be at least some amount of commitment at the end of the story for me, even if it's only, "Let's try this, and see where it goes."

However, if I pick up a book that people are telling me is a romance, and it ends without said romantic commitment -- I'm going to be pissed. I don't mind books where the romantic plots don't end happily, but I like to know about it. In that case, it's a "romantic novel," or a "love story," or "chick lit," or "erotic fiction," etcetera ... not a "romance novel."

Yes, I'm a pissy, particular person, and if I'm looking for chocolate cake, I don't want to be served a fruit basket. Thank you.

Art? Monday, April 09, 2007

Oooh Goodie...it's Monday again.

I've discovered I like the goosefleshy feeling I get when I hit upon this weeks Sopic. I'm trying to find things that will make us talk, make us think, and make us argue with ourselves and/or each other. So, here we go :)

I've found the website of one "Mark Jenkins" an artist who delights in putting his creations in odd, and sometimes amusing spots. (Examples here, here, and here. Please note, clicking the links will open in new windows, so you won't lose our ever-so-helpful commentary) Also, I find myself compelled to add the 'phone' in the one link is made out of packing tape.

The two which particularly caught my eye are here and here.

Here's my first question:

Is this art? Or is this someone on a 'Candid Camera' campaign?

Okay, I admit to know exactly jack about art. I failed ceramics in school. Okay, I got a B, but I aced everything else, so it might has well have been an F (shut up, Jen).

In any case, I think these are funny. Especially the one with the head in the wall and the cone feet (you'll have to clicky on Dayna's linkies to know what I'm talking about). However, I don't think they're art. I mean, what's the message? What are we supposed to learn or take away form it? It's not meant to be beautiful like, say, the Mona Lisa. So...no beauty, no message...how could it be art?

Anyone else have a take on this?

Topic of the Week--Why 'Bad' Reviews Are Good Monday, April 02, 2007

*Ducks flying tomatoes*

Yep, you read it right. What in the world can be good about a "negative" review? Now, let me say that Talia Ricci DID NOT give me a really bad review. She read it twice to try and put herself in the heroine's place. (See it here,Singled Out Review)

I was able to get some good stuff from this review, but the bottom line is that she really didn't like it. It bugged her.

So what do I do? Well, in the past (like this is my first "meh" review. NOT.) I've just left them hanging and said nothing about them. This time, I said "ouch" and then took a real hard look at it. Did her problem with "Singled Out" have merit? Mmmmm. It's very possible.

I'll tell you this, I'd rather have a reader/reviewer slash my work to bits and say why they didn't like it than have someone blow smoke up my...well you get the picture. It's not like I can't improve. It's not like I haven't been in the same place.

So, back to the topic. Why is a "bad" review "good"? Well, like a really good slash and burn critique by another writer, or a very conscientious editor with a taste for comma placement, it can improve my writing. And I'm all about getting better. My critique partners do this for me. My editors do this for me. Now, I can let readers for me. Yay team.

If a "negative" review has an opinion about structure or character that may not ring true, okay. But in my case, I think Miss Ricci might have a point. Not everyone who reads "Singled Out" is going to buy the "he was mean to me because he loved me" premise.

It makes a "negative" review a little easier to swallow if I can add it to my store of writer knowledge. I hope reviewers are more willing to be honest and let me know where I need some work.

Feel free to start throwing things at me, but discuss.



Personally, I've always been the odd one out amongst other authors when it comes to reviews. I've seen a lot of complaining about reviewers like Bam, Dear Author, Mrs. Giggles, Lit Sass, and so forth.

Okay, I can understand being annoyed when a reviewer trashes a book without giving an explanation why -- but most of these reviewers give detailed explanations, even if they're a harsh in their wording.

I've seen some writers say, though, that reviewers should only give good reviews, along the theory of, "If you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all."

Sorry, the world doesn't work like that. And it shouldn't. What use are reviews to readers if every review is glowing and favorable? There are certain sites I don't depend on for reviews (as a reader) because they have a policy of only giving positive praise.

I don't see how that is helpful to a writer. At least with a critical review, you know what the reviewer didn't like. Sometimes it's useful. Sometimes it's not. For instance, Dear Author negatively reviewed my short story, Waking the Shadows; however, it was made clear that she didn't like short stories as a general rule. Mrs. Giggles didn't like A Passion Draconic, but I knew from prior reviews I'd read that she wasn't fond of some of the themes I'd implemented in the novel. In both cases, I shrugged it off as preference. Everyone's entitled to their own.

This isn't an easy business, and I think it's important for a writer to develop a thick skin. Many writers see their book as their baby, and the problem with that is there's no emotional detachment after the book is published. And, a writer needs some amount of detachment, otherwise every time someone says something negative, it's going to feel like a knife in the back.

And even if reviewers shut their mouths, readers will speak up. I don't think there's any way to avoid negative feedback like that, unless you become a hermit.

*shrugs*

My opinionated 2c. ;)


Well, I'm all about the validation. (Love me, love me, tell me I'm brilliant PLEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease.) I admit it. But that's not the world of reviewing I'm getting :)

I get two kinds of reviews: Those who rave and lurve what I've done (usually writers) and those who like it...but.

All my fellow bloggers here know me too well for me to say "I let this roll like water off a duck's back". The fact is, I gnaw over those reviews like a dog with a bone. I tend to call one of my CPs or send them the link on messenger to whine about it. "Why don't they love me!"

But, after my emotional outburst, I use them as the research tool they happen to be. I pick 'em apart to find the validity in them. I try to apply what they've said to the next book--or see if it applies to what I've already written on the next book.

I've really only had one bad review though. No, she didn't hate the stories or the book or my writing. But her review itself was so convoluted, I wasn't sure what point she was trying to make. She didn't like...something...but I'm still not sure what it was. (So, I chose something I thought was wrong, and decided she was very insightful ;) )

The hardest part for me is those reviews where the reviewer was so obviously assigned a book they couldn't possibly enjoy. Like me reading something chock full of thees and thous and saiths. I'm not going to enjoy that, no matter how neat the premise is.

I really believe the trick is to find a reviewer you trust. If you know that reading a book a reviewer has given 100 out of 100 throbbing manhoods to is one you're going to enjoy...follow that reviewer! :) Knowing I don't like thees and thous is going to make a difference when you read a review of a 'thee and thou'-riddled book.

Um...'k. went on a little long there to basically say: Hear, hear!

Thursday Thirteen Shadows Style Monday, March 26, 2007

The Century Project opened up a can of worms for me. I both loved, hated, and wondered at the pictures there. It did, however, spawn a not too positive thought process for me.

Would I ever, ever, ever let someone take a nude photo of me?

Noooooooooo. So, the Thursday Thirteen is in honor of the courage all those women had and my cowardice.




Thirteen Reasons I Will Never Pose Nude Shadows Of Passion 1…. The ten pounds the camera adds 2. The forty pounds the camera doesn't add but is there anyway. 3. The whole ugly Miss America debacle. (Could I lose my precious book contracts if they find out I posed nude? LOL) 4. The lack of perky boobs. (Remember the joke that Ron White tells? I can roll them up after you see 'em) 5. Cellulite. Enough said. 6. "Mommy, why are you nakee in those pictures?" Again, enough said. 7. The thought that any of my ex-boyfriends may see them. (I'm vain. I'll admit it.) 8. My mother. Enough said. Definitely enough said. 9. My five foot nine, 120 pound sister. Do I need to elaborate here? 10. My husband might think it sets a precedence. "Honey, we could make a load of money on the internet if you and Michelle pose TOGETHER. I'll take the pictures." 11. I still have to drop my children off at school people. 12. What would I do with my hands? 13. Um, really, I'm not doing it for your sake. I promise. Links to other Thursday Thirteens! 1. (leave your link in comments, I’ll add you here!)




Get the Thursday Thirteen code here!


The purpose of the meme is to get to know everyone who participates a little bit better every Thursday. Visiting fellow Thirteeners is encouraged! If you participate, leave the link to your Thirteen in others comments. It’s easy, and fun! Be sure to update your Thirteen with links that are left for you, as well! I will link to everyone who participates and leaves a link to their 13 things. Trackbacks, pings, comment links accepted!

View More Thursday Thirteen Participants



The Forbidden Library Monday, March 19, 2007

I was going to find a news article to deal with this week...and instead, found this:

The Forbidden Library Go ahead and click it--it'll open in a new window. Essentially, this is a list of banned and contested books.

I have to say, I've never really understood the idea of banning a book. The ideas contained within aren't just going to go away because the book isn't on the shelf anymore.

Wouldn't that be nice? Let's just take the book down, and pretend that the N word never existed. Let's pretend white people were never cruel, evil bastards to an entire other race of people. Yep. Taking Huck Finn off the shelves could rewrite history. (Whatever. Feel the sarcasm.)

It amazes me, some of the names on that list. Zilpha Keatley Snyder's The Egypt Game, which I devoured as a kid. (I've also bought about five copies--one for my sister, for my oldest son, and copies for me which have been loaned, borrowed and 'borrowed' by others.) John Bellairs, who still scares the crap out of me, and his books are for tweens. Roald Dahl is on there twice, once for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory!

As a fantasy reader/writer, I need to point out how many of those books are argued about for encouraging belief in 'magic'. Because, yknow, believing in something otherworldly is a really stupid thing to do. (I'm behaving and not pointing out the underlying base of most religions. Really, I'm not.)

I have to say I love that the creator of this site includes links-to-buy for each of these books...but that may just be my morbid sense of things...(which I blame on reading books banned for their 'morbid themes'...at least three on that list ;) )


As someone who works as a librarian in my real life, I'm completely opposed to censorship when it comes to reading. Yeah, stick an AGE label on it if you don't want the little kids to read it, but DO NOT remove it from shelves. I always figured if you can start an argument, you must be doing something right. You hit a hot button, made people listen and take notice. made them THINK and talk about what they think.

Also, as someone with a history degree, let me tell you that even if you take it off the shelf, even IF you write about, say Christopher Columbus and paint him as a perfect little hero, it still doesn't make it so. People are nasty, evil, bad. And people are good, wonderful, and self-sacrificing. And these are all the same people. People are people, and books are just words...until you let them be something more.

My thought: let them be.



First off, I've never agreed with book banning. There are certain books that I don't feel are appropriate to be required reading for kids -- depending on age -- but I feel kids ought have free access to read them should they so desire.

I've had an unconventional experience, though. I was home-schooled and allowed full access to my parents' library. I grew up reading books with extremely controversial elements; for instance, Piers Anthony's Incarnations of Immortality novels, which in addition to raising a lot of questions about religion, also contain a fair amount of graphic sex. Or Marion Zimmer Bradley's Darkover novels, where homosexuality and polyamory are considered "normal." Or Mercedes Lackey's Diana Tregarde novels, which feature a Wiccan heroine....

You see my point.

I don't feel that I was "harmed" in any way by reading these books. If anything, they gave me a greater understanding of the outside world (in comparison with my extremely sheltered environment) and respect for different lifestyles and cultures.

I think it's foolish to try to get books banned because they either represent something in the past that was offensive, or because they don't coincide with your personal theology. For the first, sticking your head in the sand isn't going to erase the past. For the second, well, I'm pagan; somehow, I highly doubt that a conservative Christian's opinion of what's "appropriate" is going to coincide with mine. I wouldn't want my (theoretical) child subject to their definitions of propriety.

My opinionated 2c, as always. ;)



Okay, I'm not just hopping on the bandwagon here because it's after midnight and I should be asleep. Actually, I'm pretty darned coherent at the moment, so figured now was as good a time as any. So... Here's my two cents.

No, I do not approve of book banning. Yes, I do feel some material is appropriate or NOT appropriate for age groups. But here's where I get to go off... THAT'S THE PARENT'S RESPONSIBILITY.

Um... Hello? I have a 5 year-old son who can read every word I put on this screen. I have to be careful when I'm working or brainstorming that I don't let it get too brassy, steamy or graphic. Because I'm not ready for him to be reading it. I have that control. Someone decrying a book for "graphic language" and banning it is absurd! Who on this earth saw one thing wrong with the Narnia books? I mean, really. I read those so many times I wore out the spines. And I know I've had them since I was younger than 10.

Now, I'm not trying to say some puritan zealot hypocrit of literature watchdog-ism isn't going to come right back at me and say that it was inappropriate for me at that age. This is where I can stand. MY PARENTS GAVE ME THE RIGHT. No one else. There was nothing wrong with those particular books, and many others on that so-called banned list, then nor now that would keep me from letting my son read them if he was interested in them.

Libraries are for "public" education, "public" entertainment, "public" research. When books are banned, you take away the public aspect of all of that, and make it *that really bad word that America was soooo not founded on*. If you don't know it, go to the library and look it up! Oh, but you know what, someone probably banned that too.

Okay, I'm calming down here. I will say that most people have a wide and varied idea of what is "graphic" "gory" or "explicit". Books are written, abounding in variety, to suit anyone who cares to read. Sadly many don't. What's worse, people who are on the committees who do the banning, don't read widely, take on one opinion as the heresy of the day, and lump an entire generation, genre, or quality into the decision to ban.

I'm not agnostic, nor pagan, but I don't attend a church. I believe in god, his teachings, the commandments and heaven and hell. Should I demand all christian teachings be banned because I'm worried/afraid/conceited enough to believe that alone will ruin/sway/traumatize my child? Golly, what a power trip...