Skip to content

Category: General Writing

Stuff in general about writing techniques and genres.

Published on

This is the 19th Year that London's Literary Review has handed out a prize known as the Bad Sex Award.  Basically, it honors the "worst sex scene of the year."     The prize was established in 1993 to highlight and discourage the "crude, tasteless, and often perfunctory use of redundant passages of sexual description in contemporary novels". The award itself is a plaster foot "which is supposed to represent something to do with sex, though no one seems sure what".   

It's not a list you'd expect to see Stephen King, James Frey and Lee Child on - now is it?  But they were just 3 of the nominated authors.  The full list includes:  

  • 1Q84 by Haruki Murakami
  • On Canaan’s Side by Sebastian Barry
  • The Final Testament of the Holy Bible by James Frey
  • Parallel Stories by Péter Nádas
  • 11.22.63 by Stephen King
  • Ed King by David Guterson
  • The Land of Painted Caves by Jean M Auel
  • The Affair by Lee Child
  • Dead Europe by Christos Tsiolkas
  • Outside the Ordinary World by Dori Ostermiller
  • Everything Beautiful Began After by Simon Van Booy
  • The Great Night by Chris Adrian.

This year's prize was won by David Guterson for "Ed King," which is described as a "reimagining of Oedipus Rex".    With that book, should Mr. Guterson have been surprised to win the tongue-in-cheek honor?  One thinks ----- not.  The author wasn't surprised, as it turns out.  "Mr. Guterson sent a message: “Oedipus practically invented bad sex, so I’m not in the least bit surprised.”

In the ceremony where the award was presented to Guterson - or someone on behalf of his publisher, Bloomsbury,  the judges said Guterson's sex scene won because of its  “uncertain register, euphemism and ineffective irony,” particularly in the part where “she abused him with a bar of soap.”  Parts of the entry that snagged Guterson the prize can be read here.    I haven't read Guterson's book, but the description of the "no man's land" between a woman's "front parlor" and "back door" made me want to scream at the author to remind him that even if a book isn't a romance, a sex scene should always carry some emotion for the love of all ducks in the universe.  It shouldn't ever read like confusing directions from the guy at the gas station.  Romance has truly gone by the wayside when a character in the middle of a sex scene makes observations like  “a freshly made ear and a freshly made vagina look very much alike”.  That one's from Murakami's 1Q84, by the way. 

One of the authors nominated this year had the dubious honor of having been nominated before.  Christos Tsiolkas, whose "Dead Europe" was nominated this year, responded last year to his prior nomination for "The Slap" by speculating that the judges had "weird formative sex experiences at Eton".     As Tsiolkas' comment was mentioned at this year's ceremony at London's In and Out Club, a member of the audience noted that the author's theory sounded "completely reasonable." 

The books' highly sexed leading characters are compared to "wakening beasts, lightning rods, outrageous sea creatures and “the midnight train.” Quotes from this year's nominees include:

"In the shower, Ed stood with his hands at the back of his head, like someone just arrested, while she abused him with a bar of soap." (Ed King/Guterson)

"She was wearing jeans. The fabric whispered under my palm. She leaned back and her head bonked on the door. 'Ouch!' I said. 'Are you all right?'" (11.22.63/King)

"[Her breasts] seemed to be virtually uninfluenced by the force of gravity, the nipples turned beautifully upward, like a vine's new tendrils seeking sunlight." (1Q84/Murakami)

"Faster, harder, faster, harder. The room began to shake. Just faintly at first, like a mild constant tremor, like the edge of a far distant earthquake. The French door trembled in its frame. A glass rattled on the bathroom shelf. The floor quivered. The hall door creaked and shuttered. My shoes hopped and moved. The bedhead hammered against the wall. The floor shook hard. The walls boomed. Coins in my abandoned pocket tinkled." (The Affair/Child)

None of my books has made the list yet. I think that's because I can't write a sex scene without remembering that romance isn't about sex - sex is about romance.  Likely, my books also haven't made the list because the judges haven't heard of me --- yet.  But you never know - my books on Amazon are selling quite well in the UK so next year might be my year. 

If next year's my year I'll begin my acceptance speech by commenting on the trophy and suggesting where they might put their foot....

Published on

Huffpo published a piece about romance novel covers that proved the article's writer hadn't paid the first bit of attention to the linked video advertised in the headline.  No matter. 

The video is a Kensington romance novel covershoot and includes some great comments from industry pros at the publishing house.  About the second or third time you watch it, you might be able to pay attention to the comments.  Don't even try to take in the dialogue the first time around. The first time is a feast for the eyes and spirits of all who find returning to work after a holiday a real downer.

And like the headline says:  You're Welcome.

Published on

This week over at Smart Bitches, SB Sarah summarized a recent conference (link may be down; understand they are doing some work on the site) she attended.  What caught my attention was the disagreement between Dr. Mary Bly, who writes as Eloisa James, and the President of the RWA (Romance Writer's Association) over a topic that - at first blush - seems very simple:  What is romance?

The RWA Prez had been judging a Food Network Romance Cakes cooking competition. She ruled out one of the finalists because it showed a married couple.  She said books featuring a married couple weren't romance novels. 

It's an interesting question.  What is romance? What books fit the genre?  I guess every reader and every writer has their own definition.  To me, a book is only a romance if it fits three key criteria. 

First and foremost AND forever, amen - to be a romance it must have a happy ending.  By that, I mean that by story's end the hero and the heroine must have committed themselves to more than a relationship. They must have committed themselves to each other forever.  (My definition of a happy ending is pretty strict for such a loosey goosey duck lady, isn't it?)

Second, the book must focus on the relationship between a couple. And third, the book must focus more on internal than external action.  It's both an exact and a very loose definition.  But I don't think every book that many consider a romance fits.  Several of Nicholas Sparks don't fit the definition because there's no HEA. Gabaldon's "Outlander" doesn't fit for the same reason. 

A romance novel is a tale of the heart.  Action, interaction, scenery and setting are window dressing. Emotion creates the story, emotion carries the story and emotion concludes the story.

Published on

My post - "So What If A Bodice Rips" is up at the All Day, All Night Writing Divas site.  It's a re-write of the one posted here previously.  But here people are used to my insanity.  Here, y'all expect it.  At the other site - not so much.

The other writing divas are much saner, normal folks.   I'm their monthly dose of over-the-top duck-borne daffiness. 

I wrote the post to start a discussion and expected it to arouse some passionate discord.  If you check the comments, you'll see that it has.  But I'm always game for more. 

So, boogle on over to read the post and comment --- agree, disagree or wander off on your very own tangent.  As y'all know, I also love a good tangent.

Published on

There are folks who pride themselves on being open-minded and accepting.  I like to consider myself one of those folks.  However, within the live and let live tribe, there are a bunch of members who only accept something if it meets their rules and regulations.  They think they're open-minded but in reality, they're the opposite.  These are people who only want to accept what they find acceptable.  Yes, Virginia, I'm talking about card-carrying members of the PC Police.  I'm gonna call 'em the PCP because I think the name fits.  Lord knows, they often act like they're high on something.   

Too many of them are reader-come-latelys.  Yeah, they might've been well-intentioned enough back when they started reading romance.  But they hung around with the wrong crowd.  They listened to the wrong sermons and soon enough, they started believing them.  And the young PCP converts were tapped as missionaries - sent out to convert others and convince them that the only good romance, the only acceptable romance was new romance.  Older romance was written in the wrong style with the wrong plot elements. 

Yes,  Kathleen Woodiwiss and Rosemary Rogers (guided by talented Avon Books editor Nancy Coffey) created a genre.  It wasn't a genre where you might pick up a book on occasion and read it.  It was a genre that compelled readers to buy another book so they could start it the second they finished the last.  It was a genre that incited and inspired a generation of women.  

Perhaps that was all very well - then.  And those women who devoured romance novels like Christmas candy?  Well, they didn't know any better. Besides, Woodiwiss and Rogers and the writers who learned from them were all the readers had.  But this is a new day.  There are a horde of writers who've learned the rules and write the proper stuff.  If a writer is tempted to wander off the true path  -- she better not.  The PC Police will get her.

Do they have an APB out for me yet? 

...continue reading "So What If A Bodice Rips? Wait — Do The PC Police Have An APB Out For Me Yet?"

Published on

There's a thread the indie authors at the KDP Forum have been watching.  It's a Kindle thread about hating indie authors - and no, I'm not linking it here.  Some of the posters are hoping that Amazon will ban indie writers.  I doubt that will happen, not just because Amazon makes a lot of money from indies, but because I think Amazon realizes that a varied marketplace is the best fit for a varied world.

Some folks like indies and some don't.  That's fine.  If you don't like indie authors, you shouldn't buy our work.  Fair enough.  I have no right to force my indie books on someone who prefers traditionally published work. But banning indies?  The group has no more right to deprive others who like indie work of it than I do to force them to read it.  Respect is a two-way street folks.

But reading that thread and then reading some of the reader comments on some of my work have caused me to go back and check a couple of things.  There are comments talking about grammatical errors and misspellings through a couple of my books.  I'll fess up to needing to fix Brotherly Love in which I kept spelling lose (as in my mind) with loose (as in my accounting methods). 

But the other books referenced?  There's a comment talking about all the typos and spelling errors in A Golden Forever.  I ran back over that one, and couldn't find the errors.  However, I ran across several sections where I'd used colloquial phrases or people who spoke differently.  In those sections the spelling is different.  But I really know that scared isn't spelled scairt. I just spelled it the way the character spoke. 

There are a bunch of places where I write the way the work flows and sometimes that's not grammatically correct.  But my B.A. is in English.  I underestand grammar and (mostly) I even remember the rules when I write. But I don't let 'em fence me in. Sometimes. I don't like. Fences, rules or people who. Avidly. Support. Either. 

There are surely misspellings in my work.  But I'm going to make it my mission to re-edit everything and to run it through a neat site that checks spelling, grammar, style and punctuation.  I've made enough on my e-books to finance that, and I'll do it because I don't want any of my "human errors" to keep people from enjoying my books.

Having said all that, I realize that there are readers who won't like my work for reasons as wide and as varied as today's virtual bookshelves.  Most of the time I write over the top and take it way past what readers anticipate or expect.  For stretches in my books a lot of the "action" is internal - a conflict a character is having with himself or herself.  I enjoy mind hopping. It's one of the reasons I read romance instead of watching it on TV - I don't just want to know what happenned, I want to know why it happenned.  Why it HAD to happen. 

Some readers don't like it as far over the top as I write it.  Fair enough.  Some readers love the trip and email me asking about the next journey.  Love that.  I'm gonna do the additional editing I can do and then have ErrNET follow behind to catch what I miss.  But the editing site will see some style choices as errors and I'll disagree and leave them in, just as they are. The style has to stay true to the work.

There are people who don't like any indie work.  Others just don't like my work. And there are some wild, free spirited readers who'll go over the top with me and yell because I didn't take 'em higher. You'll forgive me if I'm just a bit more partial to the last group.

Fences can only confine you if you stay on the ground and refuse to climb to see how high you might go.  And if you keep climbing, you might get to the top and jump off to find that you can fly.  I'll meet you there - flying over rules and reality, over borders and boundaries, past can't and must. 

If you're grounded in reality and rooted by rules, then my work isn't for you. You won't like it no matter how it's edited or formatted.  If you're a dreamer who opens a new reality with each book then you might like the view from over the top. I'm always happy to fly with readers who have spirits big enough and open enough and wise enough to know that limits are only figments of our imagination.

Published on

Do a quick-step boogle on over to the All Day, All Night Writing Divas  site - the other blog insane enough to allow me to post.  I've blogged about Pruning Your Twitter Tree.

You should check out the post because keeping your social media profile current is very important.  But - you should also check it out because my Darlin' Hubby has insterted some kick-ass artwork.

Come on over and check it out -- you don't want to disappoint the Crazy Duck Lady now, do you?

Published on

Yesterday, about suppertime (dinnertime if you're not Southern), our internet connection got restored after a full day's absence.  In my ecstatic, gluttonous boogling around the internet after supper, I ran across The Romance Reader's list of the Top 100 Romance Novels.   It makes for fascinating reading. 

The list was composed from reader's nominations of over 1500 books by over 500 authors.  The books with the most votes made the list, which actually contains 109 books because there were several ties.  Although there appears to be a variety of books, the first thing that impressed me was further evidence of how loyal readers are to their favorite authors. 

I noted that several writers appear over and over again.  For example, the first book on the list is "Outlander" by Diana Gabaldon.  Four of her other books made the list.  I've got to say, I disagree with "Outlander" being anywhere in the Top 100.  I don't like the book.  I picked it up a few months back as a free read and made it all the way through, certain that at the end there would be some kind of amazing happy ending to make all the misery between the lead couple worthwhile.  It didn't happen.  I hear that there is some sort of HEA for the lead couple in a later book, but that's not good enough. If there's no HEA, then in my book, it's not a romance.

Again, Susan Elizabeth Phillips and Linda Howard appear several times and I heartily agree with both.  Linda Howard's "Dream Man" has a permanent place on my keeper shelf as does Phillips "It Had to Be You" - and her whole Chicago Stars series.  I love both of those books, but I don't think either one should be at the top. Other authors who appear a number of times are Julie Garwood (Love her stuff "The Secret" lives on my keeper shelf), Judith McNaught ("Whitney, My Love" also lives with me), Nora Roberts, Georgette Heyer, Amanda Quick, LaVyrle Spencer and Mary Jo Putney. 

For me,  the #1 Romance should be a tie between Kathleen Woodiwesses' "The Flame and The Flower" and Johanna Lindsey's "Gentle Rogue."  That was one of my first thoughts when I saw this list.  It led to the BIGGEST SHOCKER OF THE LIST - NONE OF LINDSEY'S MALLORY NOVELS MADE THE LIST AT ALL.  Only 1 of Ms. Lindsey's books made it - a scifi romance called "Warrior's Woman" which I've never read and which only came in at #68, tied with a bunch of others.

Who were the readers voting for this list?  In my book, James Mallory, from "A Gentle Rogue" is the perfect romance novel hero and the Mallory series taught me how series romance should be done.  Ms. Lindsey was robbed, I tell you, robbed.

My second shocker dealt with another of my favorites series romance writers - Julia Quinn.  NONE of her books made the list.  None.  Hello? What was in the Kool-Aid these people were drinking?

 My final and happiest shock from the list?  How very few of the books were "paranormal."  There was no horde of vampires, zombies or werewolves - Hallelujah.  The absence of large numbers of these books from the list gives me hope for the future of our genre. 

Mind you, I do think that more contemporary romance should make the list.  My WIP is a contemporary as are 2 of my others (Griffin's Law and The Billionaire's E-mail Seduction).  The next time anyone puts together a Top 100 list I hope it contains few to no werewolves, zombies or vampires and features a lot more contemporaries.

Peruse the list and let's be grateful to the good folks at The Romance Reader for putting it together- even if none of my books made it either.

Published on

THIS IS FROM MY LAST BLOG POST OVER AT ALL DAY, ALL NIGHT WRITING DIVAS. I WANTED TO POST IT HERE SO ALL MY QUACKINGALONE PEEPS COULD CHECK IT OUT:

I read a great piece from The Huffington Post by research psychologist Dr. Peggy Drexler. I'm a research lawyer, so I felt a certain sense of professional attachment before I read the piece. Her article was titled "Why Can't Men Love Like Women?" 

Dr. Drexler said that one of her friends was complaining about love trouble. Now that's a familiar topic, right? This friend was worried that her relationship might be in the weeds because her man didn't understood what she needed and refused to tell her what he needed. The doctor wondered if her friend was imagining trouble because she was "confusing love with the expression of love."

The article makes the case that men and women love differently and there are biological and anatomical reasons for the differences. The article cites studies by Dr. Robin Gur who claims to have brain imaging showing that the male and female brains aren't wired the same way.

...continue reading "MEN CAN’T LOVE LIKE WOMEN — UNLESS THEY’RE HEROES IN A ROMANCE NOVEL"

Published on

Recently, Forbes published a list of the 10 Happiest Jobs.  It followed publication of their list of the 10 Most Hated Jobs.  The only thing about the Forbes' list that really shocked me was that "author" didn't rank as the #1 Happy Job.  That's where it would place on my list. 

What was the biggest difference in the happy and the unhappy list? Forbes says "One set of jobs feels worthwhile, while in the other jobs, people can’t see the point." 

Here are the 10 happiest jobs:

1.  Clergy: 2. Firefighters: 3. Physical therapists: 4. Authors: 5.  Special education teachers: 6. Teachers: 7. Artists: 8. Psychologists: 9. Financial services sales agents: 10. Operating engineers.

Here are the 10 most hated jobs:

1. Director of Information Technology: 2. Director of Sales and Marketing; 3. Product Manager; 4. Senior Web Developer; 5. Technical Specialist; 6. Electronics Technician; 7. Law Clerk; 8. Technical Support Analyst; 9. CNC Machinist; 10. Marketing Manager.

If I had to put on my Swami Hat - and in this blog, I do, I really do - then I'd guess that what makes the happy list are jobs that give workers freedom to exercise independent judgment in a creative way.  Every job on the happy list does just that.  On the other hand, the jobs on the unhappy list  are tasks that are fairly rigid in their requirements and don't allow room for independence or personality. 

I still say that Forbes got it wrong.  The happiest job in the universe has to be working as a full time author. You get complete independence and creative control and if something isn't going the way you like - you just re-write it.

You know what?  I'm sure Forbes got it wrong. Author should be #1.  I DEMAND A RECOUNT.... especially if we get to go to Florida for it.  My eldest is in school in the City where Mickey Mouse lives. 

Recount, anyone? Or maybe a picket line.  We could all carry signs and chant lines from our favorite romance novels.  See - it would even be an entertaining kind of protest!