Skip to content

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

Amazon's publishing arm is partnering with authors to build a New City On A Hill - no walls involved.

The digital giant has been signing authors for its own imprint, with the latest being thriller author Barry Eisler. Eisler made big news not too long ago by turning down a $500,000 two-book deal from his traditional publisher, saying he was going to publish the books himself.  However, a better deal came along and Eisler was smart enough to take it.

Amazon approached Eisler with a "hybrid deal" allowing him to control packaging and some other aspects that mattered to him.  Az also fast-tracked the digital version of his book, which was published about a month after the manuscript was finished.  The paperback will follow.  Eisler thought that traditional publisher St. Martin's was just too slow, and it was even slow in getting him a draft of a contract.  In the 4 months it took the publisher to get the draft to Eiser, the publishing world changed.

Eisler says that publishers want to preserve "their own position, perks and profit — that's just what establishment players come to do over time." Legacy publishers, according to Eisler, often slow down the process deliberately, allowing them to earn interest on the money due to the writer which remains in the publishers' hands during their calculated delays.       

What mattered to Eisler were his readers because without them he couldn't make a living.  He said, " if I can find a way to get readers books that cost less and are delivered better and faster, I want that."  And Amazon was willing to throw out the rulebook and negotiate a deal tailored to what mattered to the author.  Overall in the Eisler deal, Amazon agreed to get the book out faster, cheaper, to pay the author more money and allow him to retain more control. 

Amazon helped create the new digital world and the company is in prime position to - deservedly - reap the benefits.  Moving at the speed of tomorrow, Amazon offers some authors a new path - publishing contracts built around the needs of the people who create the work.  Imagine, Amazon is actually willing to consider and adapt to individual requests from writers.

It's no longer a one-size-fits-all world and the Publishing Royals no longer get to make the rules.  In the new world order, the people who write the books now have choices about how they'll publish them and on what terms.  The power has truly shifted back into the hands that should have held it all along - to the dreamers, the creators - the authors. 

In the new Amazon City On A Hill writers work with publishers to get their work out to readers faster and cheaper.  It's a win/win for everyone except the publishing companies who refuse to throw out the old patterns.  In the new world there are no patterns for how a book gets published and there are no patterns for what kinds of books get published.  

Perhaps we've finally arrived at a place where a book will be as individual as the person who wrote it, as the company that publishes it and as the readers who will love it and make it their own. Each story is different for each reader. Now each publishing journey can carve its own path.

Traditional publishers best learn to respect the writers who've always made their buisnesses possible.  If they don't learn fast, they won't need to bother.

Published on

I haven't blogged this weekend. First, it's been kind of busy otherwise. My youngest was 1 of 3 nominated for Freshman Prince at his HS in Myrtle Beach - Socastee High School. I've been running around for the past week being sure he had costumes for every day of spirit week and tending to details to get him ready for Friday.

Friday he was in the Homecoming Parade at school - thanks to John for being an ace driver and to my boss for loaning us his Miata so Sam could sit on the back, holding a SHS towel and wave it at the screaming crowd. And they were screaming - his name. Of all the Prince candidates, Sam had the most crowd support at the parade. So it shouldn't have surprised me so much at the football game halftime ceremony on Friday night when Sam - WON.

Yes, Virginia, my youngest is the most popular kid in his HS class. It's hard for me to relate to that. I was never popular at all. I wasn't even important enough to be unpopular. I was just sort of there. So having my youngest enjoy such popularity is just sort of - surprising. He does share 1/2 my gene pool, you know? And yet he achieved so much. Way to go Sam!

Other than that - I've been working on my new one: The Office Ink Spells Murder. It's coming along well, but needs some intense periods of work. Next weekend I'll be working on my blog for All Day, All Night Writing Divas - it goes up at 1 am or so next Sunday night - 10/17/11. So for my post next week, I'll give you a little taste of The Office Ink.

But this week, I thought I'd give you a different kind of taste - PIZZA. John found this great video showing a pizza vending machine. It makes you a fresh pizza while you watch. It reminds me of the Jetsons.

I only have one question. If pizza vending machines have arrived - then where's my flying car? George Jetson had one, dang it. Maybe the flying car is next.

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

A new study claims that women who take charge at home have less sex than those who don't.  It looked at women who made household decisions like managing the budget, shopping, handling doctor's appointments and scheduling social activities.   It says that women who take charge of such things "can find themselves waiting 100 times longer for passion than those who do things jointly with their partner."

Researches say that there's a sliding scale - the  more decisions women make on their own, the less likely they are to have sex. 

The co-author of the study, Carie Muntifering said, "‘Understanding how women’s position in the household influences their sexual activity may be an essential piece in protecting the sexual rights of women and helping them to achieve a sexual life that is safe and pleasurable."

The study claims that for men, making decisions by themselves does not relate to the timing of sex.  So it's only the little women who are expected never to make a decision.  Men, apparently, are expected to be "bossy." 

I guess the authors of the study want women to stop making decisions.  Women who don't make decisions clearly can't work outside the home.  They also can't work inside the home.  They can't drive, do housework, or raise children.  What's left?  Women could sit, smile and look pretty I guess. 

Oh, no - wait.  Women couldn't do that either. They'd have to decide what to wear, how to make themselves up, how to do their hair and they'd even have to decide to sit down.  In the era of Pan Am and The Playboy Club, this study seems to fit right in.

Sexist, much?

 

Published on

When Grey's Anatomy ended last season I was still new to Twitter.  I hadn't yet picked up on the magic of hashtags (#). And I surely didn't know that by choosing the right hashtags, I could converse with other Grey's fans about the show while I watched it. 

This premiere was different.  This time, I had people in my twitterfeed who were Grey's fans and I used a couple of different hashtags.  There are probably a bunch for the show, but the 2 I used were #Greys and #GreysAnatomy.

Through the vast twittersphere, narrowed to focus on one little segment - Grey's fans - I was able to experience the show in the virtual company of tweeps who love and understand the show.  Since my household is all male,  I've never had the chance to get insights from interested, knowledgeable peeps while I watched before.  It makes Grey's an interactive event.

One of the folks I follow is bestselling romance author Carly Phillips.  And when Owen and Cristina were separated, while Owen blustered because Cristina didn't want to have the baby she was carrying, Carly tweeted this: 

...continue reading "Experiencing Grey’s Premiere Through The Twitterscope"

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!

Published on

Yep, peeps, once again my daring co-horts over at All Day, All Night Writing Divas have unleashed the crazy duck lady.  It was my turn to blog and instead of reporting me and calling for me to be committed, they just let me rip.  Would you read a blog crazy enough to let me post?

Anyway, this month I'm blogging about a great piece over at Huffpo by Dr. Drexler.  It's all about how men love and it contains some real surprises. I might post it here after it comes down at the other site, but you don't want to wait.  Trust me. 

So quack on over and read it this minute. Be sure to leave a comment because I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Published on

In the course of my internet boogling this week, I ran across a link to this list of the 20 Most Prolific Authors And Writers In Literary History.  As I perused it my brain came to a screeching halt - okay that's not so unusual.  But this list is of some darned unusual folks. And keep in mind that it's the duck lady calling someone strange. 

The info is doubtless dated a bit by now, but even if some other folks have managed the mind-bending feat of scampering onto this list, it in no way diminishes the "wow" factor of the achievement of these authors.  By all the faeries on the Isle of Skye, take a look at the numbers.

The most prolific author remains a lady who passed away in 1973 - Mary Faulkner of South Africa.  I'm guessing that between 1903 and 1973 there must not have been a lot of TV in South Africa.  No, I know what it was.  The internet wasn't sapping everyone's attention.  Then again, people were still writing on typewriters.  Hmm.  However she managed it, Mrs. Faulkner wrote 904 books.  Yes. You read that right - 904 books.

She wrote under a bunch of pen names including Kathleen Lindsay. Her romances include "There is No Tomorrow," "Wind of Desire," and "Harvest of Deceit."  I'm wondering if I checked one of hers out from my local library as a teenager.  I found a book there that I flat out adored and it was shelved near Johanna Lindsay's work.  Years later, before I'd ever written a word, I was looking for that book and emailed Ms. Johanna Lindsay because I thought it was one of hers.  She replied and said that based on my description it sounded very interesting but that it wasn't hers.  She  suggested that I write it myself. 

Some years later I proceeded to write a number of books - but I haven't made 20 yet so Ms. Faulkner's record sure looks safe from me.  But I've never written one based on my faint memories of that earlier book by someone that I'm sure I read somewhere.  Of course, by the time I emailed Ms. Johanna Lindsay I'd read more romance novels that you could shake a stick at and I'd already started mulling over how I'd write one of my own. So Johanna was right on track to suggest that I write it myself - she likely suspected that the plot I recited didn't belong to anyone else.

Now, I'm wondering if my mystery book might have been one of Ms. Faulkner's. They don't seem to be widely available a'tall.  And the truly aggravating part is that when I see them sold somewhere, the stores don't include a description of the book. Why on earth wouldn't they describe the book? I'm not buying a pig from anyone's poke - including the most prolific writer in history.

A man named Lauran (Paine) wrote 850 books. Another, Prentiss Ingram, wrote over 600 books, mostly dime novels.  He wrote a bunch of Buffalo Bill stuff and sometimes wrote a 35,000 word book overnight.  Okay, 35K is a darned short book, even in today's ebook age, but it's still a heck of an achievement.

There's no way on God's little green planet that I'd even touch the last author on the list - L.T.  Meade who wrote 258 children's books.  I could give it a shot, but I'm not sure that there's enough coffee in the galaxy to fuel the effort, and I'm positive the Graham budget wouldn't stretch to funding bionic fingers.

But I'm surely quacking full of admiration for all of the authors who were energetic enough and imaginative enough to make this list.      

......maybe if I mainlined the coffee.......