Showing posts with label Writing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Writing. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Beautiful Bylines!

Last week, seven of the nine Naughties went to the RT Convention in Kansas City. I, unfortunately, wasn't able to be there.

But my RT Magazine article was.

I was pretty excited when I heard that my reunion romances article was going to be included in the June issue of RT Book Reviews magazine. That's one of the issues given out to attendees of the convention.

And there's my article, on pages 26-27.

I love writing non-fiction when I get the chance. Over the years, I've written a travel column in the local paper, a relationship series in a regional family magazine, various articles on child rearing and marriage, some "Chicken Soup"-style essays, and of course all the academic writing I'm required to do for my day job.

But this was the first article I've published in a national magazine.

The fact that it was a romance magazine was a definite bonus. I got to write about something I love, with the amazing assistance of some of the smartest, most helpful readers and writers in the genre.

If you were at RT, you got a copy. If not, it's on newsstands now! 

And thanks to the people who so generously agreed to be interviewed for this article. Check them out below!

Authors


Readers/Bloggers

Mandi Schreiner from Smexy Books
Ginny McNeil

Monday, October 8, 2012

Writer heart, business brain



I love to write. Love, love, love it. And the fact that I can publish my stories and share them with other people is so amazing. When other people like my stories, it’s gratifying and validating. If my books didn’t get published, if they didn’t sell, if they didn’t get good reviews…would I still write?

I’m not sure, actually.

I don’t write just for the money. There’s no way you could do that. Much as I love it, writing isn’t easy sometimes. It’s hard work and a LOT of time. You have to love it to do it. To understand this, I keep in mind the saying I’ve heard, “I write for fun. I publish for money.”

The way I look at it is, if I didn’t make money from my writing, it would be really hard to justify all the time and effort I put into it, especially time that isn’t spent with my family or cleaning my house (not that that’s high on my list of fun things to do, but you know, it has to be done once in a while). My kids are older now so it’s not like they need me, but it’s still important to spend time with them and my husband, and contribute to the upkeep of the house. My husband does all the laundry now, without complaint, so I have time to write, but if I wasn’t making any money from my writing, I’d feel really guilty about that.

When I make decisions about what projects to work on next, I try to do it with business in mind. But that doesn’t always work. For example—my hockey books. I know with my business brain that I should be taking advantage of all the interest and sales I’ve had of those books and write the next one. I started writing it. But somehow my writing heart blocked my business brain, and it wasn’t happening. (But it will!)

My business brain has looked at sales of my books with different publishers. I know which sell better and how many copies they sell. I’ve made business decisions about the types of books I’ll write and where I’ll submit them based on financial considerations. It’s not worth it to submit an 80,000 word manuscript that took me months of research and writing to a publisher where it won’t sell well. Also, the different subgenres make a difference. I’ve seen that my recent romantic suspense book hasn’t sold nearly as well as other books, and even though many readers said they’d like more romantic suspense from me, that probably won’t be a priority since the sales aren’t there. Although I do love romantic suspense. On the other hand, my ménage books outsell everything else, and clearly I should be writing more of them. And I will. But my writing heart can’t write nothing but ménage stories. Then there are my BDSM stories, which have gotten great reviews but not so great sales. I’m not sure if that’s because of price, publisher, or because they’re BDSM, but my writing heart wants to write more of them anyway.

So I have to try to balance the love of writing and loving what I write, with practical business decisions. It’s hard.

What do readers expect? More of the same books that are so popular? Is there a risk of getting tired of the “same old thing”? Should writers be trying new things and experimenting with how they sell? Do readers understand that sometimes there are business decisions behind what we write? Or am I the only author who thinks this way?
                                                                                             

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

The Under-achieving Author



In the brave new world of ebooks, the accepted wisdom is that it’s to your benefit to write as many books a year as possible. In the old days of print, one book a year was the norm. I spoke to one erotic romance author who had eleven books out in one year. (To keep me from jumping off a cliff, she assured me she’d written most of them before that incredible year.) With so many authors publishing books, it makes sense that every new release puts your name out there, making it more likely that readers will remember who the hell you are. Every time a reader downloads one of your books, there’s a chance they’ll decide to check out your rapidly expanding backlist. Everybody wins – the author becomes better known, the reader has more to read, and the publisher is thrilled by all of this.

Many wonderful authors pull this off beautifully. I won’t name names, but you highly productive writers know who you are! Then there’s me. In 2012 I will have a grand total of two new releases. To be fair, if you include my other writing name, it will be five releases for the year, which sounds more respectable but hardly over-achieving.

I swear, I always thought I was a fast writer! I can crank out three thousand words a day and be pretty happy with them. That adds up to two weeks for a novella, six weeks for a full-length book. With fifty-two weeks in a year, I ought to be spitting those books out like gumballs. 

But here’s the thing. That rough draft takes me two weeks. Then I let it sit while I work on something else. Then I come back to it and rewrite/vastly improve it. Then I send it to beta readers. Then I tweak it some more. Sometimes I do another full-scale revision/transformation. Then I write a synopsis, and a query letter. Then there’s the wait to hear what the editor thinks. Obviously I’m writing during that wait, but still, the time is ticking away. Once the book is accepted, there are more rounds of edits, all of which take writing time. So that two-week novella is probably more like a six-week novella, if you scrunch all those workdays together.  Oh, and I forgot the approximate week it takes to work out the story outline, the characters, the plotline, as well as whatever research might be required.

When I think of it that way, my measly two (or five) books in 2012 don’t sound quite so slacker-ish. But still, I do worry that readers will forget me in between releases. Just yesterday, according to the Book Tart, 562 new fiction books were released. In one day! I’m not sure if that even includes self-published titles. How do you keep from getting lost in that  rushing river of new books?

On the other hand, I don’t want readers to get sick of me and my books. How many books a year is “enough, already”?

I’m curious to know what other writers and readers think about this. How many books per year do you like to see from any given author? Or does it matter? Is this just one more thing for slowpoke authors like me to get neurotic about?

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

More Embarrassing Editor Comments!



It’s time for more embarrassing editor comments!

By carlapryor Photobucket
Since I just finished edits on my next Samhain release One Wicked Night (out October 25) I have some fresh new ones to add to my list! I had some definite blushing moments while editing this one! Some of these I blogged about before, but some of you may not have seen them.



When I started writing erotic romance I wasn’t prepared for the “intimate” nature of the editorial comments. But I’m always grateful for my editors’ input because they make the book so much better!



Back on page 60 he still had underwear on, and there’s been no update on that. Is he stroking through the fabric?



Again, there has been no update to the guys being on the bed in their undies (p60), so for this to be possible, you need to work in about him (and possibly Nick) taking off those boxers.



Considering that so far there’s been no anal sex, and the guys have both worn condoms, what’s to wash?



First up, a woman snaking her hand down to take care of herself when she's the meat in a very hot man-sandwich throws me right out of the scene and I wonder if the guys really have a clue what they're doing. Secondly, I’m always amazed when I see this in a story, that a hand can not only fit in the middle of that crush of bodies/groins, but that the woman can move her hand/finger once it’s there. If you decide you want to remove it, but feel she still needs the stimulation, her nipples are right near Nick’s mouth ;-) I also guess that I’m amazed that if two hot, sexy and horny guys can’t do something in this position to get her off, then what’s the point? ;-)



Dangler -  sounds like her gaze is speaking to both of them.



Um…no lube? She’s an anal virgin and he knows it. Is he trying to deliberately freak her out?



Since you just used “womb” about what about “Pussy” or “cunt”?



What about cross contamination. As a doc, he’d know not to put his mouth on her again after it has been on/in her anus.



Did it (his cock) soften from beforehand?



When did his finger enter her? Above he’s playing with her breasts with both hands.



This all sounds like Abby toyed with Abby’s nipples



This can’t be correct if she has hair there as you said above.



Gotta watch the  “her” and “she’s” when writing sex scenes with two women.



Didn’t Melina get a Brazilian for him?



Your womb is your uterus…I’m thinking it’s her vagina that is?



If she’s kissing his nipples, she wouldn’t really be lying on his chest, but leaning over him.



Is he wearing a condom?



If she’s on her tummy, how can any arousal be trailing to her anus? Wouldn’t that be going against gravity?



Just checking… deliberately no condom this time, or did he just forget?



The way this is phrased, it’s not clear whether it’s her mouth or his cock that’s “hot and velvet, hard and pulsing”



Dangler – reads as though she is hot, hard and throbbing



If she’s on the bottom, why would she need to lift her head?



This reads as if her neck is sitting beside her on his couch.



Is this anal or vaginal?

Friday, February 18, 2011

Ack! I forgot to blog!

Sorry this is late, folks!  My usual organizational skills failed me and I just realized today was my day to blog here. Bad me.

I pride myself on my organization and planning skills so I'm feeling very ashamed. And as you can tell, I have nothing prepared. :-)

My excuse for forgetting is that I've been so wrapped up in working on our next serial story this week. I think it's too soon to say much about it, but we've got a prologue and two chapters written and it's shaping up to be pretty darn good!

I have to say I had misgivings about this story. But then again, I did the last time, too. I've never written about werewolves and vampires - that was all new to me. But I managed to do that, so I was ready to tackle this new idea. Just to clarify, my misgivings weren't about the STORY - I thought, and still do think, it's a fabulous idea full of lots of romance potential. It was myself I had misgivings about. But a funny thing happened when I started working on my chapter. I started doing research and I got all caught up in it and I got excited about writing it. And then when I did sit down to write it, I LOVED writing it!  I will admit I had a lot of placeholders XXX's for things that I wasn't sure about and had to go back and do a bit more research. But I really, really had fun with it and it also reminded me that writing SHOULD be fun. Sometimes I get all caught up in the business of writing and sometimes I get dragged down by the negatives, like rejections and bad reviews and...rejections. Ahem.

So this was an important reminder to me of how much I love writing, and doing something like this, something that's just fun, is a great way to get the creative juices flowing again. The night after I wrote my chapter, I even dreamed about it all night!

So now I hope you all are teased a little about what we have coming up and forgive me for the late post. :-)

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Our Friend, the Keyboard


A few months ago, another writer’s loop had an extended discussion about the joys of writing longhand. One writer announced that she wrote all her preliminary drafts with pad and pen, and she was convinced that it freed up her writing imagination. Others chimed in. Yes, indeedy—buy yourself a good felt-tip pen, or even a good ballpoint. Grab a legal pad, curl up in a comfy chair, and let ’er rip. Freed from the technological bad karma of electronic control, you’ll have that novel completed in no time at all.

To this I must respectfully reply, “Bullpucky.” I love my computer, and there’s no way in hell I’m going back to a pen, no matter how extra special that pen may be.

Part of this determination stems from the fact that I remember what writing was like before PC’s were widely available (yes, kiddies, I really am that old). I remember taking notes on three-by-five cards in the library, then writing out drafts in longhand, then copying those drafts on your electric typewriter (which had a correcting ribbon if you were lucky). Then typing out another draft after you’d marked up the first (and let me tell you, typewriters were nowhere near as easy on the hands as a computer keyboard).

And writer’s cramp. Oh yes, my dears, I remember writer’s cramp. I tried every shape of pen I could find looking for one that wouldn’t make my hand feel like a claw after a couple of hours of writing.

When the price of PC’s finally dipped to something we could afford, I rushed right out and grabbed one (a Mac—and I’ve stayed true every since). It didn’t have much memory, no hard disk, and you had to save everything on three-and-a-half inch disks, but oh, what a difference it made! No more Whiteout, no more writer’s cramp, no more hours spent with only a few pages to show for it. Having done books on both typewriters and computers, I’m here to tell you there’s no going back.

Having said all of this, however, I have to admit something else. I find it a lot easier to revise in longhand than on the computer. Particularly when parts of the story need to be reorganized, it’s just easier for me to see how to do it when I can lay the pages out and scribble the inserts (although if they’re longer than a paragraph or so, I may end up doing them on the computer again). Whenever I revise a draft, I print the whole thing out, then curl up on the couch with a stack of pages beside me, adding, deleting, and moving things around with a red pen.

Now, I’m not entirely happy about doing it this way. I wince at the amount of paper it takes (I print on both sides of the page, but still) and the number of printer cartridges I buy each year (they’re recycled, but still). On the other hand, I still do a more thorough job of revising using this method than I did when revisions meant retyping the whole freakin’ thing all over again.

So I gotta say, if other writers find the romance of longhand gets them going, more power to them. But I’m guessing few of them have ever had to write without a computer at all. To me this is sort of like people who extol the thrill of riding bikes everywhere because they’ve never really lived without a car. I’ll go on drafting everything on my trusty Mac, unromantic though it may be. You will force me back to a pen only if you can pry my keyboard from my bleeding fingers.

So what about you? Pens, pencils, or wireless keys?

Friday, January 14, 2011

Why my heroines are always beautiful

I’ve read a lot of books and blogs and articles about creating characters. I’ve read that readers don’t want to read about heroines who are perfect – they should have flaws and be someone readers can relate to. Much of the advice centers around the personality of the heroine – making her three dimensional and likeable enough that the reader wants to spend time in her head. As for physical characteristics, I've heard that readers don't want to read about someone who’s too perfect to be true.

I always put a lot of thought into my characters’ physical appearance as well. Often I try to find photographs of a model or even actor who I think looks like my character. I won’t necessarily describe the heroine in great detail, but will give enough information so the reader can form a picture in her own mind.

I recently realized that all of my heroines are physically attractive. Why? I don’t actually know, except that for me romance is a “fantasy” and in my own fantasies, starring me, I’m slender and fit and beautiful. Hey, it’s a fantasy, I can be whatever I want. And I guess when I get inside a character’s head as a reader, I want to be beautiful.

For the most part, I think my heroines are somewhat oblivious to their looks. I’ve never written a heroine who thinks she’s gorgeous. On the other hand, I’ve never written a heroine who is convinced she’s ugly. Or fat. I’ve never written a plus-size heroine who worries about her weight; but I’ve also never written a heroine who’s slender who thinks she’s overweight or a heroine who worries about the size of her thighs as the hero is stripping her naked. That’s not sexy to me. I find it sexy when a woman is confident and secure – not conceited, but not overly concerned with how she looks. I do think I will write a heroine who worries about her thighs at some point. That’s just reality. But maybe because I’m kind of like that – my thighs are fat, my stomach isn’t flat, my boobs are too small – a sexy fantasy for me is to be a woman who’s unconcerned with those things.

But I think the real reason my heroines are beautiful is because they are most often described through the hero’s eyes. I try not to use that “heroine looking in a mirror” cliché and have her describe her own looks, but for the most part my heroines don’t think a lot about their looks. But some of them do see themselves differently than the hero sees them.

Here’s an example from Taming Tara, my latest Ellora’s Cave release. This is Tara, comparing herself to her sister Sasha:

She introduced Joe to Sasha, who looked him up and down with unabashed appraisal. Tara couldn’t help but compare her faded jeans and cotton tank top to Sasha’s silk dress and sexy sandals. Sasha was just totally different, her hair highlighted to a much paler blonde, flat-ironed to perfect straightness, her lips shiny bright pink.

Tara had always felt dull and boring beside Sasha, but it didn’t usually bother her. Tonight, however, she wished she compared more favorably to her younger sister seen through Joe’s eyes. Damn him. Why did she even care what he thought?

And here’s Joe looking at Tara and Sasha in another scene:

Her sister stood by her side in a sparkly red dress, her hair pale blonde, her skin tanned, the nails on the hand clutching her martini glass long and manicured. Her full lips, so much like Tara’s, were red and shiny and she wore a lot more make-up than Tara did. They did look alike, but Sasha’s vivid sexiness did nothing for him. It was Tara’s understated beauty that drew his eyes back.

And another example from my soon-to-be-published (stay tuned for details!) Breakaway - this is Jason meeting Remi for the first time:

Jason looked down at the tiny little blonde standing there with her hand on his arm. Was she even old enough to be in the bar? Amusement tickled inside him. He was used to girls hitting on him, went with the territory, but this little pipsqueak teeny-bopper blonde was hands-off material. Not even close to his type, anyway.

Later the same evening, after Remi discovers Jason just broke up with dark-haired super model Brianne Haskett, this is her point of view:

“What I mean is, I’m not normally attracted to cute little blondes.”

Cute little blonde? Yeah, that was her. How she wished she had mile-long legs and big boobs and full lips like Brianne Haskett. Stephanie Seymour. Laetitia Casta. All those other Victoria’s Secret models who looked like that.

No, she was teeny weeny, skinny, flat-chested, with wispy blonde hair.

But Jace seemed to find her attractive.

And still later that night, the attraction between them has developed even further, and this is what Jason thinks of her now:

And the top and the skirt came off too, both down over her hips and legs, leaving her lying on the couch in her lingerie and yes, her panties were black lace, too, a tiny triangle held on by a slender black ribbon over each hip. Her skin was incredible—creamy smooth everywhere, her body dainty and perfect.

He had to just stop and stare, breathing hard.

“Jace?” She put a hand out to him and he lifted his gaze to her face. Uncertainty shadowed her eyes, her mouth soft and pouty.

“You’re so fucking gorgeous,” he muttered. “I have to look at you.”

Her eyes widened, then drifted closed and the corners of her mouth tipped up. “Thank you. I’m not…”

He lightly rested his fingers on her mouth. “Don’t even say it.” He didn’t know how, but he knew what she was about to say, and he didn’t want to hear any comparisons between her and anyone else, because there was no comparison. Jace himself was a little taken aback at how stunningly beautiful he found her.


What I like (and what I often write) is a heroine who is not overly concerned about her looks but perhaps a little insecure, and a hero who thinks she is absolutely, breath-takingly gorgeous. He’s attracted to her, if not immediately, as with Jason the first time he sees Remi above, but certainly as he gets to know her. He can’t keep his eyes or his hands off her, she’s so beautiful and sexy.

So what do you like in terms of heroines and their looks? Big and confident? Gorgeous but insecure?

Friday, August 20, 2010

What's Past Is Prologue


Okay, I’m going on record here—I actually like prologues. I know I’m not supposed to. All the writing workshops tell you not to use them. Donald Maass claims, in his Writing the Breakout Novel, that his agency automatically rejects any book that has one (authors take note). The idea is that anything that goes into a prologue should probably go into Chapter 1, and if you can’t work it in, then the prologue is probably unnecessary. I get it—I really do. I still like prologues, though.

Let’s look at the things a prologue can be used for. First of all, it can provide a pivotal episode in the past that will indirectly affect all that follows. Nora Roberts does this with her Three Sisters Island books. The actions of the original three sisters have consequences that extend into the present, and seeing them act sets up the situation Roberts wants to carry forward. Yes, the characters do refer to the earlier sisters, but they don’t have to sit down and explain everything that happened, thanks to the prologue.

Then you’ve got the “key to the mystery” prologue where the author gives some cryptic clues about what’s going to happen here and who’s involved. Linda Howard does that in Mr. Perfect, where the brief prologue not only gives you a hint about who the nasty killer is but also gives you an idea of the twist in the plot. These types of prologues are often very tricky indeed since the reader may not be able to connect them to the story until much later in the plot, and by then the prologue may have been forgotten. That doesn’t make them unnecessary, just really, really clever and tough to do.

There are even “scene setting” prologues, where the prologue sets up the feeling the book is going to have while, perhaps, presenting a few interesting details about the plot. This kind of prologue shows up a lot in historicals, but Elizabeth Lowell uses it too in her suspense novels like Die In Plain Sight and The Wrong Hostage.

Now you may have noticed a couple of things here. First, all of these authors are very successful and very well known. And I could have added others to this list: Julia Quinn, for example, and Eloisa James and Mary Balogh. The idea that no good writer uses a prologue is just, well, silly. But the other thing you may have noticed, if you’ve read my Konigsburg books, is that I’ve never written a prologue myself.

Well, that’s not exactly true. I have, in fact, written prologues. I have also trashed those prologues. I’ll admit it—the current anti-prologue bias has me spooked. So I’ll go on being prologueless, at least for the time being.

Still, I have to come back to my original point. I like prologues for a simple reason: the prologue lets the reader feel like an insider. Think about it—the prologue usually gives you information at least some of the characters in the novel don’t have. You know what happened in the past to cause this situation. You know something about the murderer (although not enough to give the identity away too soon). You have a piece of the puzzle that the others won’t understand until later. If the writer is really good, that puzzle piece will let you begin to see the ultimate shape of the plot more quickly than some of the characters do. And that’s fun.

Far from being superfluous, a good prologue pulls the reader in and makes her a collaborator with the author in creating the scene. Or anyway, that’s how I see it.

So what do you think? Will you tolerate prologues, or do prologues make you want to throw the book against the nearest wall (always providing, of course, that it’s not an ebook because throwing a Kindle or a Nook could have serious consequences)?

Monday, April 5, 2010

Characterization the Chuck Jones Way


Some of you probably already know who Chuck Jones is (or was—he died in 2002 at the age of 89). For those of you who don’t, think of the classic Warner Brothers cartoons: Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Porky Pig, Elmer Fudd, even the roadrunner and Wiley Coyote. Chuck Jones had a hand in all of them. But my favorite quote from Chuck Jones is something to the effect that we all think we’re Bugs, but in reality we’re Daffy (I’d give you the exact words, but I can’t find the freakin’ quote on the InterWeb). That’s actually a profound insight into human nature, the way we all think we’re tremendously clever, but we’re actually pretty inept. It made me wonder if maybe we could learn something about characterization from those Warner Brothers cartoons—could we use those characters as sort of avatars (if you will) for our characters?

For example, consider a couple of lesser known cartoon characters: Foghorn Leghorn and Henry the Chicken Hawk. Foghorn is a chicken, of course. A very large chicken with a deep voice. Henry is an extremely small chicken hawk with large ambitions. Foghorn is also very smart, but occasionally too certain of his own cleverness. As a predator, Henry is pretty inept, but he’s determined to succeed in carrying Foghorn off for a meal. In reality, neither is in any particular danger, but your sympathies bounce back and forth. Foghorn, however, has the best lines: “You’re built too low to the ground, boy, the fast ones fly over your head.”

In a sense, Foghorn is the avatar for every hero who’s a little too sure of himself, a little too prone to push his luck too far. Henry is an avatar for the villain who’s unskilled but not harmless, and who is ignored at the hero’s peril. I have to admit: there’s a little bit of Foghorn in me. For me, it may be “I think I’m Bugs, but I’m really Foghorn.”

I find these Chuck Jones avatars in my own work all the time. Bugs shows up a lot. Sort of Pete Toleffson (Wedding Bell Blues), with a dash of Wonder Dentist (Venus in Blue Jeans). And Daffy is a slightly smarter Ham Linklatter (Venus in Blue Jeans and Long Time Gone). Yosemite Sam has some things in common with Billy Kent (Venus in Blue Jeans), and Allie (Wedding Bell Blues) shares some qualities with Porky Pig (no, not her weight).

Maybe we could carry this to its logical extreme: instead of the Hero’s Journey and all that stuff from Joseph Campbell, maybe we can start identifying our characters with their cartoon counterparts. Instead of asking “Who’s the protagonist, the antagonist, the contagonist” we could go with “Okay, who’s the Bugs in this book? Who’s the Daffy?”

All right, all right, I know, it’s not serious. But sometimes I think we need a vacation from the serious business of writing. So if y’all will excuse me now, I think I’ll take a carton break.

So how about it—who’s your cartoon avatar? What character is closest to your heart (or your personality)?

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Coming out of the closet

Last week I came out of the closet.

My family knows I write, and friends know I write. But I don’t tell acquaintances, even if someone asks what I do, and I have NEVER told ANYONE I work with about my writing. But last week I was at a one-day workshop, no one else from my work was there, just total strangers, and when we had to do that usual “icebreaker” introduction at the beginning and tell everyone what we do when we’re not working, I told them “I’m a writer. I write fiction.”

Note, I didn’t say I write romance.

I was waiting all day for someone to ask me about it – what do you write? Are you published?
I’m proud of what I write, but I know romance has a certain reputation and is looked down on by many people. And I wasn’t sure how I was going to answer that if someone asked. I’m prepared to defend the romance genre, but so far I’ve never had to do that face to face with someone who disapproves of it.

Well, nobody asked, and in the end I was kind of disappointed. Especially when, during one group discussion, talk turned to books people are reading. A couple of intimidatingly intelligent sounding girls were talking about going on vacation and taking Warren Kinsella’s book with them. Light reading? Oy. But then one of the girls said, “I’m taking some trashy romance novels, too. I like those.”

Well, I was just thrilled! I still didn’t get a chance to tell her that’s what I write but it all felt okay. And next time when someone asks me I won’t be so worried about how to answer.


So who's out with me? And who's still in the closet?

Monday, January 25, 2010

Dutiful


It's the middle of the morning routine, with kids asking for milk and fighting over the fake promotional Disney Visa card that came in the mail on Saturday. I'm trying to keep everyone on track but it's hard.


I've been called for jury duty today.


It's the sixth time this month.


See, in our county, jury duty is for a month long stretch, and there are only four panels of possible jurors each month. So at least once or twice a week since the beginning of January, I've had to trek down to the courthouse, sit in a sequestered room with fifty or so other people, and wait for them to call us into the courtroom.


So far, I haven't been picked. I have, however, gotten a lot of story ideas out of the whole process. (Last week's two-day trial, which took jurors up to and including the person right next to me, sounded fascinating. I was almost disappointed not to be picked!) I'm not getting a lot of writing done this month, because the interruptions from jury duty selection have really thrown off my work and writing schedule. But I'll have a lot of fun stuff to work on once I'm settled back into the routine.


So I'm guessing today is my last time to be called. I'll schlep on down to the courts, notebook in hand, and wait for the process to start all over again. And if I'm lucky, I'll get another story idea out of it!

Friday, January 8, 2010

Rules and Conventions


I recently gave my sister a copy of my WIP, Rocky Mountain Howl (are ya’ll sick of me referring to this damn thing? Me too. Moving on…) and asked her to give me her thoughts. She doesn’t read a lot of paranormal romance, and I wanted a fresh eye.

Once she started reading it, she had two…well, not exactly complaints, but two things that surprised her, and not in a good way. She thought there were a lot of characters to keep up with, and she got frustrated because some things in the plot are only revealed and explained as the book unfolds.

I was taken aback. The number of characters in a book never bothered me if the book was well written and characters were clearly identified. And I like books that keep you guessing about what’s going on.

Then I thought about it. Paranormal romance is my favorite subgenre. You find large casts of characters in these books, maybe because a lot of titles belong to series. And paranormal romance often features mysteries or strange goings-on that aren’t fully explained right up front. My sister is used to reading romances that follow a certain set of conventions, and the books I read follow another.

I thought about this when PG Forte mentioned a reader who was convinced that the hero in one of PG’s books was the villain, and the villain the hero, based solely on the order in which the two were introduced in the book. I think maybe that’s taking convention a little too far.

Both these incidents got me to thinking about rules. Romance novels aren’t nearly as formulaic as they were just ten years ago. But authors know there are still certain – let’s call them conventions, instead of rules – that a lot of readers expect their romances to follow. Or at least editors think readers expect these conventions to be followed, and so unconventional books have a harder time getting published.

Now, my first instinct is to say “Boo! Conventions bad! Boundary-pushing romances good!” And I do feel that way. But…I’ll admit there are a few conventions I like, and I expect books to follow, and I tend to shy away from books that don’t.

I like alpha heroes. I like em big and powerful, and I don’t even care if the hero is an asshole for two thirds of the book as long as he’s redeemed at the end. I don’t like books where the heroine is stronger or tougher or richer or more powerful than the hero. I used to be ashamed to admit this, but I’ve decided – screw it, that’s my taste. I’m reading a romance novel, not setting government policy.

Another one: I can’t relate to promiscuous heroines. A colorful history, a life fully lived – that’s one thing. But a heroine who does casual hookups routinely – I’m probably not going to finish the book. I really want to read Loretta Chase’s Her Scandalous Ways and Eden Bradley’s A 21st Century Courtesan, but – hooker heroines. I mean, I just don’t know. Again, I’m kind of embarrassed about it, and I definitely think I should get out of my comfort zone, but….it’s so comfortable here!

Okay, your turn. What romance novel conventions do you find it hard to disregard, and which ones bug you? And if you’re a writer, which conventions do you yearn to smash?