Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Beautiful Bylines!
Monday, October 8, 2012
Writer heart, business brain
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
The Under-achieving Author
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
More Embarrassing Editor Comments!
![]() |
By carlapryor Photobucket |
Friday, February 18, 2011
Ack! I forgot to blog!
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 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?


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.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Coming 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

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?