I love football. It's my favorite thing. The off-season is long and bleak, and I'm already feeling bummed that there won't be anymore football until after Labor Day (the pro-bowl doesn't count). My favorite team is the Denver Broncos. I grew up with them. I love them. I love them when they win. I love them when they lose. They really hurt me this season, but I still love them.
This season, in general, was hard on me. The New England Patriots was going to win it all. Everybody knew that from the second week. That was the season's narrative. The plan. The Way It Was. Knowing how the season is going to end in the middle of September really takes all the fun out of it. I couldn't muster much enthusiasm for the post-season until after the final game of the season, when the Patriots defeated the Giants by the field goal.
The Pats had a weakness. And the Giants just needed a second chance to exploit it.
I'm not a bitter person who hates the Pats just because they're "perfect." Nothing they did this season had any bearing on the Broncos. And I am entirely indifferent to the Giants. So regardless of the outcome tonight, it wouldn't make a huge difference to me.
But...I'm a sucker for the underdog. I have always been a sucker for the underdog. Hey, I'm a Broncos fan (and a Utah Jazz fan in the basketball realm). Cheering for the underdog is often a requirement. Tom Brady is the undisputed alpha-male of the NFL. Eli Manning is the little punk kid. Most of his fans hate him. most everybody hates him because he isn't his brother, Peyton. He's made mistakes. He's been known to choke. He's not battle-scarred. In fact, in many ways, he reminds me of an eager puppy.
Eli Manning challenged his alpha-male tonight. He met him, head-to-head. Fearlessly. Even calmly. And he won.
that's why I cheered for the Giants. Because nobody thought they should be there. Nobody thought they could win. The entire fucking NFL forgot that everything can change on any given Sunday. I cheered for the Giants because for 60 minutes, they embodied what the National Football League should be about. Triumph. Excitement. Power. Dominance. As Tom Petty sang tonight during the half-time show, Eli stood his ground.
Congratulations to him.
And to the Patriots--there's always next year.
Showing posts with label deep thoughts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label deep thoughts. Show all posts
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Comanche Moon Mini-Series Review
Earlier this week, Vivien said, "Sometimes I think you want to be Larry McMurtry when you grow up." And she's right. I absolutely want to be Larry McMurtry with all my heart. My mom recorded Lonesome Dove off the television, and my sister and I watched it over and over and over again. When I got a bit older, I read Lonesome Dove, Comanche Moon, and Dead Man's Walk. I own Streets of Laredo, but I haven't read it yet, because my favorite character dies in Lonesome Dove and I knew I'd miss him too much.
Anyway, knowing my great love for Larry McMurtry, my husband informed me several months ago that there would be a mini-series on CBS of Comanche Moon. I was shaking with excitement by last Sunday. Freaking Val Kilmer was playing Innish Scull! I didn't have any strong feelings about Karl Urban or Steve Zahn, but I lurve them now. I think they did a fantastic job, and I was thrilled to death with how they portrayed my two favorite literary characters, Woodrow F Call and Augustus McCray.
But the mini-series was panned by reviewers. I was confused and disappointed by this. I thought the first night was pretty great. I thought the second night was pretty good. Then I hit night 3. And I realized that no matter what, Comanche Moon had two things working against it. First it's a prequel. Prequels are freaking hard. For example, you know that the villain, Blue Duck, is not going to die. The other main villain, Ahumado was not killed by the Rangers. It's hard to be invested in the main relationships (Call/Maggie, Gus/Clara), when you know exactly how it's going to end. And that is "Not well."
The second problem is that it's an adaptation. In the book, it makes perfect sense that Ahumado is killed by a scorpion and a parrot. Unfortunately, that's not very exciting for viewers. "So, like, it doesn't even matter if the Rangers show up? What the hell is the point of this?!" Things that work in a book don't necessarily work on the screen. That's just one of many things that just can't be conveyed properly.
Oddly enough, despite the futility of it, the mini-series really did emphasize the relationships between Call and Maggie and Gus and Clara. This movie (and Lonesome Dove) was, at its heart, a love story. Not a romance. And it's more than a little tragic.
Ultimately, I love this movie, and i do plan on buying the DVD when its released. But I think it needs to be watched with a bit of generosity and a bit of forgiveness. The characters are complicated, flawed, and satisfying. The story, unfortunately, just sets up Lonesome Dove.
Anyway, knowing my great love for Larry McMurtry, my husband informed me several months ago that there would be a mini-series on CBS of Comanche Moon. I was shaking with excitement by last Sunday. Freaking Val Kilmer was playing Innish Scull! I didn't have any strong feelings about Karl Urban or Steve Zahn, but I lurve them now. I think they did a fantastic job, and I was thrilled to death with how they portrayed my two favorite literary characters, Woodrow F Call and Augustus McCray.
But the mini-series was panned by reviewers. I was confused and disappointed by this. I thought the first night was pretty great. I thought the second night was pretty good. Then I hit night 3. And I realized that no matter what, Comanche Moon had two things working against it. First it's a prequel. Prequels are freaking hard. For example, you know that the villain, Blue Duck, is not going to die. The other main villain, Ahumado was not killed by the Rangers. It's hard to be invested in the main relationships (Call/Maggie, Gus/Clara), when you know exactly how it's going to end. And that is "Not well."
The second problem is that it's an adaptation. In the book, it makes perfect sense that Ahumado is killed by a scorpion and a parrot. Unfortunately, that's not very exciting for viewers. "So, like, it doesn't even matter if the Rangers show up? What the hell is the point of this?!" Things that work in a book don't necessarily work on the screen. That's just one of many things that just can't be conveyed properly.
Oddly enough, despite the futility of it, the mini-series really did emphasize the relationships between Call and Maggie and Gus and Clara. This movie (and Lonesome Dove) was, at its heart, a love story. Not a romance. And it's more than a little tragic.
Ultimately, I love this movie, and i do plan on buying the DVD when its released. But I think it needs to be watched with a bit of generosity and a bit of forgiveness. The characters are complicated, flawed, and satisfying. The story, unfortunately, just sets up Lonesome Dove.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Movies--Battleship Potemkin
I'm taking a Film Theory class this semester, so I've got a whole list of movies to watch--13 in total. Only two of which I've seen. We're not focusing on any particular period or type, near as I can tell, so there is a really good variety of movies currently on my Netflix queue. I thought since I had to watch one per week anyway, I'd blog about it here. Just to shake things up a little bit.
The first film on my list is Battleship Potemkin. I was a little bit wary of this one, because in some ways, I'm very uncultured, and I didn't know if I wanted to watch a silent, Russian film with sub-titles. But man, was I wrong. Battleship Potemkin is one of the most intense films I have ever seen.
The description I read of Battleship Potemkin called it a propaganda film, and of course, it is. The propaganda elements can't be ignored. But that's not why the film works. If it was just propaganda, I don't think anybody would really be interested in 83 years after it was made. It's actually got some serious moments of ambiguity that makes you think about and question what you are watching, especially at the end of part 2, when the leader of the revolt (or mutiny!) on the ship is murdered, and in part 3, when everybody rallies around his death and turns him into a serious martyr.
There are some really effective shots, as well. Obviously, since it's a silent, the "dialogue" is sparse. Of course, that means none of the words are wasted. Everything is pointed, and it carries even more of an emotional punch. The music is also extremely dramatic. It made me think of a ballet--which I suppose is pretty obvious, but I don't think I've ever watched a full-length silent before.
It's actually making me think a lot about the way I tell stories. Obviously, I don't have a very strong, dramatic musical score to rely on to raise the tension--and in the version of Battleship Potemkin I saw, the soundtrack is very intense. But the filmmaker, Sergi Eisenstein, frames some very effective images that said more than any words ever could. There was on scene when the army began shooting indiscriminately into the gathering, agitated crowd. They hit a boy. But that wasn't the end. The boy fell and was trampled. His distraught mother finally found him, picked him up, and carried him to the advancing soldiers. She begged for help. They shot her. Again, the film is propaganda, so of course, there was no other way that particular scene could end. But even though I knew it was coming, and knew I was being manipulated, the way the scene was shot and presented still hit me right in the gut.
I'm going to watch it again before we discuss it in class on Wednesday. But my initial, gut reaction was just "wow." It also made me feel personally very agitated, tense, frustrated, and scared. I guess that's why it's called propaganda--I was ready to go fight the Tsar, too.
The first film on my list is Battleship Potemkin. I was a little bit wary of this one, because in some ways, I'm very uncultured, and I didn't know if I wanted to watch a silent, Russian film with sub-titles. But man, was I wrong. Battleship Potemkin is one of the most intense films I have ever seen.
The description I read of Battleship Potemkin called it a propaganda film, and of course, it is. The propaganda elements can't be ignored. But that's not why the film works. If it was just propaganda, I don't think anybody would really be interested in 83 years after it was made. It's actually got some serious moments of ambiguity that makes you think about and question what you are watching, especially at the end of part 2, when the leader of the revolt (or mutiny!) on the ship is murdered, and in part 3, when everybody rallies around his death and turns him into a serious martyr.
There are some really effective shots, as well. Obviously, since it's a silent, the "dialogue" is sparse. Of course, that means none of the words are wasted. Everything is pointed, and it carries even more of an emotional punch. The music is also extremely dramatic. It made me think of a ballet--which I suppose is pretty obvious, but I don't think I've ever watched a full-length silent before.
It's actually making me think a lot about the way I tell stories. Obviously, I don't have a very strong, dramatic musical score to rely on to raise the tension--and in the version of Battleship Potemkin I saw, the soundtrack is very intense. But the filmmaker, Sergi Eisenstein, frames some very effective images that said more than any words ever could. There was on scene when the army began shooting indiscriminately into the gathering, agitated crowd. They hit a boy. But that wasn't the end. The boy fell and was trampled. His distraught mother finally found him, picked him up, and carried him to the advancing soldiers. She begged for help. They shot her. Again, the film is propaganda, so of course, there was no other way that particular scene could end. But even though I knew it was coming, and knew I was being manipulated, the way the scene was shot and presented still hit me right in the gut.
I'm going to watch it again before we discuss it in class on Wednesday. But my initial, gut reaction was just "wow." It also made me feel personally very agitated, tense, frustrated, and scared. I guess that's why it's called propaganda--I was ready to go fight the Tsar, too.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
"Wouldn't it be nice if..."
This was supposed to be the day reserved for my thoughts. This presupposes I have thoughts to share. I actually don't, right now. It's late on a Saturday night--though through the magic of the Interwebs you'll be seeing this on Sunday--and I'm watching M*A*S*H, reflecting on my lack of diet Coke, and trying to write the beginning of chapter 8 of our current novella.
I would post about my New Year's Resolutions, but I always fail, and then feel like a failure for the rest of the year, so why put myself through that? I have a series of "Wouldn't it be nice...?" statements, though.
Wouldn't it be nice if I graduate?
Wouldn't it be nice if I started eating healthy meals?
Wouldn't it be nice if this whole writing thing becomes more like a career?
There's less pressure that way. I also have less weighty considerations.
Wouldn't it be nice if I found an awesome new author this year?
Wouldn't it be nice if the new Star Trek movie rocks my socks?
Wouldn't it be nice if Wilco announces a concert in Salt Lake City?
Ok, so, those three things are a little out of my hands, but still, they would be nice, wouldn't they?
So, forget about NYR's. What are your "Wouldn't it be nice..." statements?
I would post about my New Year's Resolutions, but I always fail, and then feel like a failure for the rest of the year, so why put myself through that? I have a series of "Wouldn't it be nice...?" statements, though.
Wouldn't it be nice if I graduate?
Wouldn't it be nice if I started eating healthy meals?
Wouldn't it be nice if this whole writing thing becomes more like a career?
There's less pressure that way. I also have less weighty considerations.
Wouldn't it be nice if I found an awesome new author this year?
Wouldn't it be nice if the new Star Trek movie rocks my socks?
Wouldn't it be nice if Wilco announces a concert in Salt Lake City?
Ok, so, those three things are a little out of my hands, but still, they would be nice, wouldn't they?
So, forget about NYR's. What are your "Wouldn't it be nice..." statements?
Friday, November 23, 2007
What Makes a Good Sequel?
Vivien and I regularly create characters we can't stand to leave behind. In fact, we have eight full-length sequels (and one novella length prequel) to Master of Obsidian because we couldn't walk away from Jesse and Gideon. We have finally decided how to end the series after a total of ten books, and it pains me to know that it's coming to an end. I'm going to miss Gideon and Jesse and Emma and all our secondary characters terribly.
In a few weeks, I'll be flying to California so Vivien and I can work on the 2nd sequel to Chasing Silver. We're also currently discussing a sequel to our Samhain title Trinity Broken. We're currently finishing up a full-length gay historical called A Hidden Beauty and already brainstorming sequel possibilities. As we discussed the possibilities, we were led to one overwhelming question: Why does the romance have to be about getting together? Why can't it be about staying together?
I think we strive to make the conflict between our characters organic and inevitable given who they are. There's going to be problems when you're a human and you fall in love with a vampire--those problems will be amplified in a BDSM relationship. There are going to be issues in a menage relationship when 2 of the people are shapeshifters, and one is a "regular" human. There are going to be challenges when you fall in love with a woman is from 75 years in the future. Etc etc.
But it seems to me that most sequels do not feature the same characters from book to book, as though the "Happily Ever After" ending was 100% genuine, and two people will never have another conflict again. They tend to feature secondary characters that were introduced in a previous book, or simple rehearsals of the same scenario over and over. I can see the attraction of reading those, but generally I write sequels because I miss my characters.
Sometimes I wonder if we're potentially sabotaging ourselves. Perhaps writing sequels about established characters presupposes that the readers love them enough to visit them again (and again and again and again in some cases). Since we don't write with a plan in mind, we also run the risk of something horrible happening. Clearly, it won't do to write a book about people falling out of love!
What sort of sequel do you prefer reading? Writing? And further, why can't a romance be about staying in love?
In a few weeks, I'll be flying to California so Vivien and I can work on the 2nd sequel to Chasing Silver. We're also currently discussing a sequel to our Samhain title Trinity Broken. We're currently finishing up a full-length gay historical called A Hidden Beauty and already brainstorming sequel possibilities. As we discussed the possibilities, we were led to one overwhelming question: Why does the romance have to be about getting together? Why can't it be about staying together?
I think we strive to make the conflict between our characters organic and inevitable given who they are. There's going to be problems when you're a human and you fall in love with a vampire--those problems will be amplified in a BDSM relationship. There are going to be issues in a menage relationship when 2 of the people are shapeshifters, and one is a "regular" human. There are going to be challenges when you fall in love with a woman is from 75 years in the future. Etc etc.
But it seems to me that most sequels do not feature the same characters from book to book, as though the "Happily Ever After" ending was 100% genuine, and two people will never have another conflict again. They tend to feature secondary characters that were introduced in a previous book, or simple rehearsals of the same scenario over and over. I can see the attraction of reading those, but generally I write sequels because I miss my characters.
Sometimes I wonder if we're potentially sabotaging ourselves. Perhaps writing sequels about established characters presupposes that the readers love them enough to visit them again (and again and again and again in some cases). Since we don't write with a plan in mind, we also run the risk of something horrible happening. Clearly, it won't do to write a book about people falling out of love!
What sort of sequel do you prefer reading? Writing? And further, why can't a romance be about staying in love?
Monday, November 19, 2007
Love stories
In case it wasn't obvious, Pepper and I write a lot. My solo stuff has slowed down considerably because of it, unfortunately, but I'm not complaining. I love what we do, and I would be hard pressed to find a story I couldn't sit and re-read over and over again. Ultimately, this is what writing does for me. I write stories I want to read, and if others like them, too, all the better.
Occasionally, characters become more than just people we love. Some characters find root in our lives stronger than we expect. Gideon, Jesse, and Emma from The Master Chronicles. Josh, Cam, and Sara from Trinity Broken. Remy, Nathan, Isaac, and Olivia in the Silver books (first book comes out in print in 2 weeks!!!!).
And now we have Micah and Jefferson.
Who are they? They are our poets in our current WIP, A Hidden Beauty. Our first historical. We started it 8 days ago, and as of right now, we have just over 38k. Saturday we wrote 8748 words. Yesterday, 9420. It's almost frightening how quickly it's flowing out of us, but what's even more frightening is that in that 38k, we've only had one kiss. Who knew we'd be writing an erotic romance where we actually get to the I love you's before sex? But that's appropriate for the period, especially with romantic gay men and one of them is only learning he's gay. It's 1840 after all. It was a lot harder for men to love each other then, especially in prim social circles.
But Pepper and I are finding it very difficult to step away from these two when bedtime comes around and I haven't had been to bed before 1am in a couple nights. We've already submitted the partial to our editor at Samhain for consideration, but at the rate we're going, we're going to have it done before she gets the opportunity to read it. These two speak to us in ways not every character does. Perhaps it's because we get to indulge in old-fashioned love letters. Perhaps it's because we have two very lonely souls calling out for someone to love them. Most likely, it's a combination of those and more, because these two are currently consuming our every thought.
I've seen a few notes online that call our Jamie Craig persona a "gay author." Meaning we write gay romance. I don't think that's accurate, because we have het titles that actually surpass our gay titles in sales. But Pepper and I aren't interested in labels. We write what we love, what characters we love.
Ultimately, we write love stories, whether it's two men, a man and a woman, or a threesome. And I wouldn't have it any other way.
Occasionally, characters become more than just people we love. Some characters find root in our lives stronger than we expect. Gideon, Jesse, and Emma from The Master Chronicles. Josh, Cam, and Sara from Trinity Broken. Remy, Nathan, Isaac, and Olivia in the Silver books (first book comes out in print in 2 weeks!!!!).
And now we have Micah and Jefferson.
Who are they? They are our poets in our current WIP, A Hidden Beauty. Our first historical. We started it 8 days ago, and as of right now, we have just over 38k. Saturday we wrote 8748 words. Yesterday, 9420. It's almost frightening how quickly it's flowing out of us, but what's even more frightening is that in that 38k, we've only had one kiss. Who knew we'd be writing an erotic romance where we actually get to the I love you's before sex? But that's appropriate for the period, especially with romantic gay men and one of them is only learning he's gay. It's 1840 after all. It was a lot harder for men to love each other then, especially in prim social circles.
But Pepper and I are finding it very difficult to step away from these two when bedtime comes around and I haven't had been to bed before 1am in a couple nights. We've already submitted the partial to our editor at Samhain for consideration, but at the rate we're going, we're going to have it done before she gets the opportunity to read it. These two speak to us in ways not every character does. Perhaps it's because we get to indulge in old-fashioned love letters. Perhaps it's because we have two very lonely souls calling out for someone to love them. Most likely, it's a combination of those and more, because these two are currently consuming our every thought.
I've seen a few notes online that call our Jamie Craig persona a "gay author." Meaning we write gay romance. I don't think that's accurate, because we have het titles that actually surpass our gay titles in sales. But Pepper and I aren't interested in labels. We write what we love, what characters we love.
Ultimately, we write love stories, whether it's two men, a man and a woman, or a threesome. And I wouldn't have it any other way.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
I have work to do. So I think we should all take some time to discuss porn.
I came across a discussion about porn stashes being discovered on computers. Namely, a man was caught when his wife discovered his not-very-well-hidden folder. This raises a whole bunch of questions for me, because quite frankly, I don't get the big deal.
1) Why is he in trouble for looking at porn?
2) Why does he need to hide it?
3) Why should he have to pretend he doesn't masturbate in his own home? I can understand why it's not polite to wank at work, or discuss porn in public, but come on. He has to hide it in his own house?
4) Why do people get so insecure about fantasies?
5) Why am I posting about this on the writing blog?
The last one is easy to answer. Because I write porn. Yeah, it's romance. It's erotica. How dare I denigrate it by labeling it as pornography. But I write scenes that get me off in the hopes that'll get other people off. The emotional/romance aspect of it just makes the porn hotter. It's still porn, though. (Note: I don't know Vivien's view of this. If she doesn't categorize what we write as porn, she's more than welcome to tell me to stuff it----hahahaha, I said "stuff it").
I have a lot of porn on my laptop. Most of it (okay, all of it) is gay porn. I have to admit, I love watching gay porn. If I wasn't at school, I'd be watching gay porn right now. And I love writing gay porn. I also love writing straight porn. My point is, I don't think it's anything people need to be ashamed of. It's nothing people should get in trouble over. It's certainly nothing that healthy adults should get in trouble over.
And I don't even want to put any conditions on porn viewing. Some people will say "Oh, I don't mind if my husband watches porn as long as it's not violent or icky." Eh. Screw that. Is your husband out doing violent and icky things? No? Then what's the big deal? I'm a firm believer that nobody should be punished for thoughts/fantasies, regardless of how yucky others might find thoughts/fantasies. I think it's high time we get rid of the Biblical belief that thinking about sinning is the equivalent of sinning. I might have long, drawn out fantasies about murdering the asshole who cut me off this morning, but he's still alive to cut me off another day.
I have to admit, my tastes are pretty mild. Really, as long as it involves a cock, I'm happy. The more cocks the better. I suppose I do like things that might squick other people out (Hell, gay orgies probably squick people out. I don't understand why, but I'm sure they do. Oh and facials). One day, I came across a clip starring Johnny Hazzard (who is my favorite gay porn star. He is unbelievably hot) with a warning that it was non consensual. So I said, "Oh! I should download that right now!" And then I watched it. And my husband walked into the room, asked me what I was watching, found out, then shrugged and asked me what I wanted for dinner. Because I certainly don't need to hide what I enjoy or who I am from him.
I watch Bullshit! on Showtime. It's easily my favorite show ever. One episode, Penn pointed out that we all, the human race, are eating and fucking machines. Our own personal genetic code survived because our parents and grandparents and great-grandparents were eating and fucking machines. Everything they did, everything we do, is to get a decent meal and get laid. It's true, and yet, we have such odd, messed up relationships with food, with sex, with our fantasies, with our own bodies. The parts of our lives that should be the most natural are somehow shrouded in shame and secrecy. I know it seems weird to link food so late in the discussion, but I see a lot of parallels between people who eat in secret and people who jerk off in secret.
I always get the message that I'm supposed to be ashamed of my books because they're graphic, and carnal, and erotic, and dirty, and well, you can get all post-modern and insert your own adjective here. And I've internalized that to a great extent. I've internalized it enough that I have not one but two "identities" covering my real identity. I've internalized it to the point I'll look away and mumble if a colleague directly asks me what I write. And I know I'm doing it. But that doesn't mean I don't know I'm wrong to do it.
I think people with hidden porn collections should make a stand and proudly watch their porn in the comforts of their own homes. Unfortunately, I know that that isn't feasible for a variety of reasons. But it still pisses me off that sexuality has to be treated like it's something secret, that pornography is seen as something universally dirty and prurient. Romance novels are regularly dismissed as "porn for women"---a dismissal that is a double damnation. It's not just pornography, it's ridiculous and superficial because it's for women. But I suppose that's a rant for another time. The rant for this time is that people shouldn't be ashamed to be sexual creatures. We're wired that way. It's how we're built. Why not enjoy it? God knows there's not enough pleasure in this world anyway, without stripping people from the natural joy they derive out of sexuality.
1) Why is he in trouble for looking at porn?
2) Why does he need to hide it?
3) Why should he have to pretend he doesn't masturbate in his own home? I can understand why it's not polite to wank at work, or discuss porn in public, but come on. He has to hide it in his own house?
4) Why do people get so insecure about fantasies?
5) Why am I posting about this on the writing blog?
The last one is easy to answer. Because I write porn. Yeah, it's romance. It's erotica. How dare I denigrate it by labeling it as pornography. But I write scenes that get me off in the hopes that'll get other people off. The emotional/romance aspect of it just makes the porn hotter. It's still porn, though. (Note: I don't know Vivien's view of this. If she doesn't categorize what we write as porn, she's more than welcome to tell me to stuff it----hahahaha, I said "stuff it").
I have a lot of porn on my laptop. Most of it (okay, all of it) is gay porn. I have to admit, I love watching gay porn. If I wasn't at school, I'd be watching gay porn right now. And I love writing gay porn. I also love writing straight porn. My point is, I don't think it's anything people need to be ashamed of. It's nothing people should get in trouble over. It's certainly nothing that healthy adults should get in trouble over.
And I don't even want to put any conditions on porn viewing. Some people will say "Oh, I don't mind if my husband watches porn as long as it's not violent or icky." Eh. Screw that. Is your husband out doing violent and icky things? No? Then what's the big deal? I'm a firm believer that nobody should be punished for thoughts/fantasies, regardless of how yucky others might find thoughts/fantasies. I think it's high time we get rid of the Biblical belief that thinking about sinning is the equivalent of sinning. I might have long, drawn out fantasies about murdering the asshole who cut me off this morning, but he's still alive to cut me off another day.
I have to admit, my tastes are pretty mild. Really, as long as it involves a cock, I'm happy. The more cocks the better. I suppose I do like things that might squick other people out (Hell, gay orgies probably squick people out. I don't understand why, but I'm sure they do. Oh and facials). One day, I came across a clip starring Johnny Hazzard (who is my favorite gay porn star. He is unbelievably hot) with a warning that it was non consensual. So I said, "Oh! I should download that right now!" And then I watched it. And my husband walked into the room, asked me what I was watching, found out, then shrugged and asked me what I wanted for dinner. Because I certainly don't need to hide what I enjoy or who I am from him.
I watch Bullshit! on Showtime. It's easily my favorite show ever. One episode, Penn pointed out that we all, the human race, are eating and fucking machines. Our own personal genetic code survived because our parents and grandparents and great-grandparents were eating and fucking machines. Everything they did, everything we do, is to get a decent meal and get laid. It's true, and yet, we have such odd, messed up relationships with food, with sex, with our fantasies, with our own bodies. The parts of our lives that should be the most natural are somehow shrouded in shame and secrecy. I know it seems weird to link food so late in the discussion, but I see a lot of parallels between people who eat in secret and people who jerk off in secret.
I always get the message that I'm supposed to be ashamed of my books because they're graphic, and carnal, and erotic, and dirty, and well, you can get all post-modern and insert your own adjective here. And I've internalized that to a great extent. I've internalized it enough that I have not one but two "identities" covering my real identity. I've internalized it to the point I'll look away and mumble if a colleague directly asks me what I write. And I know I'm doing it. But that doesn't mean I don't know I'm wrong to do it.
I think people with hidden porn collections should make a stand and proudly watch their porn in the comforts of their own homes. Unfortunately, I know that that isn't feasible for a variety of reasons. But it still pisses me off that sexuality has to be treated like it's something secret, that pornography is seen as something universally dirty and prurient. Romance novels are regularly dismissed as "porn for women"---a dismissal that is a double damnation. It's not just pornography, it's ridiculous and superficial because it's for women. But I suppose that's a rant for another time. The rant for this time is that people shouldn't be ashamed to be sexual creatures. We're wired that way. It's how we're built. Why not enjoy it? God knows there's not enough pleasure in this world anyway, without stripping people from the natural joy they derive out of sexuality.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Time is on my side?
I haven't updated the blog in a week. Why? Because I've been really freaking busy, that's why. School started for me this week, and I'd forgotten how much school cuts into the rest of my life. I also stop reading blogs, I haven't watched any television, and it feels like I haven't seen my husband at all. Even the writing as suffered a little bit, though we did manage to finish a 65K book this weekend--An Innocent Proposition. We're going to let it sit for awhile, and then edit it, and then find a good home for it.
So yeah, time. I need more of it. There are ways to make the day longer, I suppose. Namely, waking up earlier and going to bed later. But then I'd be a zombie, and I'd probably accomplish even less.
But hopefully, this will be a temporary problem.
So yeah, time. I need more of it. There are ways to make the day longer, I suppose. Namely, waking up earlier and going to bed later. But then I'd be a zombie, and I'd probably accomplish even less.
But hopefully, this will be a temporary problem.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
My thoughts on promo let me tell you them
What makes you buy a book? What makes you decide to make the financial, emotional and time investment into a book? When I was younger, had access to the school library, and nothing but time, I didn't care what I read. I grabbed everything that caught my eye, and some things that didn't, and prepared myself for an adventure. I'm not saying I wasn't picky at all but...well, when it came to reading, I mostly took what I could get.
But we grow up and things change. Nobody has the time to read indiscriminately anymore. Family, work, other hobbies, life in general, gets in the way. On top of that, there are so freaking many, and with the rise of e-publishers, there's even more to choose from! A single search on an epublisher site, fictionwise, or amazon can make your head spin, and the worse is actually going into a bookstore. I can't even do it anymore. I want to walk out with 20 books, and I do not have the money to accommodate that decision!
So how do you do it? How do you buy a book?
This has been on my mind more and more because one of our publishers wants authors to submit a marketing plan. And I understand the reasons, I do. I understand the need to get your name out there. And I understand savvy authors know how to do it effectively. But a part of me wonders if most of the effort of promotion isn't a big waste of time. I don't seek out author interviews, or websites, or newsgroups, or free copies when I'm making my book-buying decision. It's usually a spur of the moment thing based on the cover and the blurb.
Now, there are a few authors I buy immediately, no questions asked, no further information necessary. But why do I do that? Because I've read their rather impressive back catalog and I was impressed. Name recognition and trust. Those are key elements when I look into books.
So...our marketing plan is to build the name recognition and trust. We have a lot of books coming out in the next six months or so--m/f, m/m, m/f/m, contemproary, fantasy, sweet, bdsm, everything in between. Ultimately, I don't think an author can do anything except keep writing, and make sure each book is better than the one before it.
But I put this out to everybody. What makes you buy a book?
But we grow up and things change. Nobody has the time to read indiscriminately anymore. Family, work, other hobbies, life in general, gets in the way. On top of that, there are so freaking many, and with the rise of e-publishers, there's even more to choose from! A single search on an epublisher site, fictionwise, or amazon can make your head spin, and the worse is actually going into a bookstore. I can't even do it anymore. I want to walk out with 20 books, and I do not have the money to accommodate that decision!
So how do you do it? How do you buy a book?
This has been on my mind more and more because one of our publishers wants authors to submit a marketing plan. And I understand the reasons, I do. I understand the need to get your name out there. And I understand savvy authors know how to do it effectively. But a part of me wonders if most of the effort of promotion isn't a big waste of time. I don't seek out author interviews, or websites, or newsgroups, or free copies when I'm making my book-buying decision. It's usually a spur of the moment thing based on the cover and the blurb.
Now, there are a few authors I buy immediately, no questions asked, no further information necessary. But why do I do that? Because I've read their rather impressive back catalog and I was impressed. Name recognition and trust. Those are key elements when I look into books.
So...our marketing plan is to build the name recognition and trust. We have a lot of books coming out in the next six months or so--m/f, m/m, m/f/m, contemproary, fantasy, sweet, bdsm, everything in between. Ultimately, I don't think an author can do anything except keep writing, and make sure each book is better than the one before it.
But I put this out to everybody. What makes you buy a book?
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Movies and Inspiration
This post will contain minor spoilers for Once. Just so you know.
Last week, I went with my husband to see Once. It premiered here in Salt Lake at the Sundance Film Festival, so its release got some promotion in the area, and we thought the trailer looked intriguing.
I loved it. It was beautiful and heart-wrenching and perfect.
In the romance genre, a HEA is required. And that means the Hero is with the Heroine, and there's some sort of promise of commitment. An engagement, a wedding, declarations of love, maybe a baby. If it doesn't have the HEA, it could be lots of other genres: erotica, a love story, mainstream, women's fiction, horror, thriller, etc. But it cannot be a romance. People who don't like this definition always bring up Gone with the Wind and Romeo and Juliet, and then I have to stop my fists of RAGE. Romeo and Juliet is many things, but it is not a romance.
Once is many things, but it is not a romance.
In many ways, I wish I could write like that. I know how the dynamics in a romance is supposed to work, but it was unfolded so perfectly on the screen that it sort of reminded me. But...the movie isn't a romance. That's fine. It doesn't have to be. The relationship between the two leads is real and powerful and honest. If I could write one story that felt that honest, I'd feel like my job has been done.
Another recent movie that inspired me, believe it or not, is Hot Fuzz. A movie could not be more different from Once, (it's even a romance by the standards of the genre) except, it also featured a relationship that felt very real, and very honest to me. Something universal and personal at the same time. Nobody will ever have a relationship like that, yet, thousands of people do every day.
Books work the same, of course, but honestly, I haven't been reading as much as I should have. Movies are the most accessible thing to me right now. Which books or movies, or even television shows, feature relationships that have that spark of honesty? That spark of the personal and the universal? Do you use them for inspiration?
Last week, I went with my husband to see Once. It premiered here in Salt Lake at the Sundance Film Festival, so its release got some promotion in the area, and we thought the trailer looked intriguing.
I loved it. It was beautiful and heart-wrenching and perfect.
In the romance genre, a HEA is required. And that means the Hero is with the Heroine, and there's some sort of promise of commitment. An engagement, a wedding, declarations of love, maybe a baby. If it doesn't have the HEA, it could be lots of other genres: erotica, a love story, mainstream, women's fiction, horror, thriller, etc. But it cannot be a romance. People who don't like this definition always bring up Gone with the Wind and Romeo and Juliet, and then I have to stop my fists of RAGE. Romeo and Juliet is many things, but it is not a romance.
Once is many things, but it is not a romance.
In many ways, I wish I could write like that. I know how the dynamics in a romance is supposed to work, but it was unfolded so perfectly on the screen that it sort of reminded me. But...the movie isn't a romance. That's fine. It doesn't have to be. The relationship between the two leads is real and powerful and honest. If I could write one story that felt that honest, I'd feel like my job has been done.
Another recent movie that inspired me, believe it or not, is Hot Fuzz. A movie could not be more different from Once, (it's even a romance by the standards of the genre) except, it also featured a relationship that felt very real, and very honest to me. Something universal and personal at the same time. Nobody will ever have a relationship like that, yet, thousands of people do every day.
Books work the same, of course, but honestly, I haven't been reading as much as I should have. Movies are the most accessible thing to me right now. Which books or movies, or even television shows, feature relationships that have that spark of honesty? That spark of the personal and the universal? Do you use them for inspiration?
Monday, August 13, 2007
"Add it to the queue"
Vivien and I were fairly prolific writers on our own, which was fine, because we both wrote fast. But now that we write together, it's a little out of control. I would love to tell you how many "plot bunnies" we have on the queue, but I honestly cannot. Vivien probably could, but she's the one who keeps track of it. If there were twenty ideas and titles, I wouldn't be shocked. If there were thirty, I wouldn't be shocked. ETA: I've been told that the number is 33. Not counting the number Vivien forgets to log because we think of it at 1:00 am and she's tired. So it's probably closer to 40.
Sometimes we express the legitimate fear that we won't get to all our ideas. That some will disappear. Or fizzle out. Or we just won't have time to get to all the really great ones.
Once in awhile, we get lucky, and the stars align, and two or more of our bunnies can fit together. Like our current project, An Innocent Proposition, was born from her desire to write a hero that could only get an erection by watching other people having sex, and my desire to write a "marriage of convenience" story. Yes, the two ideas mesh quite well. So well in fact that we're in "the zone." We've already got nearly 30K on this novel. We started it Thursday night.
So, where do all these ideas come from? I wish I knew. I'd bottle it and sell it. It's almost a party trick at this point. Anything can set us off. We've been inspired by the following:
Sometimes we get our ideas separately. Sometimes we have to hash them out together. But they're always there. Waiting to be born. Waiting for that one second when inspiration will strike. And it will strike. That's a given.
In fact, we thought of an idea while I was composing this post. And yes, Vivien added it to the queue. When I was working alone, most of my stories came from "Man, that would be HOT!" place. Seriously. I just thought of the porn I wish I were watching, and then wrote it. Writing with Vivien is a lot like that, except she usually makes me work in considerations besides how hot it is.
I hope I have a few writers reading this blog. Probably it's just me talking into the void. But if you are out there, how do you get your bunnies? And how many do you have? How do you wrangle all of them? Are you ever scared that maybe you won't get around to writing all of them?
Sometimes we express the legitimate fear that we won't get to all our ideas. That some will disappear. Or fizzle out. Or we just won't have time to get to all the really great ones.
Once in awhile, we get lucky, and the stars align, and two or more of our bunnies can fit together. Like our current project, An Innocent Proposition, was born from her desire to write a hero that could only get an erection by watching other people having sex, and my desire to write a "marriage of convenience" story. Yes, the two ideas mesh quite well. So well in fact that we're in "the zone." We've already got nearly 30K on this novel. We started it Thursday night.
So, where do all these ideas come from? I wish I knew. I'd bottle it and sell it. It's almost a party trick at this point. Anything can set us off. We've been inspired by the following:
- A word (ie, Craving)
- A picture
- A concept
- A song
- A pretty boy
- An urge for an alpha male
- A movie trailer
- Books we didn't like
- Movies we didn't like
- "Oh, I've always wanted to write a..."
Sometimes we get our ideas separately. Sometimes we have to hash them out together. But they're always there. Waiting to be born. Waiting for that one second when inspiration will strike. And it will strike. That's a given.
In fact, we thought of an idea while I was composing this post. And yes, Vivien added it to the queue. When I was working alone, most of my stories came from "Man, that would be HOT!" place. Seriously. I just thought of the porn I wish I were watching, and then wrote it. Writing with Vivien is a lot like that, except she usually makes me work in considerations besides how hot it is.
I hope I have a few writers reading this blog. Probably it's just me talking into the void. But if you are out there, how do you get your bunnies? And how many do you have? How do you wrangle all of them? Are you ever scared that maybe you won't get around to writing all of them?
Friday, July 20, 2007
R-E-S-P-E-C-T. What does it mean to the romance genre?
During the course of the last two years, I've been working hard on turning my writing hobby into a writing career. Last year, I began an MA program in British and American Literature. So, during the day I have Deep and Serious discussions about the greatest literature in the canon, and at night, I write erotic romance. Sometimes, it gets a bit weird.
Romance novels do come up in the occasional discussion, though they tend to be referred to as "bodice rippers" and "those books at the checkout aisle in supermarkets" (can you hear the disdainful tone?). Both of my pseudonyms are secrets at school, so nobody knows that when they're insulting the readers of romance novels, I tend to take it personally, because in a way, they're insulting my readers.
But after awhile, I realized something. They weren't insulting Romance novels and writers and readers. In their mind, Romance is the most accessible example of low culture. And, let's face it, by definition, romance books are low culture. It's not a very nice thing to say, but it's useful shorthand in the context of theory or literary discussion.
Which makes me wonder if there's any one thing romance novelists can do to change the perception and to gain a little respect. Does the swan hat help matters? Probably not. But you know, there are millions of people who never saw the swan hat, who probably don't know what the RWA is, and they will still have the sense that romance is "low culture" even if they don't know the term. Or why it bothers them.
But that relates back to the suggestion that the real problem is sexism. What's high culture? Often it's the art work and literary achievements revealing the culture of the ruling class---the elite. Women are not the ruling class, and the perception of romance is that it's by women, for women. We could all forgo swan hats and dress professionally--it won't change the fact that the majority of us are women, and the majority of our readers are women.
I'm not saying, "You can't change things, don't try." I am saying that this issue is more than just the lack of respect romance receives and broadening the market. The difference between high culture and low culture might have been named/articulated in the mid-19th century, but we're working with concepts as old as art and theory itself. Shoot, in a way, we could probably blame Plato for our problems. We're hamstrung by our genre. To give you an idea of HOW hamstrung, there are many novels from the Hellenistic period of Greece that are, for all intents and purposes, Romance novels. I could send one to a publisher today, and if its rejected, it won't be because it doesn't meet the standards and conventions of the genre. These are, for all intents and purposes, novels appearing 1400 years before the so-called novel was "invented."
Not many people have heard of the Greek romances. Any guess as to why?
We're struggling against centuries of preconceptions here. The issue encompasses sexual politics, literary theory, history, and more. The fact that it all gets focused on a swan hat is, well, nonsensical to me. Sure, the hat might be obnoxious, but it's not everything that's wrong with Romanceland, and it's sure as hell not the sort of thing that will keep romance authors from getting the respect they deserve. I don't keep my secret identities secret because somebody gets a little too rambunctious at a signing party, and if she had never worn the swan hat, I still wouldn't "come out of the closet" so-to-speak. Besides, struggling to be what you think people want you to be is a losing game.
Of course, Shakespeare was low culture, too. I'm not saying we're comparable to Shakespeare. I am saying norms and standards change--but there were a lot of different forces that brought about those changes, and none of them had anything to do with what sort of man Shakespeare was. Or his fashion sense. No matter how respectable you behave and dress in public, that doesn't mean it'll translate to how your books are viewed. You can respect the hell out of an author, but still have little to no regard for their writing. Struggling to make yourself palatable to all the folks who consider romance a "lesser" genre is fighting a losing game. In fact, I sorta suspect that if romance writers ever gain respect, it won't be because of anything romance writers did at all. And yeah, I guess I would say that since I'm also training to be an academic, and we have an awfully high view of ourselves, but in many ways, it's the academics/critics who give legitimacy to writing. The fact that there are currently only a handful of scholars working in Romance hurts your respectability far, far more than how authors comport themselves. It doesn't hurt your sales, and it doesn't hurt your views of yourselves, but critics are necessary to elevate work from "low" to "high" culture. Fortunately, that area of academia is slowly but surely growing, and I'm interested in participating there myself.
It would be very easy to throw myself completely into academia, and only write the sort of books my colleagues in the MFA program write. I'm not in the MFA program, but there's a lot of overlap in terms of classes and students between the MFA and the MA program. It would be easy to do, and that way, when I publish, I don't have to secretly squee to myself, but refrain from mentioning to the people I see and work with every day (especially galling because I think I have more books published than the entire MFA program combined). But I love my books. I love my characters. I love the people I've met in romance. I love to read it. I love who we are and what we do. The division between "low culture" and "high culture" doesn't bother me in the slightest. But it is there.
Romance novels do come up in the occasional discussion, though they tend to be referred to as "bodice rippers" and "those books at the checkout aisle in supermarkets" (can you hear the disdainful tone?). Both of my pseudonyms are secrets at school, so nobody knows that when they're insulting the readers of romance novels, I tend to take it personally, because in a way, they're insulting my readers.
But after awhile, I realized something. They weren't insulting Romance novels and writers and readers. In their mind, Romance is the most accessible example of low culture. And, let's face it, by definition, romance books are low culture. It's not a very nice thing to say, but it's useful shorthand in the context of theory or literary discussion.
Which makes me wonder if there's any one thing romance novelists can do to change the perception and to gain a little respect. Does the swan hat help matters? Probably not. But you know, there are millions of people who never saw the swan hat, who probably don't know what the RWA is, and they will still have the sense that romance is "low culture" even if they don't know the term. Or why it bothers them.
But that relates back to the suggestion that the real problem is sexism. What's high culture? Often it's the art work and literary achievements revealing the culture of the ruling class---the elite. Women are not the ruling class, and the perception of romance is that it's by women, for women. We could all forgo swan hats and dress professionally--it won't change the fact that the majority of us are women, and the majority of our readers are women.
I'm not saying, "You can't change things, don't try." I am saying that this issue is more than just the lack of respect romance receives and broadening the market. The difference between high culture and low culture might have been named/articulated in the mid-19th century, but we're working with concepts as old as art and theory itself. Shoot, in a way, we could probably blame Plato for our problems. We're hamstrung by our genre. To give you an idea of HOW hamstrung, there are many novels from the Hellenistic period of Greece that are, for all intents and purposes, Romance novels. I could send one to a publisher today, and if its rejected, it won't be because it doesn't meet the standards and conventions of the genre. These are, for all intents and purposes, novels appearing 1400 years before the so-called novel was "invented."
Not many people have heard of the Greek romances. Any guess as to why?
We're struggling against centuries of preconceptions here. The issue encompasses sexual politics, literary theory, history, and more. The fact that it all gets focused on a swan hat is, well, nonsensical to me. Sure, the hat might be obnoxious, but it's not everything that's wrong with Romanceland, and it's sure as hell not the sort of thing that will keep romance authors from getting the respect they deserve. I don't keep my secret identities secret because somebody gets a little too rambunctious at a signing party, and if she had never worn the swan hat, I still wouldn't "come out of the closet" so-to-speak. Besides, struggling to be what you think people want you to be is a losing game.
Of course, Shakespeare was low culture, too. I'm not saying we're comparable to Shakespeare. I am saying norms and standards change--but there were a lot of different forces that brought about those changes, and none of them had anything to do with what sort of man Shakespeare was. Or his fashion sense. No matter how respectable you behave and dress in public, that doesn't mean it'll translate to how your books are viewed. You can respect the hell out of an author, but still have little to no regard for their writing. Struggling to make yourself palatable to all the folks who consider romance a "lesser" genre is fighting a losing game. In fact, I sorta suspect that if romance writers ever gain respect, it won't be because of anything romance writers did at all. And yeah, I guess I would say that since I'm also training to be an academic, and we have an awfully high view of ourselves, but in many ways, it's the academics/critics who give legitimacy to writing. The fact that there are currently only a handful of scholars working in Romance hurts your respectability far, far more than how authors comport themselves. It doesn't hurt your sales, and it doesn't hurt your views of yourselves, but critics are necessary to elevate work from "low" to "high" culture. Fortunately, that area of academia is slowly but surely growing, and I'm interested in participating there myself.
It would be very easy to throw myself completely into academia, and only write the sort of books my colleagues in the MFA program write. I'm not in the MFA program, but there's a lot of overlap in terms of classes and students between the MFA and the MA program. It would be easy to do, and that way, when I publish, I don't have to secretly squee to myself, but refrain from mentioning to the people I see and work with every day (especially galling because I think I have more books published than the entire MFA program combined). But I love my books. I love my characters. I love the people I've met in romance. I love to read it. I love who we are and what we do. The division between "low culture" and "high culture" doesn't bother me in the slightest. But it is there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)