Den of the Ogress

Why am I blogging on Christmas?

Fri, 25 Dec 2009 06:57:33 GMT

Because I've just finished reading this thing.

I find Alex Beecroft's comments especially puzzling.

However, we are - as women - aware of what it feels like to be objectified by men in power for their sexual gratification, while they feel no need to respect us or listen to our concerns or to fight for our rights in society.

I feel that we all heading down that slippery slope when we arrogantly assume that non-GLBT women automatically understand the fight of the GLBT people for equal rights or that we are entitled to be bonded to GLBT people somehow because women had been oppressed/objectified too. The very argument David Ehrenstein was making in that discussion is that it's not the same. Any woman who butts into the gay scene claiming to be an ally just because she thinks she knows what it feels like to be oppressed is actually being quite patronizing.

That's the difference between m/m fiction for women and f/f porn for men - straight female writers of m/m fiction are aware that we have a responsibility not to allow it to turn into just another way that straights oppress GBLT people. We don't want to be the female equivalent of the kind of man who will watch faux lesbian porn and then vote against the rights of real lesbians - that's hypocritical and immoral and just generally disgraceful.

This is a dangerously sweeping statement, oversimplifying the complex MM romance scene into a bunch of female activists fighting for GLBT rights. I don't know why we are denying the degree of fetishizing and objectification in the MM romance genre, because there is such a thing. It's the same with straight romance novels, where some people who try to present a more intellectual version of romance genre to critics try to insist that sex doesn't play a part in the fun of a romance novel. If we don't objectify and fetishize, there is no need for sex scenes in our stories. There is no need for the pretty as well. And we'd actually find slash stories involving the likes of Richard Simmons and Danny DeVito instead of all those pretty men all the time and all over the place.

And it's really, really flying down the slippery slope to try to affix political meanings to MM stories. MM romance is not a form of political statement, it is not a means to spread GLBT awareness, and it really shouldn't be passed off as such. I don't think many GLBT folks are going to buying that.

It gets stranger:

As straight m/m romance writers we have the choice of using an oppressed group for our own purposes without giving anything back, or realizing that our sexuality gives us common cause with this oppressed group and becoming allies. All the straight female writers I know of have chosen the second course.

As a straight female who read MM romances, I cringe when I read these two sentences. If anyone wants to "give back", go join and be active in your local GLBT affirmative action group. I read MM stories. I do not kid myself into thinking that I am an ally with GLBT folks or I am giving back to society just because I read MM romances alone.

Seriously, we really need to stop using such justifications to defend MM, because such justifications are going to portray MM as something it is not. Writing MM is not contributing to the GLBT awareness. Reading MM is not giving back. Just because I read MM, that doesn't automatically mean I'm an ally. If I am a gay man and a straight woman tells me, "I'm an ally! I've watched Rent sixty times, I've read every book from Torquere Press in existence, and therefore I know what it feels like to be an oppressed gay man!", I have this feeling that I am going to rudely push that woman out of my way.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: trying to affix more significant/political meaning to an MM book is going to ultimately backfire on the MM genre. We should respect the right of GLBT folks to be offended, instead of telling them how they should feel about a genre that is written for predominantly straight women to enjoy. I'm only a straight woman - what gives me the right to believe that I somehow understand the plight of the GLBT people or how they really feel about exploitation, discrimination, et cetera? I don't. Even if I read a thousand books on the subject, I will not intimately know how it feels to be a gay man, so telling a gay man that I relate to him is something I'd never do.

Therefore, in this situation, I feel that silence is the best response to folks like David Ehrenstein. I may not agree with him wholeheartedly, but when it comes to what it means to be a gay man, ultimately I have no right to argue with him about that particular issue because I'm not a gay man. It's as simple as that.

Perhaps we should just accept that the exploitative element of MM materials exists and be at peace with it. At least then we'd be honest with ourselves. There is nothing in yaoi, for example, that will further the GLBT affirmative action. Likewise, there is nothing in MM stories that will make the world a better place for GLBT folks. Until MM romance is integrated into part of the GLBT fiction scene - and I doubt it will happen easily, as there are many people who share David Ehrenstein's opinion in the GLBT literary circles - the authors and readers are going to hear a lot of criticisms, sneers, and insults, especially as MM becomes more popular. And there is no need to be so defensive because, at the end of the day, MM romance, like MF romance, is fiction designed for entertainment, not deep thoughts and changes for a better world. It's not real life, it's not perfect, but it's meant to be fun for its target audience and fans.

In other words, MM romance is facing exactly what MF romance is facing - ridicule and lack of respect and acceptance from most literary circles. Just buckle up and enjoy the ride because... well, there's probably not much else that we can do.

Sherlock Holmes movie

Thu, 24 Dec 2009 13:58:26 GMT

Full review when I have time. Bottom line - fun movie, but NOT ENOUGH GAY.

The two actresses that play the thankless roles of love interests have zero chemistry with the main actors. But Robert Downey, Jr isn't above cracking at least two innuendo-laden line to Dr Watson, heh. His rampaging jealousy over Watson's engagement to that beard Mary is delicious. I love, love, love that scene where he suggests that he and Watson get away from it all, only to have his face fall in dismay when Watson reminds him that Watson would be getting away with Mary, not Holmes, thank you very much. Then again, if you remember the books, Dr Watson married twice or thrice throughout the stories, but he seems to forget that he ever has a wife shortly after each marriage.

For the sequel, forget the women. Holmes and Watson, the original platonic male life partners who inspired copycats like Dr Gregory House and his heterosexual life partner Dr James Wilson, should not share precious screen time with their beards. I mean, who are these movie people kidding? We know who Holmes has eyes for and vice-versa.

BRING ON THE GAY!

Classics to the tune of Twilight

Thu, 24 Dec 2009 13:52:06 GMT

Remember how they reissued classics to the besotted audience of those Twilight books and movies?

Someone actually bought me the HarperTeen edition of Romeo & Juliet and Wuthering Heights as a joke gift, and thumbing through them, I cringed.

The Romeo & Juliet one came with an additional starting short story, Juliet's Story, which sees some woman rewriting the whole thing in short story form, in a voice that emulates Bella Swan's style. It's horrible, embarrassing, didactic, and cringe-inducing.

Wuthering Heights comes with an unintentional chilling quiz that "tests" me whether I will ever have a love like Catherine and Heathcliff's. I'm not kidding, that's exactly what the quiz says. Heaven help me if I am ever trapped in a relationship akin to those two characters' - as enjoyable as it is to read it, I do not want to live through it. And then we have "character bio" thingies of Catherine and Heathcliff as they are characters in Gossip Girl or something. I don't know whether to laugh or cry that they are marketing Wuthering Heights as the love story of Heathcliff and Catherine when the tale is more than that. It's a story of obsession, self-destructive behavior, and crazy melodrama, of which Catherine and Heathcliff's love story comprises only about 40% of the whole story!

My Top Romances of the Year?

Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:07:29 GMT

I don't need such lists. I already have one - here, a compilation of the books I've given a score of 90 and above since 1999. It's quite depressing how few in number they are compared to the number of books I've reviewed, but that's the way things are sometimes. Go rediscover some long-ago gems - for example, if you want strong heroines, it's time to hunt the UBS for no-longer writing authors like Marsha Canham and the very polarizing Gayle Feyrer.

Yucks about the next Survivor Season (spoilers in comments section)

Mon, 21 Dec 2009 06:53:55 GMT

I am not enthusiastic about it if the spoilers were true. See the comment section for the possible F3 spoiler.

What will the Harlequin MM line be like?

Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:38:46 GMT

Since we know Harlequin's parent company needs money ASAP, I think it is just a matter of time before they say screw the fundies and get into the MM romance business after Running Press. I've had some fun thinking of possible Harlequin-style titles for possible books. What do you think?

A random reminisce about AI8

Sat, 19 Dec 2009 13:58:27 GMT

If I had the time and energy to conclude the recap of the entire season of the previous season of American Idol, you would see a "story arc" where I started out a fan of Anoop Desai with Adam Lambert a close second. When Anoop was eliminated, I fully expected to be a full-blown Sparkle Cow. But you know what? I found myself transferring my allegiance to Kris Allen. I was quite brutal about him being a midget pretty boy with mediocre talent early in the season, but this performance of Falling Slowly transformed my opinion of him.

In a show where blatant vocal acrobatics are encouraged, it is rare to see a subtle performance that actually resonates with some fine display of vocal nuances which suggest that Kris Allen understood the song and knew the right way to perform the song.

So yes, on the finale, I was rooting for Kris Allen, not Adam Lambert. A part of me knew all along that Kris would win. Think about it: when Danny Gokey was eliminated, where would his fans' votes go to? The gay guy? Of course not. But at the same time, it is frustrating to see poor Kris never getting the credit he deserves. He is subtle, but he is effective. He is bland compared to Adam Lambert's theatrics, but he knows the art of subtle but intimate performance, a dying art where this show is concerned.

Kris seems to understand that sometimes, the best performance doesn't have to be all about the fireworks, it is about playing the guitar and crooning softly, making the listener feel as if the performer is singing to him or her personally.

I didn't know it early in AI8, but I was Falling Slowly for Kris all along.

Ugh

Sat, 19 Dec 2009 13:04:12 GMT

Let me complain a little. The covers of my copy of Lee Rowan's Tangled Web curled up after only one reading, and now the whole thing looks as if I've abused the book with a hair curler or something. I hope I am unlucky enough to get my hands on a defective copy and the case is restricted to only me; otherwise, maybe the publisher need to have a word with the printer. Interestingly enough, my copies of the previous two books in this publisher's MM imprint are in fine condition still.

Isn't is strange

Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:42:36 GMT

Isn't it strange how the media and some author associations are acting as if ebooks have only been sold since early 2009? And that "epublishing" only refers to the sales of digital versions of dead tree books? In the Author Guild's recent statement about HarperCollins's rights grab (which raised less drama that Harlequin Horizons for some reason despite the fact that this move can affect publishing more if other publishers follow suit), they say:

The e-book industry is still young -- there's no need to jump in. And we strongly suspect e-royalty rates are at a low-water mark.

They suspect? "Still young"? Ellora's Cave been around for almost a decade! Granted, ebooks sell less, but if ebooks from Ellora's Cave, Samhain Publishing, et cetera sell as many as dead tree books, those authors will be making much more than a typical dead tree book author. Of course, the Big Boys are offering ebook royalty rates at a pitifully low rate, and I guess these are the only ones that matter where these author watchdogs, guilds, and media are concerned?

I just find it amazing how Ellora's Cave, Samhain Publishing, and gang have been doing things for as long as a decade and doing well to boot, and yet here we are, with some people acting as if epublishing is brand new and nobody has ever done it right before.

The one song you won't dare to sing at someone's wedding

Fri, 18 Dec 2009 04:44:38 GMT

Don't Marry Her
Written by: Dave Rotheray and Paul Heaton
Performed by: The Beautiful South

Think of you with pipe and slippers
Think of her in bed
Laying there just watching telly
Then think of me instead

I'll never grow so old and flabby
That could never be
Don't marry her, fuck me

And your love light shines like cardboard
But your work shoes are glistening
She's a PhD in "I told you so"
You've a knighthood in "I'm not listening"

She'll grab your sweaty bollocks
Then slowly raise her knee
Don't marry her, fuck me

And the Sunday sun shines down on San Francisco bay
And you realise you can't make it anyway
You have to wash the car
Take the kiddies to the park
Don't marry her, fuck me

Those lovely Sunday mornings
With breakfast brought in bed
Those blackbirds look like knitting needles
Trying to peck your head

Those birds will peck your soul out
And throw away the key
Don't marry her, fuck me

And the kitchen's always tidy
And the bathroom's always clean
She's a diploma in just hiding things
You've a first in low esteem

When your socks smell of angels
But your life smells of Brie
Don't marry her, fuck me

And the Sunday sun shines down on San Francisco bay
And you realise you can't make it anyway
You have to wash the car
Take the kiddies to the park
Don't marry her, fuck me

Tiger Woods saga theme song

Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:55:19 GMT

Best African-American romance?

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:04:24 GMT

I didn't keep tabs on the Romantic Times Awards for a while now but I noticed recently that they had started a "Best African American Romance" category while I wasn't looking.

That's nice, I guess, but I find the very existence of this category odd. For one, the other categories are pretty specific - Best Contemporary Romance, Best JR Ward Book That Features White Guys Pretending To Be Gangsta, Best Historical Romance - while "Best African American Romance" is so general that it is hard to even imagine what this category about other than it features African Americans. And even then, it begets the question: who are the African-Americans we are talking about here, the authors or the characters? Looking at the winner list, it looks like the winners in that category are contemporary romances, so why is stopping those books from being nominated in the Best Contemporary Romance category? And worse, it makes me wonder: does this mean that there is some different quality in which a Best Contemporary Romance is judged as opposed to how a Best African American Romance is judged? Does this mean that a Best Contemporary Romance is... different? better? worse?... than a Best African American (Contemporary) Romance? Does the presence of AA characters somehow require these books to be judged differently from a White contemporary romance? And while we're at it, where's the Best Chinese Romance category? Or the Best Young Adult Novel With Indian Characters category? How come those books with Native Americans don't get a special Best Native American Romance category? What makes the African Americans so special that they get a ghetto category all of their own, and one that is all about race rather than setting? (To be fair, Inspirational Romances also get their special category, and it's one that is all about Jesus rather than setting, but from my experience, many inspirational authors and readers like it when they are segregated from the great unwashed heathens, so it's not really a problem... is it?)

That Candace Sams thing

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:35:52 GMT

Okay, we have all gawked at it, but I really, really don't like it when people actually stated on places like Dear Author that they are emailing and calling Dorchester and sending the link(s) to them.

What is the point? We can all see that the author isn't in a happy place and there is a high possibility that she is affected by something in real life that caused her to behave like this... so why do we need to actively try to bring her down any more than she is bringing herself down? What is the purpose of wanting her to stop writing? Since when is being crazy and making a fool of yourself online something that warrant anonymous strangers calling up your boss and telling them to fire you?

Gawk, stare, Twitter, and laugh... but IMO, a line has definitely been crossed when you decide to take it onto yourself to further ruin someone when this someone is clearly not in a good place, mentally, and should be pitied rather than destroyed.

Who are these weirdos that take it upon themselves to play moral police on Candance Sams's behavior? The same people that tried to get writers in EW fired for slamming their favorite American Idol contestants?

Sometimes people online can really irritate me.

Edited on 18 Dec to add: Good lord, and now an editor from Dorchester has to issue a statement about how Dorchester respects Ms Sams's right to speak as she will online. Just how many people are writing and complaining to Dorchester? How will they like it if someone reports them to their employers for wasting time and being a total nitwit busybody online, I wonder?

Creepy thin-skinned authors

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:51:59 GMT

From that strange author's meltdown on Amazon to the recent drama of the Harlequin Presents contest, it seems to me that hysterical authors are out to party recently, screaming at each other and at other people to be nice. These authors don't seem to understand why people are so mean to them or why the world has to be such a terrible place.

Of course, this is not a new phenomenon. It's been around ever for as long as authors have been writing. But I don't remember ever coming across a compelling reason why there are so many of these thin-skinned "WHY? WHY?!! WHY OH WHY CAN'T THE WORLD BE A SAFE AND SNUGGLY PLACE?!!!" authors around in the genre.

Is it because of the woman thing? I don't think so, to be honest, because I've seen men behave like this too, only, the men who behave like this tend to be part of the self-published circuit rather than the romance. Yes, it makes me quite embarrassed to admit that half the time the behavior of these WHY OH WHY CRUEL WORLD authors reminded me of the dramatic theatrics of the more ignorant and egomaniac slice of self-published crowd.

I suspect it's because that, with romance being the biggest selling and most read genre out there, it draws a large section of people who want to write and who are also, shall we say, unused to receiving criticisms in their real lives. These people think they can write, their family members and friends humor them and insist that they are the best, so when they get genuine criticisms for the first time, they lash out and behave as if people are deliberately out to victimize them and even destroy them. That explains the similarity of the behavior of so many of these dramatic fluffy bunnies - the only crowd bigger than the aspiring/published romance author folks at the moment are the self-published but bitter and desperate brigade. Since their behavior is similar, I can only theorize that this is because the romance genre is big enough and therefore it attracts a greater number of fragile bunnies more than any other genres.

The next time some college student approach me to fill up some stupid survey about my romance reading habit for her final paper, I'm going to ask her to research on the hysterical mu-mu cows of the romance genre instead. I find the psychology of these fragile dramatic bunnies fascinating. What makes them tick? Why do some of them actually act as if they will become catatonic if people disagree in front of them? Do they really become catatonic when their favorite forum erupt into drama? I'm interested to know.

Harlequin contest and sad faces

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 01:52:33 GMT

Okay, I shamelessly poached this from the EREC blog.

Harlequin recently announced the results of their Harlequin Presents Writing Competition, which was obviously meant to allow "aspiring authors" (the word they used) to get a chance at getting book titles like Ruthlessly Impregnated By The Sheikh Tycoon. Don't laugh, we can be talking about serious money here. The fun starts when the winner is Susanna Carr and the runner-up is Maggie Marr. The fact that their last names rhyme aside, Susanna Carr is a multi-published author (she even writes Spice Briefs for Harlequin under the name Jenesi Ash) while Maggie Marr has two published books to her credit so far.

At first the comments were all rosy and sweet. Congratulations to all fabulous darlings! It only takes Janelle to kick open the flood gates (see here if you don't want to scroll) before folks start chiming in about how disappointing that Harlequin's definition of "aspiring author" includes published authors.

Is it really fair to pitch published authors with aspiring authors since the playing field won't be level. Some say that the two ladies in question should have just submitted via their agents and leave the aspiring authors alone. What do you think? Should published authors with agents and such show some grace and not invade turfs meant for those aspiring authors wishing to get published?

PS: I'm also tickled by the number of Pollyannas in the thread trying so hard to defuse disagreements because they are all supposed to be one big family. No wonder so many of them experience culture shocks when their books get published and mean hags like yours truly review them. They actively make sure that their skins are as thin as possible!

Freebies news

Sun, 13 Dec 2009 04:06:15 GMT

I don't normally post news on behalf of other people (I try not to dabble too much into things that can make people believe that I am in some kind of business partnership with various parties), but I receive this news in my mailbox that seems too good to be missed. Here it is, folks:

A D V A N C E D P R E S S R E L E A S E F O R R E P O S T I N G

ARe Gives Readers the Gift of eBooks to Celebrate the Holidays

It's the season of giving and All Romance eBooks™ (ARe) and some very special publishers are giving away eBooks.

Palm Harbor, FL (PRWEB) December 15, 2009 – During the busiest of shopping seasons, ARe and their partner publishers are making things easy and free. Shoppers can get select eBook titles from Harlequin, Liquid Silver Books, Tease Publishing, Pink Petal Books, Excessica Publishing, Eternal Press, The GA Hauser Collection, and eXstasy Books free of charge for a limited time thanks to ARe's 12 Days of Christmas campaign.

One free title will be announced each day for the twelve days preceding the Christmas Holiday in a special mailing to all subscribers of ARe's Wildfire eZine. In addition to the rotating eBooks offered for free, Harlequin is giving Wrapped and Ready, a holiday short story by Julie Kenner, away to readers all month long. The link can be found on any book detail page on the site. Readers put the free selection in their shopping cart, check out and the title will appear in their library instantly.

"Retailers like to run shoppers ragged to get a bargain this time of year, making them buy between certain hours, clip coupons, enter special codes. The holidays are hectic enough. ARe is about making things as easy as possible for the customer," says Media and Public Relations Manager, Cat Johnson. "With all the things we do for others at this time of year, it's really nice to get a little something for ourselves. And with our new gift giving feature, readers on a budget can take this opportunity to pass on the gift of an eBook to a friend—free."

TO SIGN UP FOR THE WILDFIRE NEWSLETTER:

Go to allromanceebooks.com or omnilit.com and register as a customer. Newsletter sign-up options can be found on-line in the account profile.

ABOUT ALL ROMANCE eBOOKS

All Romance eBooks, LLC was founded in 2006, is privately held in partnership, and headquartered in Palm Harbor, Florida. The company owns All Romance, which specializes in the sale of romance eBooks and OmniLit, which sells both fiction and non-fiction eBooks.

Didn't see anything like this on Dancing With The Stars

Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:51:11 GMT

A curious question re: inspirational romances

Sat, 12 Dec 2009 07:21:16 GMT

I think we can all agree that "inspirational romance" is the market-speak for Christian romances.

Say, if I happen to write an inspirational romance that is chaste, with the characters barely kissing, and therefore fulfilling every requirement listed in the Love Inspired submission guideline, only that my characters are Muslims instead of Christians, will it still qualify as an "inspirational romance"?

Do you think we will have to redefine "inspirational romance" if religious romances featuring Buddhism, Hinduism, or even Scientology start showing up? Do you think Christians will be happy if they have to make the extra effort to sift through those romances to find the ones they want if we open up the "inspirational romance" genre to include other religions? Or will we have to go straight to the point and call those books "Buddhist romances", "Christian romances", "Islamic romances", etc?

Or will the word "inspirational" be permanently appropriated by Christianity, heh?

Something is seriously wrong with David Archuleta

Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:42:47 GMT

We have a 19-year old kid talking to a yellow M&M to promote his Christmas album. Which is called Christmas From The Heart.

Let me say that again. 19-year old kid, talking to an M&M, Christmas From The Heart.

Which 19-year old kid will do such a thing without dying inside a little?

Not to mention, he's 19. In a year's time, he'd be too old to act like a 14-year old kid (actually, he's already too old, if you know what I mean) so I can only wonder where he will be. Even Miley Cyrus is now trying to tell people that she has breasts and she is an adult, and yet, poor Archie is talking to M&Ms and producing Christmas albums where he resembles a creepy wax elf on the cover.

This is one messed-up 19-year old kid we're dealing with, I tell you.

For someone like Tom Cruise, so touchy about being seen as gay

Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:04:34 GMT

I can only wonder what he was thinking to pose for this photo. Doesn't this look like one of those solo gay porn stuff you can find on the Web? This is a real photo, by the way, that appeared in GQ or something some time in the 1990s. Nothing is photoshopped, not even the suspicious wet patch on his shirt.

Wanna pray at the TwiChurch?

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:34:33 GMT

http://www.twifans.com/group/cullenism

Cullenism is a mass group of people,referred to as Cullenites, who have come together to appreciate the values and ideals represented by the Twilight series. We are not a religion(or a cult,lol) But we will be comparing and discussing Twilight with religion.We are nondenominational and don't intend to make anyone give up their own personal beliefs to be a part of the Cullenism group. We are simply fans who cherish the values of Twilight (not just how cute Edward is)!

It gets better.

There are wide ranges of people in our world,when something is as great as Twilight and grows and reaches other places,it is going to attract many different kinds of people. This is where we can compare Twilight to religion.

Christianity has grown exponentially from it's beginnings, it has reached many people all over the world. If you have seen from personal experience then you can tell that some people have taken their religious beliefs to extremes, either within themselves or within their community. Some take it upon themselves to know every detail of the Bible,every single aspect of the religion. And then some just follow what they have been taught by others, they don't think it even necessary to read further into it. There are ignorant people out there who don't take the liberty in trying to find the true meaning behind their worship, but then there are people who find the meaning and enjoy it within themselves.

Twilight has reached a point like this. Ultimately we are going to be faced with many different people with very different aspects of their personality's that view Twilight should be worshiped in different ways. Some people aren't reader's so they watch the movie, some people don't like movie's so they never even give the film a shot. It's like celebrating your religion only at your home and not going to church or mass. That is perfectly fine to do. When someone believes in Jesus and chooses not to read the Bible, it is their own way of following their faith. Just as many other people will see Twilight in many different ways. They will either watch the movie, read the series, or skim over the books and watch the film. At the bottom line of it all, Twilight will be known through different mediums and the people of our planet will set forth and find the tellings of the story in different forms. Cullenism is growing.

The scary thing is: THESE PEOPLE ARE DEADLY SERIOUS.

Last post about the Harlequin Delafonte blog circus

Tue, 08 Dec 2009 08:32:35 GMT

People asked me why I went overnight from being a self-publishing realist to a Harlequin sell-out. Actually, I didn't. My often sarcastic posts about the Harlequin DellArte drama in this blog were mocking the way RWA and some of the other critics of Harlequin behaved.

The Absolute Write component
I like Absolute Write for the most part, but there is one aspect of it that never fails to remind me to add a grain of salt into everything I read there: there are a handful of experts in the forum, the rest are just repeating things they hear from the experts, and like that telephone game, the facts get distorted along the line. In fact, I've come to think that I can spot an Absolute Write fanatic just by reading some posts on writing blogs outside that forum - these Absolute Write fanatics tend to repeat and echo, often verbatim, the things they read on the forum.

For example: the increasing meaninglessness of Yog's Law that has been used since its conception outside the context that it is created for. Then again, the creator of that Law, James MacDonald, is vocal about how he believes that the only publishing model that works is one that gets your books in bookstore. I agree with him there, but we part ways when he goes on to proclaim that ebook publishing model is a doomed one. So it's not surprising that his creation, Yog's Law, condemns all publishing model but his favorite one as non-viable or, in the interpretation of your typical Absolute Write fanatic, scams.

Too many Absolute Write people merely parrot the basic "laws" set down by the experts on AW and then distort things considerably when they add their personal interpretations to these laws. Make no mistake, the laws are sound, but context is also important. Most AW people don't think about context, they treat the laws as absolute black and white. Hence, the general hysteria about Harlequin DellArte is the new PublishAmerica and the evocation of all kinds of accusations of evil deeds that these people condemn all self-publishing for.

The Preditors and Editors factor
The founder has a good thing in his list - and it's still a good thing - but he isn't above overreacting or starting pointless fights to further his own agenda. Instead of negotiating, he attacks and often goes below the belt. There is a good reason why he lost that case against PublishAmerica, you know. He is very trigger-happy without thinking of the consequences. Listing the entire Harlequin as a vanity publisher is obviously another statement he is making, a dramatic one, but it's also one that serves to antagonize rather than educate.

The Double Standard
Victoria Strauss, one of the few rational people who care more for objectivity than dramatic fireworks, has stated repeatedly that it is not fair how Thomas Nelson is let off the hook when every writer association piles on Harlequin. I've had reasons given to me in this blog, usually in the vein of "those Christians are used to self-publishing, so we don't care". But that's the point I'm trying to make: if it's truly about principle, there is no excuse why the United Alphabets of WAs and friends do not excoriate Thomas Nelson as well. You shouldn't pick on who to target - if you are truly sincere in upholding the rightness of a situation, there you should take a firm stance regardless of who is doing the violation. The chicken-crap silence toward Thomas Nelson, when compared to the crap storm surrounding Harlequin, seems to be that (a) the United Alphabets of WAs are scared to tackle the Christians head on and (b) there is a "protect my turf" agenda at work here.

The Endless Wrangling Over Definitions
Does it matter? Okay, so self-publishing gives you full control while vanity publisher takes a cut from your income - or so a few people define things that way. I've heard a dozen or more different definitions for "self publishing" and "vanity publishing" that the only similarity in these definitions is that the author parts ways with money to play. And that "vanity publishing" is somehow bad while "self publishing" isn't. But when we have so many definitions of each term floating around, how do we really know which one is good or bad? All these endless wrangling over definitions serve only to confuse any new author trying to make sense of the two concepts. Why not just have a simpler set of definitions - "honest self publishing companies" and "unethical self publishing companies"?

Watchdogs from the Other Side
Call me a elitist if you must, but I'd take more seriously the opinion of someone who has participated and learned from self-publishing when it comes to this matter over that of someone who has no opinion (or knowledge) of self publishing until his or her favorite blog/forum brings up the Harlequin partnership with Author Solutions. I'd also take more seriously the suggestions and advice of people who know that field.

Self-publishing isn't exclusively the home of lazy authors too stupid to get published the "right" way. The history of self-publishing doesn't start and end with iUniverse. Long before the Web makes it convenient to pay to play, many people have been self-publishing comics, RPG splatbooks, DIY books, and more. And yet we have watchdogs, many of whom don't even care about self-publishing, telling authors who self-publish on what these authors should do. You don't tell a surgeon how to operate on a patient if all you know about heart surgery is taken from a 15-minute monologue by Dr Gregory House. Therefore, you shouldn't tell someone who has actively self-published and doing well at it that she is wrong all along because you think that the one true way of publishing is via traditional routes.

I think, after following the drama, we need to separate watchdogs who go after unethical publishers (which need not to be self-publishers exclusively) and watchdogs who observe and keep tabs on the self-publishing industry, because the interests of both parties are not necessarily similar. By separating the two, we will have less tedious debacles like which definition of "vanity publishing" is correct and whether or not X is like PublishAmerica (no it isn't - PublishAmerica is a special brand of con in a class of its own). Mick Rooney is someone I'd consider a forefront in the second category, and I wish there are more people who do the same things as he. I'm not saying that watchdogs need to be self-published to watch over self-publishers, let me make this clear. The segregation happens in the mindset of the reader or visitor - sometimes it's better to recognize that a pro-traditional publishing watchdog may be unnecessarily prejudiced against self-publishing and therefore add salt accordingly to flavor when reading their opinions on that industry. The reverse also holds true - sometimes self-published authors have no idea what they are talking about when they rant about the injustices of traditional publishing. It's all about keeping a clear and objective head when weighing in opinions from all sides.

My stance about self publishing
Which will probably be not important since I'm not an expert or an author, heh, is that self-publishing is a good thing for some aspects of fiction and for most aspects of specialized fields of non-fiction. As Julie Dawson noted in her excellent series on self-publishing on her Gather page, some genres like comics and RPGs actually thrive thanks to the self-publishing circuit. Anyone who insists that (a) all self publishers work like Publish America (a big tell-tale sign that this person is an insular member of Absolute Write who treats everything he or she reads in that forum as gospel) and/or (b) all self publishers are out to con authors automatically gets the "Do not bother, just ignore the rest of his or her post" treatment from me.

I also think Harlequin has a conflict of interest coming on with this partnership with Author Solutions, and it is certainly dodgy to monetize their slush pile by offering promises that they most likely won't keep. But unless people can come up with a better way for Harlequin to overcome their parent company's financial woes, I doubt Harlequin will budge much. And if this works, other publishers could very well follow suit. So the thing is, we may as well try to adapt to these changes in the publishing landscape.

What we need to do here, in my opinion, is to try to turn the self-publishing model into a good thing instead of trying to keep it down permanently. We need to target the slimy con men more than ever instead of pointing fingers at publishing houses sniffing at this profitable model. We need to get the law to go after these con men. It won't be easy, I know, but changes are never easy to bring around. We need more honest self-publishers, not less publishers. In fact, if Harlequin partnered with someone with a less slimy reputation than Author Solutions, I'd actually think that this development may be a good thing. But the thing is, a good self-publisher at the moment is one that is good by default because the rest are so bloody terrible. We should try to change that, because I don't think we can hold back the rise of self-publishing as a publishing model - it has been around for a long time now, becoming a viable moneymaker because it does draw in the big bucks, and now it's too big to remain an invisible secret in the publishing industry.

What about protecting the hapless ignorant authors, you ask? There is a wealth of information out there at the moment on the Web about bad publishers. Anyone who gets conned only has himself or herself to blame. As I've learned from being a mother, you can only hold a child's hand up to a point. Eventually the child must learn to fend for himself. Sometimes, if that person just won't listen, you have to let someone get burned so that he or she will learn from the experience, you know? Therefore, I find the act of trying to banish all self-publishers to keep the world a happy place a silly one, not to mention a futile one as well.

Advocates of traditional publishing can be hostile toward self-publishing, and really, that's their right to feel that way. But the whole Harlequin issue goes deeper than mere ethics. It poses plenty of questions that people in the industry should be thinking about but aren't because they are too busy racing each other to issue public moral outrages. After we let the knee-jerk outrage die down and start thinking more clearly, maybe we need to find a way to legitimize self-publishing instead of trying to keep it down and out. And partnerships with the Good Old Boys is a good way to start, which is why I'm not too much against traditional publishers going to bed with self-publishers. I think we just need to find a way to make such partnerships work to everyone's benefit. Self-publishing is not going to go away, people, so we may as well deal with it and adapt instead of treating it like the elephant in the room that nobody wants to acknowledge.

Can someone please spoil Sandra Brown's Rainwater for me?

Tue, 08 Dec 2009 07:03:03 GMT

I'm intrigued by the story line but I heard so many things about the ending that I'm even more intrigued by the ending than the story! So what happened? Did Mr Rainwater die? Did Ella die? Did that kid die? Or did all three of them kick the bucket in the end? Did Mr Rainwater turn out to be married? Or gay? WHAT HAPPENED? Tell me please. In the comments below or by email. Thanks in advance?

My favorite ear worm of the moment

Tue, 08 Dec 2009 06:40:56 GMT

I give it two weeks before I get too irritated with it (see: Here In Your Arms by hellogoodbye), but Owl City's Fireflies is too divine.

The Big Menage Question

Tue, 08 Dec 2009 02:01:16 GMT

There are generally two types of polyamory (polyamorous?) romance out there at the moment.

One, all three participants live together happily ever after.

Another one is where one of the participants leave (usually voluntarily), leaving the remaining two to live happily ever after.

Now, some readers love the first type, where all three shack up in the happy home in the end, and completely detest the second type of stories. Others prefer the second type.

The question is, how do I mention what kind of polyamory story I am reviewing without spoiling the whole thing? I can't think of any solution that doesn't involve big spoiler tags. And yet I often have readers asking me via email why I never warned them that a certain polyamory story I am reviewing doesn't have a happily ever after for all three main characters.

I'm at loss as to how to deal with this thing. Any ideas?