Damsel is a Word not a Trope

I have noticed lately a trend in which the word "damsel" is used as short-hand to mean "damsel in distress."

As in:
"I need you to scream for me."
"Like a damsel?"

Or:
"I imagined a story where I didn't have to be the damsel."

This chaps my hide.

"Damsel" is not an intrinsically pejorative word. It simply means "young, unmarried woman." The word itself has no relation to powerlessness.

In fact, according to the New Oxford American Dictionary, the word damsel comes to us (by way of French) from the Latin domina which means mistress, as in a female master.

So the entire foundation of the word damsel is rooted in power.

It just happened to share the same first letter as the word distress, and thus someone, who confused alliteration with wit, coined "damsel in distress."

To conflate the "damsel in distress" trope with the actual word "damsel" is NOT A GOOD THING. 

Because -- remember, damsel by itself just means woman -- what you're actually saying is:

"I need you to scream for me."
"Like a woman?"

Or:

"I imagined a story where I didn't have to be the woman."

When the word those screenwriters were really looking for is VICTIM.

"I imagined a story where I didn't have to be the victim." 

That is what Dolores should have said in the most recent episode of WestWorld. The show has rubbed our faces, across multiple episodes, in the victimization of Dolores, beating us over the head with how she is intended to be raped and murdered. That's her storyline, because that's all the men who visit WestWorld want -- to rape and murder an innocent farmer's daughter.

But her being a woman isn't the thing that needs fixing. She can be a woman -- a damsel -- who fights back. She can be a damsel hero. A Big Damn Damsel Hero.

What she wants fixed is her role of victim falling foul of evil, murderous men.

And the word WOMAN is NOT a synonym for VICTIM.

I don't care that what you really meant to refer to was the trope. What you're SAYING and what people are HEARING -- whether consciously aware of it or not -- is that women are victims. They have no other role. They can't be heroes. Women are by default "in distress"-- so much so that you don't even have to add the "in distress" part, you just say woman and the audience will fill it in on their own.

Oh, and only women can scream, apparently. That's adult women for ya, sniveling, crying, screaming. Men never do that.

I've only seen the trailer for that Tarzan movie, not the movie itself, but apparently the scream/damsel exchange was considered important because it's in said trailer. WHY?? Why does that merit a spot in the trailer? That's how our heroine is defined, is it? Ooh she's better than Ordinary Women, she's not a damsel!

Of all the comebacks she could have snarled, and this being a period piece, she could have spouted some very worthy phrases of disdain (I SAID GOOD DAY, SIR), all she does is throw shade on damsels? 

You can do better, screenwriters.

If for no other reason than the fact that "I imagined a story where I didn't have to be the damsel" is an ehh line given strength by the situation, but "I imagined a story where I didn't have to be the victim" is MOVING, with call-backs to all the scenes of victimization we've witnessed before, where Dolores, Special Victim Extraordinaire, takes back her power and violates her programming to defend herself.

Eschewing stereotypes and trope trigger words in favor of being ACCURATE is just BETTER WRITING.

Try it.

Why Is It Always Planets?

I only recently was able to watch STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS. And I have a question about the Star Wars universe, in general.

Why is it always planets?

Original Star Wars (the 1977 movie) had the Death Star and destroyed Alderaan and I get that. Special effects of that type were totally new, and it made an impact. It also proved how irrevocably, irredeemably EVIL the Empire was.

Except of course, it WASN'T irredeemable. Somehow the most irredeemable character WAS REDEEMED. (Don't get me started.)

Back to the Death Star.
Even though it had a total major design flaw, the Empire decided to rebuild the Death Star for Return of the Jedi.
I guess because thinking you can repeat the exact same motions and they'll result in a different outcome is one definition of madness and the Empire is pretty insane? I dunno.

Anyhow.
Death Star 2 is also destroyed. And in spectacular ignorance of the saying, "the bigger they are, the harder they fall", the First Order decides that the problem was IT WASN'T BIG ENOUGH.

So now we have Starkiller Base, which can destroy five planets at a time, in contrast to the Death Star's measly one.

Which I suppose makes the First Order MOAR EVIL.

But honestly, did we need that?

The human brain can only process so much. Does the audience feel five times the shock as we did at the annihilation of Alderaan? Do we have time to feel *anything* before the plot moves on?

I believe we felt for Alderaan because we felt for Princess Leia. There is no emotional touchstone for those five planets. They're just fridged. They existed to be killed. And it's a waste, because they don't provide any particular motivation for our main characters that those characters didn't have already.

Not even the special effects justify it. We see awesome special effects all the time now. It's not 1977 anymore.

You may scoff, and say these quibbles are outside of the movie's reality. And you'd be right.

But I've got a problem with Starkiller Base WITHIN the reality of the movie.

Let's say I'm General Hux (because I'm assuming he's more likely to make calculated, strategy-based decisions on behalf of the First Order than Kylo I-do-what-I-want Ren). I would think the entire concept of Starkiller is a Really Bad Move strategically.

I get that the people on those planets are A Problem. And the First Order wants to Make An Example.

BUT WHY DESTROY THE PLANETS?

Each of those planets has flora, fauna, and mineral wealth. They have infrastructure, machines, factories, libraries. Why destroy all those resources when you could use them to strengthen the First Order?

ALSO

If you wipe out a galaxy, doesn't that make traveling in that area more difficult? Like those "Last Gas for 100" miles signs? Take away all those planets and you impair the First Order's future logistics for shipping, refueling, and combat staging.

So I'd be ordering the brain trust that designs Evil Weapons to create a contagion - and requisite delivery system - that kills people, dissipates rapidly, and leaves the animals/ecosystem/infrastructure and other planetary wealth intact.

Because that is totally what the First Order needs. It would make empire building much cheaper, easier, AND more difficult to fight against because the delivery system could be mobile, and there could be multiple iterations, because it wouldn't have to be THE SIZE OF A PLANET ITSELF.


I was just getting warmed up on how this could actually work, and how you could make the special effects for that shit really scary, and it wouldn't have the same science-related problems that planet explosions have, but I've deleted it all because really, who needs that sort of Evil? And maybe that's the problem.
Maybe these thoughts are TOO EVIL for the Star Wars universe.

*sigh*

This is why I write Happily Ever After Romance.

Because at heart I'm really a Psychotic Space Ginger. *headdesk*

Facebook Party May 19, 2015

Come to the Facebook Party TODAY!! I'll be there from 4:20 - 4:40pm Eastern (2:20 - 2:40pm Mountain) time. Come chat with me! Click here:  https://www.facebook.com/events/471379986347936/

Please.

Seriously.

Don't leave me alone on Facebook.

Lots of other authors will be there throughout the day, of course. Giving away PRIZES. FREE STUFF. So go party!

YOU NEED MORE STUFF.

CLICK THE LINK.

I'll see you there.

Chile Ristras and Petroglyphs on the Volcanoes

These are chile ristras.

This photo is from the Petroglyph National Monument website, which has lovely ones on display at their Visitor Center.

If you ever get to Albuquerque, do make a point of going to the Petroglyph National Monument.

You may not know it, but New Mexico is one of the most volcanic states in the union. There are three volcanoes here in Albuquerque. They're examples of fissure eruption ("curtains of fire," like from Kilauea).

Into this volcanic rock some 400 to 700 years ago, Ancestral Pueblo Indians carved petroglyphs. Or scratched. Chiseled. How they made the petroglyphs is actually unknown. These images were spiritually important to them.

Spanish settlers saw the designs and added their own (easily identifiable Christian iconography). You can walk multiple trails of varying difficulty to see these cultural symbols (both Puebloan and Spanish) in their natural habitat.

But back to chile ristras.

Colonial settlers on the east coast of North America used the pineapple as a symbol of hospitality. 

You'll find pineapples (some more stylized than others) on entryways, staircases, and in dining decorations.

The pineapple was also a Christian symbol to these British colonists, as well as a symbol of Empire. But that's another story.

In the same way, chile ristras came to symbolize hospitality in the southwestern Spanish colonies. 

Originally, the chiles were strung together and hung up to dry for future consumption, but this utilitarian storage solution meant one had beautiful bright red garlands hanging on one's porch, and the more you had, the more bountiful your future feasts would be. 

So it's easy to see how the display of numerous hanging ristras about the entryway could become associated with generous, welcoming hosts. 

Unlike pineapples, which are now associated with antique decor, chile ristras are still used in modern decoration in New Mexico. Consequently, they had to be mentioned in DESERT TRYST. 

Any Bed & Breakfast worth its chiles would have a ristra or two out front. I hope touches like this help make the story feel authentic for the reader.

COVER REVEAL

*drumroll please*
Yes! Here it is! Remember that oddly dark yet adorable m/m romance short story I wrote last autumn? I moaned about it several times on Twitter back then. Well... its publication date is FINALLY ALMOST HERE.

And as the first step in the promo process, I bring to you now: THE COVER.

The beautiful, beautiful cover by Fiona Jayde.

You will notice by the branding on the cover that it is being published by Decadent Publishing as part of their 1Night Stand series.

What does that mean?

All the books in the 1Night Stand line share one thing in common: Madame Evangeline ("Eve") and her 1Night Stand (1NS) dating service. Her exceptionally exclusive, never advertised, online dating service. You tell her what you're looking for, and you're promised the date of your dreams.

Although I suppose it's actually a blind date, because until you show up at the location she gives you, you have no idea whom you're meeting.

But don't worry, these being romances, Madame Eve is almost magical in the way she can pair up soul mates.

So that's the framework upon which each unique couple begins their story. Look for this one to be released May 26!

Chatting with Lovecraft about Sex

SCENE: Young, exuberant REPORTER sits opposite quiet, horror-writing legend H.P. LOVECRAFT in a small New England sitting room filled with spindly antique furniture which has seen much use. 

Reporter: You can't believe how excited I am to be here. There are so many questions, so many questions, that fans and academics have been yearning to ask you. We all want insight into the worlds you created, the fantastic characters and places, the things named and unnamed. So let's start, shall we?

H.P.: Please do.

Reporter: Right then. How is your sex life?

H.P.: I beg your pardon?

Reporter: Describe your sex life for us. Are you homosexual? Are you asexual? Is that why sex is absent from your stories?

H.P.: (*long pause*) When I write weird fiction, I give you weird. When I write horror, I hope to horrify you. I don't write romance. If I wrote romance, I would include romance. Do you ask Edgar Allan Poe why he doesn't write more about lollipops and sunshine?

Reporter: But you created an entire mythology, and a dream-cycle, and no one has any sex in either of them.

H.P.: My characters are generally fighting for their lives or their sanity. Just when, exactly, do you propose they stop and have sex?

Reporter: Right. Of course. So how long would you say it takes you to achieve orgasm?

H.P.: What did you just ask me?

Reporter: These are actual questions people have discussed. Articles have been written. People want to know!

H.P. (*shifts in his chair uncomfortably*): I am a very private person from an era when a gentleman did not discuss such things and a place where being Puritanically uptight and uncommunicative was a sign of eminent respectability. What on earth or in the Outer Darkness makes you think I would ever discuss a topic as intimate as sex with utter strangers? I don't even discuss it with my friends.

Reporter: Aha! So you're squeamish? You don't like sex?

H.P.: (*now really irritated*) Squeamish? Seriously? Have you read my writing? (*sighs*) If you absolutely must know, I take my husbandly duties very seriously. I researched the topic thoroughly before marriage.

Reporter: Researched.... Does that mean you were a virgin? You were, weren't you! You must have a low sex drive.

H.P.: No, I have a modicum of self-control. I live in an age without reliable birth control, when unwed pregnancy is considered an unredeemable social sin. What sort of gentleman endangers the health and reputation of the woman he loves? Besides....

H.P. STANDS, CROSSES TO MIRROR ABOVE LARGE HEARTH

H.P.: You may have noticed, I am not particularly pleasing to the eye. My own mother said I was "grotesque" and advised me to go outside only after dark, so as not to frighten the neighbors. Advice I continue to follow to this day.

H.P. TURNS, SHUDDERS A BIT AS IF TO THROW OFF OLD MEMORIES, AND RETURNS TO HIS CHAIR.

H.P.: Thus it will be of no surprise to you that I was not overburdened with offers from the opposite sex. Sonia was the first woman who ever kissed me, apart from family. Had she not been determined to prove to me I was lovable, I doubt I ever would have known the congeniality of... of the.... (*hesitates, clearly searching for the perfect words*)

Reporter (*steam-rollers over HP's thoughts*): And is your wife satisfied with your performance? In bed? Your sexual performance? I hear she had more experience than you. I don't mean to say she's a slut or anything.

H.P.: (*very formal, with icy anger*) You are my guest so I shan't punch you. But you will leave this house at once.

REPORTER, SUDDENLY COWED AS HE REMEMBERS JUST EXACTLY HOW MANY PEOPLE DIE GRUESOMELY IN THIS AUTHOR'S STORIES, STANDS.

ENTER SONIA, Lovecraft's wife.

Sonia (*smiling*): Wait, don't go. You want to hear about our sex life first-hand, don't you?

Reporter (*looks at HP nervously, stutters*): I...I....ummm....I....

Sonia: My husband is a very sophisticated and conscientious lover who knows how to please a woman. I have to initiate our encounters, yes, but that's because he was brought up to believe no woman would have him and he doesn't wish to impose himself on me.

Reporter: (*backing toward the door*): So he pleases you. That's good.

Sonia (*her righteous anger slipping past her polite smile*): I didn't just say he pleases me, I said he knows how to please a woman. HE HAS TECHNIQUE.

ENTER FANGIRLS, peering in the windows from outside.

Fangirls: Did she say technique? Do you realize how rare technique is, even today?! Get out of the way, Lame Ass Reporter! Lemme see this guy!

Sonia (*approaching Reporter, who is fumbling for the doorknob*): (*accusingly*) You just want there to be sex in his stories so you can read about women who enjoy their sexuality being ripped apart by eldritch horrors.

Reporter: What? No!

Sonia: He doesn't slut-shame, he doesn't denigrate women as a gender, and sex isn't a part of my husband's stories because sex isn't a punishable crime in his universe. So there must be something wrong with him? It that it?

Reporter (*stumbling out the door*): No! It's not like that. Not all men....

Fangirls: (*pouncing on Reporter*) NOT ALL MEN. He said it! He said the thing!

H.P. (*sotto voce to Sonia, who has returned to his side, indicates Fangirls*): Why are they doing that?

Sonia (*strokes HP's hair affectionately*): Ignore them. That's an entirely different discussion.

CosPlay Is Killing Creators

So today I was reading this article where the wife of a Star Wars artist blames cosplayers for comic creators not making money at conventions.

I must say my first thought was, "Who goes to San Diego Comic-Con for comics?"

Which is obviously sad in a way, since it originally was a COMIC convention.

Today it's more about television and movies and star appearances. And possibly video games. That's the audience desperately struggling to get the limited amount of tickets available and then sleeping in line overnight to see Benedict Cumberbatch. They're not giving up their place in line to see comic creators they could see elsewhere more easily - and rightfully so!

But apparently it is a Known Fact that comic creators are losing money going to conventions these days.

Why?

She thinks it's because of cosplayers:

"I’ve seen it first-hand–the uber-famous artist who traveled all of the way from Japan, sitting at Comic-Con, drawing as no one even paid attention to him, while the cosplayers held up floor traffic and fans surround the cosplayers–rather than the famed industry household name–to pose for selfies."

Okay.

I "cosplayed" before there was a name for it. Back in my day, we called it DRESSING UP FOR THE CONVENTION.
*what kind of stupid cutesy name is cosplay, anyway?* *grumble, grumble*

I was asked for pictures back when you had to bring a camera.

In my handmade Doctor Who (Fem)Brigadier outfit, I was once even asked for my autograph by a little boy.

HOWEVER.

I think cosplay can be *perceived* as more of a diversion from creators these days because:

1) More people cosplay. Now that there's a word for it, it's a THING TO DO. And with the Internet, you can find people to make your costume for you. It doesn't have to be a time consuming, searching for just the right materials, frustrating, labor of love.

Also EVERYONE has a camera phone, so:

2) More people ask for pictures.

And with the Internet, even more people WANT photos.

Used to be you took a picture because you liked the costume. Film had a limited number of pictures possible on each roll, so you had to pick and choose. These were for your personal collection. You couldn't share it with anyone but your local friends.

3) Digital photos are free and endless. The Internet encourages uploading. More pictures happen.

Now people can want pictures for themselves. Or pictures to post on social forums. Or they can be trolls who want to post a photo and anonymously make fun of the cosplayer.

Sidenote: Nobody trolled like that back in the day, because you had to PAY for film, for developing, and you could only show your local friends, like I said, and they'd probably think you were mean and judge you so...why bother?

The author did try to correct her statement by saying she meant not the costume-wearers themselves, but the social element that has built up around them. That conventions are about seeing and being seen, not buying stuff from creators. There has been a shift from "commerce-driven" to "social gathering-driven."

4) Conventions have ALWAYS been social functions. Remember filking?

In fact, I'd say conventions were MORE social gathering-driven before "geek" became mainstream, before the Internet let us know there were others of us out there. We might be social misfits in our schools, but at conventions we were AMONG OUR PEOPLE.

So.

Why are comic creators losing money on conventions when everyone knows the Dealer's Room is the heart of any convention? I mean, we LOVE to buy cool stuff.

Okay, first off, let me say I am probably TOTALLY WRONG. But:

1) Know your venue.

I don't think SDCC and Wizard World conventions really cater to the comic buying crowd.

I would go to those for the film and television celebrities. I see them. I "know" them.

I don't know most comic book creators.

Which brings us to my second point.

2) You can buy practically everything cheaper online these days.

For me to seek out a person at a convention to get their signature or an original drawing, I have to value that interaction, that connection. My brain has to make the leap between - "I really loved that story" to "I really like this creator."

And that which will drive people to make that leap is what we all strive to discover. I'm an author. I go to conventions. I'd like to know the magic secret too.

I can only say that in my own experience:

1) I adore the Captain America movies. I have never read a Captain America comic.  I went to all the X-men movies. Never read their comics either. Remember that Witchblade television show? I watched that. Never read the comics.

Comic creators should probably ignore me.

However, if you're looking to attract new readers, I'm probably the demographic you're up against. At least we know the comics exist.

That said, there is one comic creator I would attend a convention for:   Brad Abraham.

This is because I "know" him.

I "met" him on Twitter. I like him. I like his work. I already have autographed copies. But I would attend New York Comic-Con to visit his creator table. And I live in New Mexico.

So.

With the mainstreaming of "geek" culture, no one can assume they're a "household name" anymore. (Sad, but true.) You have to reach out to the newly geekyized and let them know who you are, what you create, why you're worth interacting with.

But NOT in a 24-hour-every-tweet/post-is-an-advert way. That'll get you unfollowed real quick.

Okay.

That's my two cents on a subject nobody asked my opinion about in the first place. :)

Advice for Beginning Writers Part 3

Flying by the seat of your pants is old aviation slang for flying by instinct, by how it feels rather than using your (at the time rudimentary) tech instruments. In the writing world, starting your book with no plot pre-planning, just putting pen to paper and seeing where you go, is called pantsing. The opposite of this is called plotting, where you plan out your entire story. This can be as simple as a five page summary or as intricate as a 50 page, seventh-level alphanumeric outline.

Plotting vs. Pantsing is a favorite hobbyhorse amongst craft books. Some people swear by one method, some by the other. Some are adamant that one method is better than the other, which can even escalate to the other being labelled "wrong."

I prefer to view it as a spectrum, with total plotting at one end and total pantsing at the other.

I also believe that the method you use to create is innate. If you're a born pantser, trying to make yourself into a plotter will only kill your creativity. So find where you are on the spectrum and go with it.

Ignore anyone who says you ought to write in a different manner. Do whatever puts words on paper for you.

Everyone says they want to write a book. Some do begin. Comparatively few actually finish.

Getting the story down is the biggest hurdle you'll face. This is because putting words on paper is a lot harder than most people realize. So do what gets your idea out of your head and into tangible form.

Now I will say, if you're writing something with multiple sub-plots in addition to your main story, you probably should find a way to keep track of them so all loose ends are tied up at the end of the book. Whether that's an outline or a checklist or whatever is up to you. But if you mistakenly leave something hanging, you can bet an angry reader will mention it on Goodreads. And Amazon. And everywhere else.

So the answer to the question - do you need to know your entire plot before you start writing? - is no. Not if you're a pantser.

Advice for Beginning Writers Part 2

So now you know how you're going to write. You've got your pen or your keyboard. What now?

Most Craft-Of-Writing books are full of useless advice.

Don't put in excess information (info dump). Yeah, obviously. But if you're a beginner, how do you recognize what's excess and what's not?

Don't begin with a description of the weather.  Okay, that's only because of Bulwer Lytton's "It was a dark and stormy night" and that is only considered bad writing these days because it GOES ON

That's all one sentence.

Weather is not the problem. If the weather is intrinsic to your opening, begin with it. You can make it work.

There are many synonyms for the word 'said'.  Yes. Yes there are. Don't use them. Really.

When one is reading, 'said' tends to disappear, unless you tack it on every single line. Words like 'responded', 'announced', 'remarked', 'verbalized' - the eye will begin to catch them, and then the reader will start noting how extensive your thesaurus is and not paying attention to the dialogue. So save those synonyms for when portraying how a sentence is muttered, recited, or declared really matters.

So.
Where would I say to go for craft advice?

If you're like me, if you go looking for a book on how to grind coffee, you want a step by step description of how coffee is ground. Practical advice. Not a description of how great coffee is and where it comes from and the history of coffee grinders.

I don't actually know if grinding coffee is that involved. I use a Keurig.

Anyhow. The point is, if you're looking for an actual How To book that describes the nuts & bolts of building a story, then I recommend without hesitation Plot & Structure by James Scott Bell.

If you have an idea for a book, this will get you going on how to set it up and write it.

Advice for Beginning Writers Part 1

I was asked a very long time ago to post some advice about writing for beginning authors.

This is more difficult than it sounds.

Writing is... Okay, I'm not going to say it's a mystical experience that can't be pinned down, or that it's something one does and cannot be taught. But it is difficult to describe.

If you're cooking, the implements involved are standardized: measuring cups, a specified size of baking pan, etc. Writing is all in the brain, and everyone's brain is different.

For example, say I give you an egg and say, "Open this." You might opt for the edge of a bowl, a hammer, or a Rube Goldberg machine (Heath Robinson, if you're in the UK) which involves several dominoes, a whisk, and a cat. All would be equally correct in writing. It's your creation. You do what you want.

So much freedom can leave you paralyzed, wondering what to do first. I can help with that.

First, decide how you want to write.

Back in the day, this wasn't a problem. Paper and quill. That's it. Even with the invention of typewriters, it was still generally found to be easier to write out one's story with pen and paper, then just type the final draft.

Computers changed that.

Yes, it is easier to type and format on a computer. You can also get so caught up in the minutiae of word processing that you edit and re-edit the same damn paragraph instead of going on to the next chapter. Or you can stare at the white abyss of blank page while the horror of nothingness stares back at you. So then you go surf the web, tweet some folks, and check your email five times.

So my first bit of advice is:  Decide if you are a pen-and-paper creator or a computer creator. Which technique will make you more productive? Because that's what it's all about, producing the words. What separates authors from wannabes is actually finishing the book.

NaNoWriMo

National Novel Writing Month. Every year I think about doing it. I even joined the website. But I never have got around to participating - until now.

This year I'm going to try it. I am. It'll be interesting to see what happens. Y'see, I write slowly.

Really, really slowly.

I edit as I go. I sit and debate word choice. I rewrite paragraphs repeatedly.

NaNoWriMo is about throwing words on the blank page/screen. You don't stop until the end of the month. And then you go back and edit.

That's outside my comfort zone. What if at the end, all I have is 50,000 words of utter dreck? All my time, blood, sweat, and tears were wasted.

There is a school of thought that says it's never a waste, that you learn from your mistakes. There's also a school of thought that says, stop trying to make lemonade out of lemons - don't buy lemons in the first place, get yourself a nice prime rib or something.

But I'm going to ignore that voice and try to just throw words at the page. Maybe it will be a liberating experience and I'll discover how to write faster and ignore my inner critic.

But mostly it'll be about joining in with my friends YES YES YOU MADE ME DO IT I HOPE YOU'RE HAPPY NOW.

Twenty-Five Acts

Houston, we have a problem. 

Okay. So I'm watching Law & Order SVU, which is one of my favorite shows. I've watched all the episodes.

ALL OF THEM. 

And I'm enjoying the new actors this season. Got nothing against the show.

This week's episode - Twenty-Five Acts - was about the rape of an author of a 50-Shades-of-Grey-style BDSM romance.

Now here's my problem - the show went with the premise that the below are truths:

1) Because the author wrote about certain sexual acts, the jury would think she wanted those acts done to her.

2) Because what you write is your personal fantasy.

3) And she couldn't have just researched it. Those sexual acts had to have been inspired by a real man/relationship.

WTF???

Now, I've written a BDSM romance.

On an alien planet.

I've never done any of the BDSM sexual acts in the story.

Neither have I been to an alien planet.

Nor are either of those things my personal fantasy. I'm really not interested in interstellar travel until we get to the space-cruise-ship level. Until then, there's plenty of places on Earth for me to explore.

And the inspired by a real person thing? Oh sure, I'm quite positive I was inspired by real men - who do not know I exist. 

It's called imagination.

Coupled with research.

As with the fictitious book in the Law & Order episode (based on 50 Shades of Grey - itself originally a fan-fiction Twilight tale), this isn't a kiss-and-tell memoir, it's fiction, for pity's sake!

FICTION.

Other types of fiction don't get treated like this.

Nobody asks Stephen King how many hotel ghosts have driven him insane. Or James Patterson how many people he's murdered. Or Tess Gerritsen if she's secretly a serial killer.

Nobody assumes these three have bloody fantasies. Or that they're asking to be possessed/murdered/crime victims.

And certainly nobody believes they've actually done any of the things they've written.

So why do people take for granted that it's imagination and research when it's violence, and lifestyle when it's sex?

Why is writing about consensual sex between two adults shameful and writing about body horror and physical atrocities perfectly acceptable?

I don't know the answer. So I'm asking you.

eBook Prices

How do you put a value on a digital book? It doesn't seem like this should be the conundrum it is.

Paper books are priced to cover the amount it cost to produce them plus a markup for both the publisher's and the bookseller's profit.

Ebooks should be priced the same way, right? The problem is, we assume the production cost will be significantly cheaper because there is no paper and no binding--forgetting that paper is cheap and binding is not especially costly either.

All the costly things--cover art, editing, etc.--must happen in the production of a digital book, just like a paper one. So logically the price isn't going to differ dramatically.

And yet, it doesn't seem right.

Maybe because so many eBooks are "free." It seems like the average price thus should be lower.

But those eBooks are free because either they are classics, antiques, if you will, long ago falling into the public domain, so libraries or volunteers can legally digitize them, or they're new books whose publisher wants to boost word-of-mouth on a particular title or author and is willing to take a financial hit to do it.

Those eBooks still cost time and money to produce, but your tax dollars, the goodness of others, or a marketing plan paid for them.

So, again, digital books should cost about the same as paper.

What about resale value? Maybe we feel digital books should be cheaper because we can't resell them as we can paper books?

That isn't within the publisher's purview. Paper books are not priced with any thought to the used market because neither publishers nor authors get any money from those venues. Why should eBooks be any different?

We aren't automatically entitled to resell things in our possession. Many items you buy cannot be resold, and we accept that. The video games industry may be going toward a used-games-are-unplayable model. That there is no used market for digital books may simply become the standard of the future.

So again, digital books' and paper books' prices shouldn't be that far apart.

But then why, when I am faced with a $12.99 eBook, do I wince?

I've paid $9.99 for eBooks. I'd pay $12.99 for a paperback. And yet I stall at $12.99 for an eBook.

$12.99 is what - the price of dinner for one? Lunch for two? Food you'll never get back (unless it gives you food poisoning and then it will be returned to the world in a state far different from when you last viewed it) whereas an eBook lasts forever. You can even lend it to others and, trust me, no one wants you to lend them your food or other perishables.

$12.99 is a few hours of work at minimum wage to pay for something that took the author months of agony to produce. If the eBook is nonfiction, it might have taken years. And yet we won't shell out our coffee money for it.

Why is that?

I really should buy that $12.99 eBook. I just... argh. Do any of you have this problem?

Chris Avellone's Help for Writer's Block

From Reddit

I thought these tips were pretty ingenious. How about you? What are your suggestions for combating Writer's Block?

PAX East 2012: Plot vs Play panel

Here are Ken Levine (Bioshock), Chris Avellone (Fallout: New Vegas), and David Gaider (Dragon Age) speaking about the importance of writing, plot, and game mechanics.

Yet more Vulpes and Arcade Freeside fanart

:Boys-Love Warning: Vulpes/Arcade by *doubleleaf on deviantART

I commissioned this What Happens In Freeside-esque image from doubleleaf on dA. It hasn't even been up 24 hours and it's already gotten over 11,000 views! This is due to her skill as an artist, of course.

But I have gotten emails from readers saying they read my fanfic before playing New Vegas, and are now playing the game because of me. I've also received emails saying my fanfic has deepened players' experience of New Vegas.  This all fills me with warm fuzzies and makes me very happy.  Fallout: New Vegas was the first game to make me a Total Fan Girl and I am so pleased to be able to pass that obsession on to others.

Don't know what any of this is about? Read the fic or GO BUY THE GAME!

My Theory on How Sherlock Survived *Spoilers*

If you haven't seen season 2 of the BBC's Sherlock, don't read this. Unless you like spoilers.






*spoilers*








*spoilers*








*spoilers*












Okay, this is my theory of how Sherlock survived the fall from the building in The Reichenbach Fall:






He never jumped.

We see John get out of the taxi, and Sherlock directs him to stand in a certain place and look up and says he's on the roof. So when John looks up, he would assume the figure on the roof is the one he's talking to on the phone.

Sherlock also tells John specifically to keep his eyes on him. Which means there is something elsewhere that John cannot see for the trick to work. 

I'm guessing Sherlock is on the roof of a building nearby, perhaps behind John. That is where the confrontation with Moriarty took place.

The other rooftop is where Sherlock arranged with Molly - when he asked her for help earlier - to have Molly standing with a body from the morgue of Sherlock's approximate height and weight (it wouldn't have to be perfect, the angle from ground to rooftop would skew perspective) and dressed in Sherlock's clothing.

On Sherlock's signal (he could do an arm wave, since John can't see him), Molly would drop/push the body off the ledge and splat.

Then that bike-rider (part of Sherlock's network) knocks into John as he runs to the corpse, not only delaying him so a crowd has gathered and he can't actually touch the corpse, but the rider has injected him with project H.O.U.N.D stuff (borrowed from Mycroft? since he owes Sherlock) so John is bleary and disoriented when he gets to his feet. And then sees precisely what he expects to see, what he most fears when he catches a glimpse of the corpse.

And then Molly can do the paperwork to say it's Sherlock in the morgue now, sign him officially dead.

That's how I think Moffat & Gatiss did it. 

Canon Shippiness with Sherlock and John

Review Etiquette

Every once in a while, you hear about an author who responded nastily to a negative review. This is generally regarded as a good time to get popcorn and lurk for the lulz, because those situations never end well for the author.

Never.

So my advice to authors is ignore bad reviews. Even if it's a totally unfair opinion or you just want to correct this one little thing ----

NO.   Let it go.

Because, however sweet you think you are being, telling someone their opinion is wrong only makes you look like a jerk.

What about the other side of the coin, though? What if you get a really fantastic review that warmed your heart and made your day/week/year?

Is it okay to thank the reviewer? Tell them how much you appreciate it?

Or will that look smarmy, like you're trying to ingratiate yourself with them for future good reviews?

Would it freak the reviewer out, to hear from you, and make them self-conscious about their writing? That could lead to resentment.

What do you think?

Books, Scotland & More in Chicago April 2012

Online registration for the RT BookLovers' Convention in Chicago, April 11 - 15, 2012 is open!

Are you going?

There's tons of panels and chats and parties for writers, readers, booksellers and librarians, YA fans, everyone!

And of course, book-signings, like the one pictured here.

The hotel is the Hyatt Regency O'Hare, which looks beautiful - and convenient for the airport. 

As always, I am on the Faery Court, hosting the Faery Ball. This year we're doing a Magical Scottish Fling and encouraging our guests to attend in a Scots-themed costume. Something out of Scottish myth and legend, a character from your favorite Scottish historical or person from Scottish history, or even the embodiment of your favorite Scottish song or poem! 

You love Robert Burns' Red, Red Rose? Come in a gown of red rose blossoms and petals! 

There will be a costume contest, of course, and - new this year - a drawing for three mega-baskets of gifts. Not just promo stuff. Actual cool gifts.

It's going to be fantastic. 

This year I am also hosting a readers' panel and, as you can see, I have awesome company (panel info below). Please join us for the Naked Truth about Scotland!

Hope I see y'all at the Convention!

UNDER THE KILT — THE NAKED TRUTH ABOUT SCOTLAND

Everything you ever wanted to know about Scotland. Not only what a gentleman wears under his kilt, but also: If the rebels supported Bonnie Prince Charlie, why are they called Jacobites? Are Bloody Mary and Mary, Queen of Scots the same person? What is a Burns supper and is haggis really as disgusting as it sounds? If you love Scotland, join us for an interactive chat about this unique land.

Hosts: Loretta Chase, Donna Grant, Sahara Kelly, Kimberly Killion, Cathy Maxwell, Susanne Saville, Veronica Wolff