Vixenwriter

So the five author anthology that has my quickie from last year, Sudden Desire is now out in print!

Sexy Summer Fun features stories from me, Katherine Kingston, Hannah Murray, Nikki Soarde and Ravyn Wilde! To celebrate, I’m going to run a contest (because they are fun and I can). Tell me what your favorite romantic summer activity is! Easy yes? Just leave them in the comments to this post and I’ll choose a winner for the paper anthology at 3 pm pacific on Saturday.

And a quick comment on the RWA PAN/PRO thing: Okay so it’s not quick so I’m going to put it behind a text cut. If you want to read it, click the read more text…

Read the rest of this entry ?

I should so not write about this, I should be politic and pretend I don’t see it but really, I can’t. I can’t because there’s something I hate more than Anne Coulter and that’s when people gang up and make other people afraid to speak out. That’s petty bullshit bullyism and it’s not okay.

What I’m seeing is so reminescent of 10th grade it gives me the hives. It’s Mean Girls with blogs and aside from being tedious, it’s a vicious cycle.

Here’s the thing - is there a double standard about what authors can say and how they respond to anything said about them? Yep. And I accept that. It comes with the territory and if you don’t get used to it, you’re going to get an ulcer and be upset all the time.

But are there people out there in blogland right now who take everything positive and spin it to a negative because they seem to feed on that? Yes. Yes and those same people are the first ones to whine if anyone turns that around on them.

However, these folks are not indicative of the reader/author blog group and I want to re-emphasize that. 99% of romance lovers (readers/authors/reviewers) are not this way. They’re places you can have a great, spirited discussion, even disagreements, without negativity or anger.

I remember not too long ago, consistent assertions that there was some sort of divide or feud between authors and readers and I called bullshit then and I call it now.

I’m not buying it because it’s not rational to apply the behavior of a few to generalize outward. And I don’t buy that speaking out in opposition or giving another opinion makes anyone thin skinned or an author misbehaving or whatever. I’m never going to buy that the presence of an opinion counter to one I hold, or one you hold, is in and of itself a bad thing.

What I choose to do then, is to reject the rampant bitterness out there in certain places. I’m going to say out loud that when anyone has to be afraid to be honest or speak up that’s not right.

So I’m saying no. Not going there, not commenting. I’m not playing because I have enough negativity in my life as it is. But no petty dictator wannabe is gonna tell me I can’t speak my mind.

Or, cripes, I have to write about Maureen Dowd’s monunmentally stupid and insulting op-ed piece at last or I shall explode.

Many have written on this ridiculously offensive piece of tripe and have done so more coherently than I will do (try Smart Bitches and Jenny Crusie’s Argh Ink) BTW, the girl cooties term is one I quite unashamedly lifted from Candy at Smart Bitches because it’s clever and makes me laugh.

You see, I’m a feminist. I’m not afraid to claim the word, I like the word. It’s a word that espouses the ideals that got me into law school, it’s a word that got me the right to vote, the right to own property in my own name and a word that endeavors to help me earn the same dollar a man with my same qualifications earns. Feminism allows me to make the choice to stay home with my children (although my husband’s job with a fabulous employer is what makes that financially possible) and what allows other women to make different choices. YOu see, it’s that C word (no, not THAT one) that for me, is the heart of the issue of feminism.

And when women, smart women with a lot of power like Dowd, stand up on their NYT pulpit and beat other women who make other choices over the head with the girl cooties card, with a sneer about romance and chick lit and the dreaded “pink” accusation - it’s decidely the opposite of feminism. It’s bully pulpit behavior and it’s boring.

Here’s a little ditty from the opening of the piece (which you can find in blogland in its entirety but you have to be a Times subscriber to see it at the NYT page). She’s in her local bookstore and, gentle readers, becomes alarmed by all the pink. Sigh.

No, I realized with growing alarm, chick lit was no longer a niche. It had staged a coup of the literature shelves. Hot babes had shimmied into the grizzled old boys’ club, the land of Conrad, Faulkner and Maugham. The store was possessed with the devil spawn of “The Devil Wears Prada.” The blood-red high heel ending in a devil’s pitchfork on the cover of the Lauren Weisberger best seller might as well be driving a stake through the heart of the classics

Oh no! Girls got into the He Man Women Haters club of literature. They’re getting their girlyness all over the place and ruining it by telling stories about women who, gasp, work, and have babies and oh, no, fall in love! Oh my god, quick, someone stab a girl, fuck and run, smoke a cigar and drink some scotch before we all get vaginas! Quick, hide your boobies before they figure out you’re a girl too, Maureen! Run!

She uses bodice rippers in her column, she makes a crack about the Red Badge of Courage - as if one cannot possibly read a romance AND read anything else. Because after all, ‘thinking is so hard!” and yes, her biggest crime is using this quote from “her friend” at the New Republic, Leon Wieseltier: America’s reading women could do a lot worse than to put down ‘Will Francine Get Her Guy?’ and pick up ‘The Red Badge of Courage.’

Hey Maureen Dowd and Leon Wieseltier, I’ve read it. I’ve read Kafka, Steibeck, Orwell (love his essays), Salinger - the whole crew. My readers aren’t stupid. I’m not stupid. Your fellow women aren’t stupid and incapable of complex ideas simply because they like to read romance or chick lit and it’s insulting that you’d have the audacity to claim anything of the sort. In addition, it’s simply illogical on your part to assume that since a woman reads a Harlequin romance she doesn’t also read other things.

It’s bad enough that I have to deal with smug men every day who look down on what I write and read, I really don’t expect to have women who’ve achieved a lot of power and position and who openly call themselves feminists to suddenly start attacking women who like to read things other than what you do, Ms. Dowd. I have to tell you I dealt with less smug, pretentious bullshit woman hating from the assholes I went to law school with than I just read in your column.

Well thank goodness for some sanity.

Oy. Seriously people, this sort of thing hacks me off. In the first place, why do people who want to ban books always have absolutely NO true information about them? I remember once someone telling me that Harry Potter had voodoo in it, which of course just goes to show the ignorance of book banning in the first place. Unless Rowling throws it into book 7, I haven’t seen any voodoo yet. Of course, I’ve actually read the books, so silly me.

According to the American Library Association, J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter books have been challenged 115 times since 2000, making them the most challenged texts of the 21st Century.

There are several, quite obvious things here. In the first place, the books are about loyalty, courage, honor, love and conviction to your beliefs. These are precisely the values children need most. I’ve heard claims that it encourages children to question authority. And um, hello, these children are fighting to save humankind and wizard kind alike with the help of adults. It’s not that they’re questioning all authority, but you know what? Sometimes authority is wrong. Hitler ring a bell? Sometimes, authority is bad and there’s nothing wrong with your child understanding that.

HOWEVER, if you don’t want your children reading fantasy novels because they contain elements you consider bad (although it might be nice if you read the darned things first to see what they were really about), don’t let em. That doesn’t mean though, that you need to become my childrens’ moral compass on such matters. Or anyone else’s for that matter. Why does it have to move from a personal decision for your family to an attempt to decide for mine? It’s so unbearably self righteous.

I fully support parents controlling what their children read and see. It’s a parent’s job to do that. But it’s not Laura Mallory’s job to do it for me and I resent her attempts and the people like her (on both sides of the political spectrum) who seem to believe it’s their job to decide what everyone else thinks, hears, says and reads.

So thumbs up to Georgia Board of Education members for voting to keep the books on the shelves.

So last night I’m upstairs working on edits and my husband is putting the wee monster to sleep when I hear the alarm on the front door go off and then nothing. I rush down and the door is standing wide open and he’s nowhere in sight. I step outside and he’s not out there. I don’t see wee monster and I call my dude’s name and nothing. It’s really, and I mean like 20 degrees really, cold and I hear a noise as he comes jogging back holding the crushed remains of two of the kids’ pumpkins.

Turns out some little dipshits who need an ass kicking strolled up to our porch and walked away with two pumpkins. But my husband heard them and put a sleeping M down and ran after him. They dropped the pumpkins and ran their little asses off. My husband was worried that he’d left the door open and broke off after three blocks and came home.

Seriously? Who steals a pumpkin from a 2 year old? It’s too late to carve another, even if the pumpkin patch wasn’t picked clean so we’re all sharing our pumpkins but there’s a bit of sadness over it.

Still, we’ve got two darth vaders and a ladybug fairy and a whole bunch of candy so we’ll have a good time anyway. It’s freezing though! I’ll have to bundle the boys up under their costumes because, “moooom! If I wear a coat, no one will see my costume.” Eye roll.

I finished up second round edits on Sword and Crown last night and some last bit comma and clarification stuff on Taking Chase so I’m back to Threat of Darkness tonight, yay!

Speaking of Threat of Darkness, I’ve put up a very sneaky peek of it, Wolf Unbound and Sword and Crown at my messageboard. If you’re not a member, why not?

Another early review of Tri Mates! Holly at Two Lips Reviews gives Tri Mates 4 1/2 lips and says in part: Tri Mates is another wonderful book in the Cascadia Wolves series by Lauren Dane. The intrigue gives these books a whole new dimension. There were so many twists and turns in the plot that I never knew what was coming next. Nick is such a charming playboy that you can’t help but love. Gabe is a much quieter Alpha male, yet he is intriguing in ways Nick is not. Tracy is just a kick butt woman who loves to let her men have control in bed, but only in bed. She is funny, loyal, loving and forgiving. They make a fascinating set and you’re left wanting more of their story. I literally can’t decide if the next in the series should continue their story or move on to the next couple. Of course, I’m waiting impatiently for Cade’s story who is Alpha of Cascadia pack…. Lauren Dane is on my auto buy list and I can’t wait to see what happens next.

Thanks, Holly!!

Woot!

I finished my second round edits on Taking Chase and got those back and now I’ll get to Threat of Darkness which I hope to make a huge dent in this weekend to push through and finish the middle.

Battlestar Galactica domestic date night is here. I love the time with my husband, just the two of us, eating popcorn and snuggling. It’s so important to try and make time as a couple and when you’re living such busy lives it’s easy to lose sight of that.

I’ll put this rant here at the end - I really can’t wait for election day because the ads in my district have hit a new low and I swear if one of the candidates (and I won’t even waste my time saying her name, although it’s perfect for her personality and demeanor) comes to my door I’ll turn the hose on her. Talk about the issues, I don’t want to hear about your opponent’s campaign platform when she was a college freshman 21 years ago (unless she was burning crosses or something). If all you’ve got is that, you really shouldn’t be re-elected. I don’t make a big secret of my politics but I’ll tell you what, don’t demonize my profession in an ad about your opponent and expect a nice reception when you come to my door. Feh!

No, not you all. I like you all. I mean the condescending jerk who wrote the article in today’s New York Times and Tim Priest from “The Greater Washington Business Initiative”

Let’s get a few things straight -I am not stupid or simple. My readers are not stupid or simple and my books are not stupid or simple.

Because we are women who write for an audience that is overwhelmingly female does not mean we are all stupid and fluffy and uneducated. Nor does our offense at being described that way again and again make us “touchy.”

I love the generalization that people with higher educations and who are more worthy hires are reading Plato while the “average” reader is sucking down romance because they’re just so stupid. I’ve commuted on mass transit a lot and let me tell you, whether they were on their way to the law firm I worked for or the Target to start their job as a checker, they all read popular fiction of one kind or another. The only people I saw reading Plato were students and it was because they had to (that’s the only reason I read it too). The Republic was worthy reading, I worked hard to get the most out of it, like I did Kant and Camus too. But um, it’s okay to read things that are entertaining too. Without shame.

There’s also this doofus down in Texas who’s running for State Comptroller who’s attacking his opponent by saying she’s a pornographer (insert eye roll) because she wrote a romance novel in 1990. Sigh.

This on top of being attacked by other romance novelists and I’m just a cranky girl today. Look, my thing is this - women are not wrong for having desires and fantasies. Our fantasies and desires are not less important than those of men. Our fantasies and desires may differ through our gender and that’s okay too.

The bottom line is - they’re books. If you don’t like them, please feel free not to read them! If you do, wonderful! But you are not more worthy if you read Plato instead of Stephanie Laurens. And who’s to say the person on the subway isn’t reading Plato at home anyway?

I didn’t start reading romance on a regular basis until I was in my 30s. And even then not so regularly that I would have said it made up more than 10% of my overall reading. It wasn’t until about five years ago that I began to read it more often.

Since then, of course I started writing it and became immersed in a world I never knew existed. Most of the time, it’s a world I love. Romance readers are the best. My readers are the best. Truly loyal, wonderful friends and neighbors who I’ve been so touched and surprised by.

At the same time, there are those in the community who are not good neighbors. While most readers (across genres) can seem to understand the basics of “if you don’t like it, don’t read it” there seems to be a push in romance right now to not only not read it for themselves but to make sure I can’t read it.

I’m not just talking about the Jan Butlers of the world who seek to slam the doors on romance to those people she doesn’t approve of. I’m talking about the people who loudly proclaim that erotic romance is singlehandedly responsible for the denegration of that greatly respected genre - romance (and probably the bird flu and cellulite too).

Let’s get a few things straight: Romance has never been a “greatly respected genre.” I’m sorry but that’s the truth. Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be respected. But it isn’t. As is true with most things that are run and controlled by women, romance has not been respected. Romance novels have been the butt of jokes forever and a day. Romance novelists have been portrayed as flamboyant women in their seventies wearing feather boas or “frustrated housewives” - (and hello, have you been a housewife? It’s a very frustrating and thankless job dumbass, of course they’re frustrated).

Moreover, the increasing popularity of erotic romance has nothing to do with the “respect” for romance. Seriously people, how could it? To state that would be saying that women who like to read about sex in their romance are bad and wrong and immoral. And well, if you say that, I disagree with you and wish you’d get over your issues already.

Should women be ashamed of their sexuality? Is sexuality something completely separate from love and connection? To those tens of thousands of readers who buy erotic romance AS WELL as sensual romance and sweet romance - making statements about how their reading preference is “the death of the genre” is balderdash and well, stupid. Yes, that’s right, I said it’s stupid.

There are a lot of different people in the world in case folks hadn’t noticed. There are subgenres of romance I don’t like and I don’t read. But I don’t spend my days at messageboards whining about how they’re the death of romance. I just don’t read them. And I wish the authors of said genres lots of sales because I get what those who take the opposite perspective miss - readers of romance have varied tastes. I’m darned thankful they like what I write and I wouldn’t insult them or their intelligence by telling them that they can only like what I write or they’re dirty/bad/wrong.

It seems to come as a big shock to people that others have opinions counter to their own. Why this is, I’m not sure. Maybe it’s because my opinion is almost always in the minority that I understand it so well. And hey, if every time you walk into Borders you clap your hands over your eyes when you see the EC books and cry, “Won’t somebody think of the children!” more power to you. You have every right to think what I write is the downfall of modern civilization. You have every right to talk about it on your blog and weep into your tea. That’s the basis of not only the first amendment but the cornerstone of our culture as Americans. The flip side is that I get to say what I think and to work as hard as I can to be sure your brand of “if I don’t like it you can’t either” doesn’t go so far that it ends up pushing other voices out of the genre.

Romance is in the eye of the beholder. Suck it up already. You can’t control what other people think. Pandora’s box is open, erotic romance is not only out in the marketplace, readers like it. Not all readers, but by a hell of a lot of them. And they happen to think erotic romance is romance. If you don’t, feel free to stroll on by the erotic selections to something else. There’s plenty of choice there on your bookstore shelf. The presence of an erotic romance on the shelf does not malign the entire genre, such a comment is absurdly stupid and defies logic. The fact is - you don’t like it. Again, I say suck it up. I don’t like men who wear sandals with socks but they do for whatever inexplicable reason. I just try to pretend they don’t exist and that’s what you should do too.