by SB Sarah • Thursday, March 27, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Want to pay $10 for a guide to making money selling romance paperback on eBay? Sorry - pay $10 for an 11-page guide on making the bucks selling romance on eBay?
And, thanks to SonomaLass for this link, and the cold medicine I’m on for the following rambling reaction: Robin Hobb rants about blogs. Specifically, why blogs on LJ are the writer’s worst friend evah.
The nights and the days, the hours in which you used to write, edit and rewrite your deathless prose will slowly, drip by drip, character by character, key press by key press, be drained into Live Journal. The blogs there will grow fat and swollen, round bellied with the creativity they have siphoned off from your fingertips. The other trapped writers there will clutch at you with bloodless fingers, offering you feedback, praise for your advice, tales of their new kittens and recipes for turnovers. And you will read them all, every word, filling your mind with the daily doings of those other poor damned souls. And you will write responses. And when night falls, you will think that you have been a writer today.
But you have merely blogged....
Blog. Blog. Blog. Blog. Say it aloud. Doesn’t it sound like the slow drip of creative blood onto the uncaring Internet?
My dear friend, writer of writers, esteemed teller of tales that no one else can tell, beware! Blogging is not writing. It masquerades as such, t’is true. You sit at the desk, your fingers dance their blind and clever dance across the keyboard, words appear upon the screen, and oh, it feels like writing, like the easiest sort of writing, the writing that needs not to be justified on the morrow. It is the writing that makes the idle stupidity of the day something of worth, for has it not been written down, have not readers shared it and responded to it? Have you not been recognized, flattered and preened for today’s bon mot? Is not that what the writer lives for?
I see Hobb’s point, and it’s something that a few of us bloggers would have spoken at length about at RWA National if our proposal had been accepted. Blogging is not the best tool for every writer, promotional or otherwise, and anyone who tells you that you Must Have a Blog is dead wrong. Only you can make that call based on what Jane wisely called an evaluation of your return on investment.
Blogging is not for everyone. It can get in the way of a lot of writers.
That said, “blogging is not writing?” Oh, come on, now. It is too. It may not be the writing you want to accomplish, and Lordy lordy it is easy to get sucked into blog valley high and read this and that and click click click and dude where did the hours go? But I disagree that blogging is not writing at all. Instant gratification and fluid text do not make it less of a written enterprise, or mean that I take less than a proper amount of time thinking about what I am going to say.
However, her opinion reminded me of my never-written master’s thesis, which was going to be about technology as teaching tools for reaching remedial students with learning disabilities how to write. Tangent ahoy!
Back in the day, when I taught remedial composition, I had a class that was part kids who didn’t pass the entrance exam into College Writing I, and part kids who had varying levels of learning disability that affected their writing. One girl in particular could orally recite an incredibly erudite argument that synthesized multiple texts and maintained a balanced comparison and contrast of points with a really groovy conclusion. Could she write one word of that recitation down? Nope. Horrible horrible block between her mind and her fingers that was easily overcome when she talked.
Or, to my surprise, when she used instant messenger. The same girl who froze into a complete inability to write could write for damn pages over IM, or in email. I noticed the same was true of many other students, those with learning disabilities that they disclosed to me, and those who didn’t have anything to say about it. I started having office hours half on IM and half actually in my craptastic cubicle. I had a much higher level of interaction making myself available over IM and over email. IM and email were a lot easier methods for writing and typing, and I received some outstanding writing samples through email or through IM than from the venue that is Microsoft Word.
My thesis for my nonaquired MA was that IM and email are more like speech for the current population of college students and are thought of as “speech typed out” or “Speech through fingers” rather than as writing, and as such could be great tools for composition instructors who struggle with students who say they “cannot write.” My research was going to explore varying methods of communication, and there would have been some very liberal sprinkling of Ong and Derrida in there (side note: I had a graphic novel of Derrida’s Of Grammatology that was so freaking awesome and hilariously weird. I loved it.) and discussions of logocentrism and deconstruction and the inversion of speech over writing and writing over speech. Of course, I was looking at ways to redefine what is speech and what is writing in the context of writing instruction through speech (lecture) and writing practice, to an audience that values one over the other for an entirely different, non-philosophical set of reasons.
Hobb’s assertions that blogging isn’t writing, that it’s written socializing that bleeds away your creativity? Maybe for her, but for every writer? I think I’m a better writer because I blog, because I read the daily writing of other writers, and because I work at it every day. And I think blogging is writing because I don’t talk this much in real life. Not to people I don’t know, anyway. But I also don’t write fiction for public consumption (I do write it occasionally, mostly to remind myself as a reviewer that that shit is hard work) and I don’t blog as a tool to steal time from other writing. But I am a blogger, so blogging is my medium. And while I’m ruminating, can I state again how much I hate the word “blog?”
Those assertions that blogging is a cheap counterpart to writing made me wonder about all the papers I read nitpicking at the value of speech vs. writing. Derrida theorized that speech is valued over writing, just as presence is valued over absence, and then tore up those arguments against writing ... so I’m just fascinated by the ways in which deconstructive analysis could be applied to Hobb’s argument, that blogging isn’t writing. Speech is historically valued over writing, but in this case, it’s writing over blogging: in Hobb’s argument, immediacy of response and feedback coupled with subject matter that is intensely in the present is of lesser value and a distraction from, if not derivative of, fiction that exists apart from and separates the writer and the reader.
Now that I’m kicking the ass of long-sleeping brain cells that used to do deconstructive criticism on anything that wasn’t nailed down, I ask myself, what would Derrida think of blogging? That’d be a hell of a good time right there: return Derrida to life and give him an LJ account. The hilarity ensues. I wonder if he had a blog somewhere. He died in 2004; it’s possible. (Now I’m going to ponder for shits and giggles what his LJ name would have been.)
While I get what Hobb is saying, the assigning of value to writing for novel publication over writing for blogs is irritating. If you blog or bake cookies or just chew your thumbnail instead of respecting a deadline you have professionally, then it’s not the blog’s or the cookie’s or your nail’s fault that you didn’t get your work done. But saying that blogging isn’t writing, to say that…
[c]ompared to the studied seduction of the novel, blogging is literary pole dancing. Anyone can stand naked in the window of the public’s eye, anyone can twitch and writhe and emote over the package that was not delivered, the dinner that burned, the friend who forgot your birthday. That is not fiction. That is life, and we all have one. Blogging condemns us to live everyone else’s tedious day as well as our own.
...positions blogging a running memoir as of lesser value than fiction writing and implies that it’s easy because of it’s sexiness and quick familiarity of use, that life doesn’t matter but fiction does. Obviously, Robb is not marketing memoirs.
The affronted blogger from her take-me-seriously (ha!) hot pink website says, “Say WHAT now?” What say you?
by SB Sarah • Wednesday, March 26, 2008 at 06:40 AM
Kathleen sent me an alert that Australian booksellers Angus and Robertson are holding a writing contest to celebrate relaunching the Mills & Boon line.
Kathleen’s take on it is similar to mine. Holy crap. Are they kidding me?
Unleash your inner Romance Novelist
Fans of the ‘bodice ripper’: unite! From March 26, Angus & Robertson are relaunching Mills & Boon books in 108 of their stores nationally.
To celebrate their return, Angus & Robertson are giving aspiring romance novelists the chance to win one of five ‘pamper hampers’ valued at over $350 each. Hampers include a sensual mix of champagne, chocolates and gourmet food, Mills & Boon novels, scented candles, and a deluxe dressing gown.
This is your chance to probe your talent in the world of romance writing.
To win entrants must write the first paragraph of a novel in Mills & Boon style and send to publicity@angusrobertson.com.au. Submission must not be over 200 words. Submission will be judged on the skill of their writing, use of detail, development of character and understanding of the Mills & Boon genre.
Competition runs between March 26 and April 18, with winners announced on April 20.
But no, that’s not the best part. Aside from the images I get when I read the words “pamper hamper” (two words: dirty diapers), and the flinching I do at the conflation (2pts!) of “bodice rippers” and category romance, it gets better and better. Get a load of this:
Tips for writing in the Mills & Boon style
- characters should have unusual names
like ‘Slade’, ‘Blaze’, ‘Calliope’ and
‘Sergio’ (Yes, because nothing makes me giddy like a hero named Calliope)
- detail and description is extremely important (But they’re short books and this is a short contest so break out the adverbs, she said sarcastically.)
- love interests are often Princes, Earls, surgeons, pilots or thieves (Sing it with me now: “Princes, Earls and Thieves! But every night all the men would come around… and lay their money down” )
- giving a character amnesia is a useful narrative tool (for bugging the shit out of your reader.)
- the bachelor rogue always has a heart of gold, he just needs the right woman to tame him (if he can break free of the amnesia and remember who she is)
- the first kiss between the lead characters is perhaps the most important part of the book (after the amnesia affecting Slade, the Earl of Blaze, of course)
Oh, dear, oh dear. And to make matters extra more special with a side order of what-the-freaking-shitfuck, the contest announcement thoughtfully provides three cover samples at the bottom with classic M&B/ HQ: Presents title samples, like The Greek Tycoon’s Convenient Bride.
But the worst part is that I cannot get over one of the cover images at the bottom of the message. Now, I fully understand that the world is not tuned into US news at every moment, and my reaction is solely my reaction, but there is no way I could every buy a book with this image on the cover were it marketed in the US.
A baby in the arms of a firefighter in front of a giant blaze? NOT SEXY. NOT ROMANTIC. In fact, SCARY AS FUCKING HELL.
And if you’re like me, the image brings up a tragic memory. After the Oklahoma City bombing, one of the images that was circulated most often was of a firefighter carrying a 1 year old girl, Baylee Almon, from the wreckage of the building. The image won the Pulitzer Prize in 1996 and came to symbolize the victims of the attack. Baylee Almon died of her injuries. Bottom line: that’s not a romance cover. And if anything underscores the dance across the line of revolting that is played out every month by the titles and cover images of category romance, that’s it.
by SB Sarah • Monday, March 17, 2008 at 09:49 AM
The Tsaba/RWA saga continues, as the Publishers Weekly daily newsletter (special note to PW: OMFG FIX YOUR SERVER it is the slowest damn thing) features a new article by Claire Kirch titled TSABA vs. RWA: Round 2.
Following the March 13 PW report that Tsaba house was considering legal action in response to RWA’s policy as to what is a vanity or subsidy publisher, Tsaba’s contract and the RWA contest rules and policies continue to attract attention. Tsaba’s contract, which they downloaded from the Poynter.com website, lists specific incidences under which an author may be charged a fee. RWA has said it considers Tsaba to be a vanity publisher because of that section in the contract which “contains clauses concerning author chargebacks.”
Tsaba busted out the D word and the L word, alleging that RWA discriminates against small presses by barring their authors from competing in the RITA competition, and, as per the original article, “is considering taking legal action against the Romance Writers of America for refusing to consider one of the small California press’s authors.”
RWA’s policy manual defines a subsidy publisher as “any publisher that publishes books in which the author participates in the costs of production in any manner, including publisher assessment of a fee or other costs for editing and/or distribution.”
Pam Schwagerl, the “Tsaba Housse” (sic) Publisher (Note to PW: your server is slow and your article has typos), says that, “They are simply using [their policy] as a tactic to keep a small press from submitting contest entries. It also looks to me like they are trying to control the outcome of who wins by who they allow in the contest.”
Minneapolis attorney David Koehser weighs in (no explanation as to why, nor any mention whether he’s representing anyone involved) and says that Tsaba’s clauses are “fairly common:”
They’re in most of my contracts. The author has to submit a manuscript suitable to the publisher, and is obligated to provide supplementary material. This is not considered to be a subsidy arrangement. This does not convert [a press] into a subsidy publisher.
Discussions following our original entry about the story speak to the contrary.
Following the publication of the original PW article, RWA published a response on their website in the members-only section which clarified the circumstances of Schwagerl’s claims, stating that the author in question had sought to enter a chapter contest, the rules of which are not determined by RWA National but by the individual chapters themselves. Schwagerl confirmed that the author, Molly Noble Bull, “had been informed she could not enter the contests until Tsaba House proved to RWA’s national leadership’s satisfaction that they were not a subsidy publisher.”
Schwagerl maintains that RWA is not addressing the issue of labeling Tsaba House as a subsidy press, while according to the lastest article from PW, Allison Kelley, RWA Executive Director, has said that if Tsaba house would amend their “their boilerplate contract, RWA would ‘be happy’ to reconsider their decision.”
Schwagerl, who has already sent a letter to RWA threatening to seek an injunction forcing the organization to allow Bull’s novel to be entered in the RITA contest (although this year’s deadline has passed, and finalists will be announced March 26), is now consulting an attorney, before making her next step.
When asked if she would consider amending her boilerplate contract in accordance with RWA’s standards, Schwagerl refused. “I feel strongly that they should have no say in what is in my contracts with my authors or to re-define for the industry what a subsidy press is or isn’t,” Schwagerl said.
Ok. The last two paragraphs just dumbfound me.
Translated into 13-year-old-girl speak, she says, “You are so going to read my books despite the rules that a few hundred other authors and their publishers already obeyed, and I’m going to MAKE YOU. And I won’t change what my contract says because my best friend’s sister’s boyfriend’s brother’s girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who’s going with a girl who downloaded my contract for me from 31 Flavors last night.”
At what point do this reach minor star status in this cluster galaxy of wtf? I mean, like it or not, RWA can define vanity and subsidy however the crapping damn they want to. It’s their right. And they don’t have to open their contest to anyone and everyone. Again, that’s their right. They are a writer’s organization, and their policies are at the behest and on behalf of the membership, as are their contests. And the RWA chapters who run their own contests can do whatever THEY want, and if they want to accept works published by authors who do not appear on the RWA non-van/non-sub list, they can do that if they want to.
But the whole “you don’t like small presses and you’re meeeeean” crap just irritates me, particularly because there are more than a few small presses on the RWA list, including Genesis Press, Loveland Press, and others. But what burns my toast a bit is the idea that no matter what RWA does, someone’s going to stamp feet and say “UNFAIR!” Which is it? Should RWA welcome any and all publishers, despite the mounting number of small ePubs who folded after exhibiting the business sense of a drunken barnacle, or should RWA be as cautious as possible because of all those small houses who exhibited said level of business acumen prior to folding and taking their author’s manuscripts with them?
Personally, having seen the fallout as a bystander, I’m for the latter. Yes, it sucks, and yes, some majestically awesome ePubs and small presses are left out, and yes ePubbing and small publication houses are entirely a legitimate enterprise and rock my athletic socks, but I personally think the reasons RWA drew those lines in the sand (and to my understanding they can move them if they wish, hence the sand, which I assume is literal, because that would be awesome) is because members needed protection from contracts that were fishy like drunken barnacles and for every legitimate and savvy small press out there, there were five more giving the entire enterprise a bad name. Thus the tossing of words like “discrimination” and “injunction” around with wanton abandon and insisting her author be permitted to participate in a contest that is about to announce its finalist slate, completely undermines Schwagerl’s argument, furthers the reputation that small presses fight against, and only strengthens RWA’s position.
by SB Sarah • Tuesday, February 05, 2008 at 06:56 AM
Link the first: New York Magazine reviews Toby Barlow’s Sharp Teeth,
a werewolf story told in poem format.
From the review written by Sam Anderson:
Anyone terrified by the rigors of poetry—its arcane references, pickled language, and subtle Keatsian line-stitching—has nothing to fear from Sharp Teeth. Its verse is prosy, slangy, aggressively unchallenging, and very, very, very free. Occasionally a tiny herd of iambs will break free and gallop in formation (“they kill to fuck, they kill to eat/and they sleep in the noonday sun”), or nouns will line up in rhythmic strings (“Bone, love, meat, gristle, heat, anger, exhaustion, drive, hunger, blood, fat, marrow”), or a sentence will fold itself neatly into a couplet (“Smiling straight into Venable’s eyes/Cutter chews up the last of the fries”). But most of the book reads like nice snappy prose arbitrarily pinched into fragments. Its tone is often so determinedly anti-poetic it would have made Wordsworth (advocate of “language really used by men”) vomit into the nearest cold lake....
Werewolves in poem format? Holy cow. Romance fans have been reading about lycanthropes ad nauseum. I’ve read many of the werewolf romances, and some, like Armstrong’s Bitten 
are on my personal top ten best romances list. Not a mention of the prevalence of paranormal lunarly-hairy folk in the romance genre in the article, of course. You’d think the whole werewolf thing just popped outta nowhere.
Link the second: First, glaze your eyes at the odd juxtaposition of Fabio depicted in an article about Mills & Boon’s 100th Anniversary, and try not to get too upset over the tired and limp romance stereotypes being flung about with heedless abandon. No, wait, I have to leave a note to any author being challenged on her career of writing romance: you do yourself and the genre NO FAVORS by being snide about “pretentious literature” when defending your own. You can stand up for your own work without demeaning the work of others.
Now, imagine this article in the hands of the ever-so-creative Amazon.com Statistical Analysis Team:
The books certainly have a special place in Hilda Raine’s heart. Indeed, she believes the novels, as well as a passion for Liquorice Allsorts, have helped her live to a ripe old age.
The Sunderland grandmother-of-two, who celebrated her 104th birthday last week, reads up to 10 romance novels each week – all published by Mills & Boon, of course.
“There is no bad language in them, but very often there is a good sense of humour, which makes them lovely to read. They make me feel happy,” said Hilda.
“I don’t like to sleep all day, I like to read a good Mills & Boon instead. It is good for you, and keeps your brain and eyes working together.”
Staff at The Croft Care Home in High Barnes, where Hilda has lived for the past 12 years, have even set aside a special reading corner for her and her beloved books.
“I don’t have a favourite; I love them all, although I do like a nice family story. I could sit reading them all day. Well, I do actually!” she said.
“Do they make me feel young again? Come off it! But reading a Mills & Boon helps to pass the time beautifully, as I’m a bit of a romantic at heart. Well, aren’t we all?”
Hilda was just four years old when young entrepreneurs Gerald Mills and Charles Boon joined forces to launch Mills & Boon back in 1908.
I can see the headline now: Romance leads to longevity! Read romance, and you’ll live to be over 100!
Link the Third: Thanks to commenter and journalist Sara Brady, Smart Bitches has made the big, big hugely huge news: we are in the Metro! The Metro is a free paper distributed to commuters all over Manhattan, and that huge collection of half-awake uncaffeinated readers got a treat today: Brady’s article discusses the state of the romance genre. What, a positive article on romance? Boo yah! Well played, Ms. Brady!
And finally, in honor of Super Tuesday, and the half-asleep up-since-2:30am vote I cast this morning: a saucy graphic for your enjoyment. Ok, well, I enjoyed it. But I like Varga girls.
10 comments •
Categories: Random Musings •
Ranty McRant •
The Link-O-Lator
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.
by SB Sarah • Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Courtesy of Jeaniene Frost who sent me much linkage, avast! A story so delicious, you’ll stick your own foot in your mouth.
Reporter Jane Henderson of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch posted on her St. Louis Today book blog an entry that has made a lot of people reach for their high blood pressure medicine. In her entry Laurell K. Hamilton knock-off for teens? she discusses a galley she received of Melissa Marr’s Ink Exchange
, a YA paranormal novel about a teen who gets a tattoo and finds herself involved with the Faerie Court. Marr also wrote the highly acclaimed Wicked Lovely.
Henderson finds the similarities between the book - despite not actually having read Marr’s novel - and Hamilton’s Merry Gentry story startling.
Herein begins what I think of as The Hat Trick of Stupid Things Written in One Entry and One Comment. Hold onto your feet, folks.
Of course the cliche is that ‘imitation is the sincerest form of flattery’ but where does flattery end and copyright infringement begin? The book’s jacket even looks like the photos on Hamilton’s books.
Shit, if plots involving faeries are all infringing upon one another, especially in the legally sharp mind of that reporter, imagine the future wasteland of legal action to be enjoyed by each and every story featuring a vampire: “Your character sucks blood! MY Character sucks blood! YOU SUCK AND YOU ARE GOING DOWN, BEEEEYATCH!”
And the covers are similar? They do resemble the Jean Butt trend - except that Marr’s cover isn’t a jean butt so much as a shoulder. And doesn’t resemble the Hamilton cover as much as it does other YA books attempting to market a seductive tale to the YA market.
But wait we’re not done. Not satisfied to toss around the words “copyright” and “infringement” with such abandon as to make a barrister blush, Henderson goes on to say:
Another issue: A lot of parents might not think this series should be marketed to 12-year-olds, as it apparently will be. There’s a lot of difference between a 17-year-old girl and a 12-year-old girl.
On the other hand, most of the popular series being marketed to teen girls seem to involve beauty, sex and lots of designer purses. Maybe fantasy tattoos and paranormal love interests are no worse. I’m not suggesting that books lead girls down the path to teen pregnancy. But with the sexualization of girls starting so young in all facets of culture, should parents speak up about what they see? Thoughts?
Wow, did you miss that jump? Let’s recap in slow motion like we’re a sports show: This book with a 17 year-old protagonist may be marketed to 12 year old girls, just like many other popular series for young readers that feature slightly older protagonists. Speeding up past beauty! Sex! Designer purses! Fantasy Tattoos and paranormal love interests! And then we come to a SCREECHING HALT AT TEEN PREGNANCY! Whoa!
Holy. Shit.
Man, that was a Could Have Been An Interesting Question About Teen Sexuality blindsided by some WTF-tastic non sequiturs. Oooh, ooh can I try? Can I? Here’s mine! “Are book covers for YA novels more sexy and dark in imagery now? Yup. Sure are. Have prom dresses been skimpy and over-sexualized since I went prom dress shopping 15 years ago? Sure have! So are YA novel covers reflecting a sexualization of young people that’s been a standard for years? Possibly - but then, the novels often depict consequences or at least some healthy dose of reality for that sexual exploration, whereas mere images just contribute to the glamour of it. But then, I actually read YA novels, so I don’t know what I’m talking about at all.”
And the finale to this jaw drop of a newspaper book blog entry: Lindsay York Levack of the blog UrbanFantasyland sounds off like merde and mon dieu on Henderson’s request for “Thoughts?” by nailing a 5 point list that knocks the extraneous bullshit off Henderson’s entry, and addresses the points Henderson attempts to make about YA, sexuality, cover images, faerie tales, and writing. York Levack ends with a pointed, “Do your homework.” Well played, Ms. York Levack.
Melissa Marr, the author, commented on that entry and said that, surprisingly, she did have input to the cover art, and thinks that it’s an “iconographic image that ties to the plot.” Further, Marr says,
Interestingly, the idea that a fully clad, not sexualized girl with wings is similar to LKH’s covers does confuse me a bit. No bare midriff or legs, no scanty attire–instead it’s a face and upper back . . . Hmm. To each his/her own, I guess.
Another well played for you, Ms. Marr.
And for you, Ms. Henderson: NAUGHTY CORNER! No Cookie! Why?
Her commented response to the Urban Fantasyland entry on her own blog:
The cover of the teen book is very similar to Hamilton’s covers, and the stories do sound similar. However that applies to many books. In the romance genre, it’s sometimes hard to tell one author from the next.
If you read carefully, you’ll note that I did not make any untoward accusations or accuse the new book’s author of anything illegal. In fact, for many authors, being compared to Hamilton would be a compliment.
It’s not YA, it’s romance! And she brings in that 90-year-old creaky, arthritic dog of an accusation (Oh, please let the poor thing lie the hell DOWN already): “You can’t tell romance novels apart anyway.”
Not to be outdone, Ms. York Levack responds to Henderson’s comment on UrbanFantasyland lining up both the cover images, and the book summaries of Hamilton’s and Marr’s novels, delivering a many-word WTF Smackdown.
I agree that many authors would consider comparison to Hamilton a compliment– many authors of adult stories would. However, (1) you did not compare Marr’s work with Hamilton’s. You accused her of being a “knock-off” and of “taking a page”. This is not a comparison. This is a suggestion that Marr got her ideas from Hamilton. (2) If you are going to compare authors, please stick to authors of the same genre, same target audience.
And finally, the idea that you did nothing illegal is questionable. You have, by way of comparing adult-content with teen-content, damaged an author’s reputation with potential readers.
After a brief detour into the world of defining slander, York Levack again chastens Henderson most severely and ends with “...read the book first. Don’t start by comparing one author’s sexually charged work with another author who has sensitively navigated the issue of sexuality.”
Henderson responds by saying
I have read some of the upcoming book, “Ink Exchange,” and I have plenty of evidence for what I’ve written. There is nothing untrue about my comments, which are my opinions, and I am not intimidated by cyberbulling.
CueGennita Low’s Greek Chorus: You’re Soooo MEANNNNN!” Yes, disagreeing with you vehemently and calling you on things you wrote is exactly the same as bullying. Except not at all.
I see more than 300 books a week in my office. I have been a book editor for more than 12 years and when I say that something looks like a “knock-off” I have the experience and evidence to back that up.
My last thought before I go lie down and snuggle with that dog: You’d think after 12 years and 300 books a week, Henderson would know the difference between YA, romance, and adult paranormal fiction, let alone have developed some foresight before declaring a YA paranormal novel a “knock off” of a novel featuring exceptional degrees of explicit adult sexual content. And, for that matter, the difference bullying and incensed disagreement.
