by SB Sarah • Wednesday, May 16, 2007 at 05:35 PM
by SB Sarah • Wednesday, May 16, 2007 at 10:56 AM
An anonymous source gave us the dish on Triskelion Publishing, which has apparently canceled their print program and has had their RWA conference invite revoked. No Dallas in July for you! Why, oh why? Author complaints is the first order on the list.
But of course, there’s always more. Our source got a hold of a letter from Gail Northman, incoming EIC at Triskelion, detailing what happened, and what RWA said to rescind their invitation for publisher appointments and workshop participation. Seems Ms. Northman is angry that details of private email were forwarded to RWA, so she fires back on those who are happy with the “FWD” button by posting RWAs letter to her on a Triskelion-centered YahooGroup. Tit for tat, eh?
Since it seems that there are those that are happy to go running to the RWA for everything including the fact that I am now Publisher or will be at the end of the month… and send details of private emails to Allison Kelley - I’m obliging by posting her letter to us....
RWA’s mission is to advance the professional interests of career-focused romance writers through networking and advocacy. In striving to fulfill its commitment to members, RWA established standards that publishers must meet to participate in RWA programs such as the annual conference. RWA recognition generate a significant amount of credibility and free exposure to the Publisher who appear on RWA’s list.
As you know, I have written to advise you of complaints against your company on least three occasions. Author have asked me to write to you to resolve issues related to delayed royalty payments, NSF royalty checks, and reversion of rights.
Furthermore, I am aware that you notified authors that most print titles for 2007 will be either be delayed or removed from the schedule. By admission in email, “Triskelion bit off more than they could chew,” and many authors have suffered. Not only have authors invested significant amounts of money to publicize print versions of books that will not be released, they have also missed out on opportunities to licence their rights to other publishers.
A recent review of your company’s website lists 154 authors of which 93 are RWA members, a clear indication that Triskelion found 60% of its authors through RWA. Due to the ongoing problems authors are reporting, and the latest announcements regarding print titles, changes in editorial staff and management, I have concluded that RWA must act in the best interests, of its members and rescind the invitation for Triskelion Publishing to participate in the workshopes and editor appointments at RWA 2007 conference in Dallas.
Regards
Allison Kelley
I’m not taking over officially until June 1st however, in that I have some points to make out. First off two of our editors have now lost their flight money.... and secondly we have lost money in wasted promotion too… so it’s not something that is just down to the authors.....another thing we have not found a majority of our authors via RWA they found us and in a lot of cases here before we even got recognition… I also might add - I didn’t realise one had to RWA with changes in the company management and editors.. editors come and they go.
So here is the thing.... If you are not happy, not interested in working with us for any reason… just let me know I’ll give you your rights back. I’m done… with reading stuff that I sent out - seen forwarded elsewhere… you are either with me / us or against me / us. The ball is in your court. However, I’m here today and tomorrow and I’ll be leaving for Texas before returning home if you want it done now email me - if you are happy and willing to work with me… that’s great and I look forward to it.
And on a side no I’ve vaguely informed you I have issues at home big major ones that I have to deal with when I return..and so you know I have ***edited to remove WAY too much pathos in the form of TMI, because yeah, you have a point, gotta think of the children here *** -SBS.… so if I’m not answering your emails fast enough I’m sorry but I have a lot on my mind.
But through all this.. I hope those of you that are happy want to work with us… we’ll do well and prosper.
Gail
Good heavens. Business drama plus pathos equals extra drama like damn.
That said, good gracious. Anyone in the Bitchery want to comment or confirm the scuttlebutt? And if you have your rights with Triskelion, will you ask for them back and shop elsewhere?
by SB Sarah • Monday, May 14, 2007 at 06:19 PM
Our Grade:
Title: Take Me
Author: Lucy Monroe
Publication Info: Berkley Sensation 2006, ISBN: 0425212211
Genre: Historical: European
Candy sent me this book in a box full of other books with the warning, “I’m sending you this because you have to read it. I can’t.”
If Candy can’t bring herself to read it, I’m in such deep trouble.
And yup, this book pretty much irritated the shit out of me right from the get-go.
Calantha, Duchess of Clairborne is the reclusive and quiet widow of what had to have been a right bastard of a husband. She was monstrously abused on an emotional and physical level by her late dickhead of a Duke, and he effectively isolated her from everyone who might have helped or befriended her.
Jared, Viscount Ravenswood (and how is THAT for typical “Animal + Item found in Nature” aristocratic title?) is asked by his childhood friend Mary to bring Mary’s daughter to Calantha. After making this bizarre request, Mary dies. Jared would rather cut off several key parts of his anatomy than deal with Calantha, because Calantha’s late husband was responsible for Mary’s daughter. He raped Mary while she was a servant in his household. Jared assumes that Calantha knew of the assault and did nothing to help Mary. And of course, doesn’t every hero in an annoying romance leap wide valleys of misconception in a single bound?
But don’t stop there with the assumptions. Society as a whole, and thus in the beginning Calantha as well, all assume that Mary’s daughter is Jared’s child, since, well, the child does call him “Papa.” Easy misunderstanding to create. And he does nothing to correct the situation, and allows people to ostracize him, and potentially the young girl, because of the rumor. He’s definitely putting that on his “Father of the Year” application form.
You can see where this is going: hero beset by over-developed sense of honor and duty brings exceptionally precocious and saccharine child to heroine, assuming she is a monstrous person and of course His Dick cannot deny His Attraction to The Harlot Slut Bitch Queen of Evil. Abused, socially reticent heroine tries to balance fear of men with Overwhelming and Weeping (and you know where the weeping is going on, don’t you? I thought so) Attraction for the hero, who assumes the worst of her. And since her self-esteem is about yay-big, she pretty much accepts his derision as her due.
As far as the plot goes, the tension was mostly angst and pathos that wasn’t well sustained through the novel. Jared gets over his misconceptions rather quickly and marries Calantha, despite her many protests that she can’t marry again, oh noes, oh noes! The antagonist to their relationship is not as mysterious as one might think, and once Jared and Calantha marry, which happens smack in the middle of the novel, the plot of the novel rests on the villain’s attempts to ruin or kill Calantha, and the happy couple’s attempts to discover who the villain is. Sadly, there’s a lack of potential enemies in the ancillary characters, so picking out the culprit was rather easy work.
But what really made this book the pleasurable wall banging experience that it was were some howler moments too good not to share. Here are the items that made me stop reading this book in the middle. Spoilers Ahoy.
1. Writing such as the following:
The duchess was as responsible… for Mary’s desperate predicament. Jared could not forget that, no matter how bloody innocent she seemed.
No matter how much he wanted her.
Just hit me over the head with it. That same sentiment is expressed repeatedly. Just in case you forget. Calantha = scheming whore who caused the death of Mary, and Jared is angry about that, except that he also wants to bone Calantha into the middle of next week. Such a predicament.
2. At one point, Calantha debates with herself furiously because she is jealous that Hannah, the little girl, is Jared’s daughter by adoption: “The child that should have been Calantha’s.”
This is so fucked up on so many levels I don’t know where to start. Calantha just learned that her late husband raped Mary, begetting Hannah and prompting Mary to run away from their household to the safety of Jared’s estate. And Calantha has spent many, many pages wringing her hands and attempting to preserve her icy reserve and detachment because the abuse of that late husband has left her unable to trust men, or people in general.
So thus Calantha weeps that Hannah should have been hers… instead of the bastard daughter of her late husband, who raped his defenseless employee. Never mind that her husband HELLO RAPED YOUR SERVANT but the child that resulted from that assault, that child should have been Calantha’s.
Oh holy shit. This woman is batshit.
3. Precocious child alert! Seriously, nauseating child who I felt sorry for, as she’d been orphaned, but had a hard time tolerating when she says stuff like the following passage:
“Papa said that you are going to be my mama, and he is my papa. I want a mama again, but I still love my first mama. Papa said that was all right.”
3.5 And what precocious child would be complete without a Virgin Widow?! Calantha? Untouched? Like, duh. And guess why? Her late rapist husband said she was too frigid. Funny how wood can be frigid.
4. But oh, Lord have mercy, then there’s my very favorite part of this book. Blissfully for me, it came early on, and it was so funny I had to bite my lips to keep from howling out loud on the bus:
Calantha watched the huge man cross the small ballroom toward her with both anticipation and dread. His black and white evening clothes clung alarmingly to his well-muscled, oversized body.
His clothes clung...alarmingly? What the almighty hell? His shirt is screeching at him?
I asked Candy, and she and I immediately identified the need for a terror alert level associated with just how alarmingly the hero’s clothing might be clinging. It really is a pubic, I mean public service, should you, the reader, be unaware of the danger of a hero’s alarmingly clinging clothing. Think of the children.
53 comments •
Categories: Reviews by Author, L-P •
Reviews by Grade: F •
The Dump
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.
by SB Sarah • Monday, May 14, 2007 at 06:32 AM
R*belle pointed me to the next big thing in hot romance man fashion: Utilikilts.
Now, when my sister in law hiked the Appalachian Trail, she told the family that a LOT of the guys on the trail used to buy elastic waist, stretchy skirts at Wal-marts and Targets and wear them hiking, as they were less constrictive and much cooler for hiking. I’m also well aware that many a fine Scots, Welsh or Irish man has donned a kilt, to say nothing of formal wear kilts. Let’s face it - men in kilts can be hot damn sexy as anything.
But I’m not sure the Workman’s Model will catch on. If we renovate our house, and the workmen show up in a utilikilt? My jaw will drop, no question. But I might have to order Hubby a Mocker Docker-equivalent kilt for Father’s Day. You know, so he can wear it to the office and stuff. Funny thing is, I’d think it was kinda hot. He’d probably want to kill me.
by SB Sarah • Friday, May 11, 2007 at 10:03 AM
The winner of our NSFW Smart Bitch Onomatopoeia Contest is:
Entry #4: Prairie Doggy Style.
It only barely edged out entry #5, so well done to both entries!
The brilliant creator of the prairie sounds of lovin’ is Emily, who henceforth shall be known as:
Go forth, Emily, and spread your onomatopoeic brilliance, and spend your Amazon gift certificate with wild, wooly, prairie abandon.
Flark, indeed.
by Candy • Thursday, May 10, 2007 at 10:35 AM
Reader Joanne sent me an e-mail recently that thrilled me down to my bitchy little toes, because she hit on one of my biggest peeves in historical romance: the way many of the characters tend to sound like Americans in period drag. Americans with bad British accents in period drag.
To quote from her e-mail:
I have literally not read any historicals since I was a teenager (now mid-thirties so a big gap there). I immediately re-read a few Heyers, and then the two novels so far released by Elizabeth Hoyt and my first two Julia Quinns (Bridgerton ones).
They were all very enjoyable but every time I came across anachronisms in the dialogue (it’s not so bad if it happens in the narrative) it would suck me right out of my happy haze. They might as well have stuck in the words THIS IS NOT REAL; YOU ARE READING A WORK OF FICTION. It would have much the same effect.
Now, I am British, so it may be that there are very small things that sound glaringly American to me but perhaps sound so everyday to an American reader that they don’t particularly notice them.
My beefs:
1. Julia Quinn’s characters constantly say “Right” (as in “ok"). I just can’t see English people in the early 19th Century saying that. English people today don’t say that.
2. Again Quinn: she uses very English words like “bloke” and “sodding” as though to add to the authenticity but to me, these are contemporary words and stand out like a sore thumb.
Ohhhh, lordy lord yes. I have to interrupt here to emphasize this point, because honestly, adding contemporary British slang (bad British slang, at that) to a historical does nothing for the verisimilitude of the book. In fact, it makes the book sound more jarring. Look, kids, we’re aiming for characters who sound like Jane Austen, not Nick Hornby, mmmkay? Just remember: throwing in the occasional “sodding bloke” does not a convincing historical make.
(Insert Oscar Wilde jokes here.)
3. I have to say, Elizabeth Hoyt was pretty much spot on for my money on her dialogue - but for one thing. Her characters constantly said “I guess” when, to me, an English person would in fact say “I suppose”.
I suspect that 95% of the buyers of these books are American so, if those readers are not bothered by these (admittedly minor) anachronisms, I suppose the authors will not be particularly concerned. But damn it, this bothered me when I read these books and I wanted to bitch about it!
By the way, I am not just having a go at American writers. I am sure there are lots of British writers who are guilty of these faults - it’s just I’ve not really read much of this genre in the last fifteen years but in the last four weeks I’ve read 6 or 7 pitch-perfect Heyers and then read four novels by contemporary Americans with these very minor faults.
To get to the point - what interests me is this:
(1) is this type of anachronistic dialogue bothering to anyone else out there or am I being way too picky?
(2) what other anachronisms bother people and
(3) most importantly given that I am just getting into this genre again after about 15 years - who are the novelists who really get this right?
Here are my answers to Joanna:
1. You’re not alone. Oh God no. I believe I’ve bitched before about how it drives me bugfuck when authors slip in Regency-era slang like “make micefeet of things,” only to turn around and use terms like “OK” or “That’s fine,” or construct sentences that use “get” as an auxiliary verb, often resulting in sentences that are an unholy chimera of Regency Miss and Valley Girl (e.g., “I’ve got to run now, or I won’t get to go to the ball, and then Mama will surely be beside herself"). It throws me out of the story, and it’s one of the reasons why I have to be in the right mood to read Julia Quinn. Mary Jo Putney used to get a pass from me, but after a while I had to stop reading her, too, because I couldn’t get past her dialogue. And I gave up on Patricia Ryan’s medievals entirely (hey, what happened to her, anyway?) when one of her characters used the term “pariah” centuries before the English traveled to the Indian subcontinent.
2. It peeves me when scientifically-inclined types in historicals talk about science in modern terms--I’ve caught characters talking about bacteria, oxygen, genes, electromagnetic waves and morphine long before these things were discovered or isolated and given names. Look, if you want to create a mad scientist type who’s years ahead of his or her time, that’s all well and good, but have them talk about the science in the terms of their day.
Anachronistic behavior and attitudes often annoy me as well, but that’s another rant for another day.
3. Laura Kinsale, in my opinion, gets the dialogue right--but she gets most things right. For My Lady’s Heart has dialogue in Middle English--how sexy is that? You may not care for her plots or the way she writes in general, but she does a fantastic job with the dialogue. And earlier Loretta Chase novels, before she became enamored with very. short. sentences, are a joy to read because she gets the cadences right as well. The Lion’s Daughter, Captives of the Night and Lord of Scoundrels are all cracking good reads, as are pretty much all her Regencies. Judith Ivory, a.k.a. Judy Cuevas, does a decent job much of the time, though she occasionally slips. These are just the names that immediately came to mind; I’ll post more as they occur to me.
So now we turn the questions over to the Bitchery: Do you in any way care about anachronistic language? If you do, what are the examples that especially burned your biscuit? (Note to authors: if you’ve ever, ever, ever used the word “cookies” to refer to biscuits in British-set historicals, shame on you--that makes the sodding blokes weep tears of sadness over their crumpets and cucumber sandwiches.) And most importantly: any authors to recommend Joanna?
by SB Sarah • Thursday, May 10, 2007 at 05:20 AM
The state paper in New Jersey is the Star-Ledger, and while there are smaller local papers for individual towns and municipalities, the Star-Ledger pretty much covers the whole state. And since NJ is a weird state of a few metropolitan-type areas that are also suburbs of other, larger cities located in other states, that’s a lot of news to cover. I’m forever reading about something cool to do on the weekend that’s, like, 2+ hours away. NJ is narrow but it’s kinda long.
Today’s Star-Ledger, and I can’t find a link to this info so you’ll have to take my word for it, had a whole section about Harry Potter (T minus a bunch of days until a book I’m not interested in reading will appear! Woot) with a promotional item about a reading at a local Borders this weekend.
What are they reading? HP Fanfic.
Seems a local couple who write a monster load of Fanfic regarding all things Potter are going to be hosting a reading of the best-ranked stories.
My reaction was along the lines of, “Srsly? Fanfic?” and then I realized I wasn’t substantially caffeinated to form a coherent thought.
Hubby, on the other hand, is a bit of a Potter fan, having started his pre-release tradition to read the series from book 1 anticipating the debut of HP whatever-is-next. His reaction was, “Please acknowledge that I am not as obsessive about this stuff as some people!”
“I don’t, like, dress up as the characters, and stuff,” he said as he wound his burgundy-and-gold scarf around his throat. *snerk*
Just kidding. Fanfic writers are not also necessarily dressing up as characters or living permanently in the fiction created world. But I actually had to explain that to Hubby, seeing as he is not too familiar with the world and concept of fanfic.
While there are many, many fans of the fanfic around these parts, I have to say, having a reading of fanfic in a bookstore for the promotion of a book that’s not coming out for two months is very, very bizarre to me. I’d be curious who came up with the idea - fanfic person who works at the store? Maybe it’s a multi-store promotion to create early buzz and activities surrounding the book, so that by the time the thing comes out, it’ll be like the release of Vista: a big giant non event.
Curious as I am, I’m not going to go. For one thing, my weekend is full of Really Important Tasks like getting the dog’s undercoat groomed out for summer, and sitting upon my behind and playing with the Toddler. I’m sure it’s not on the toddler’s top-five list of preferred activities, but then, he hates going to the grocery store. I do wonder though, if anyone else will be there specially for the fanfic reading.
by SB Sarah • Wednesday, May 09, 2007 at 06:17 AM
Suppose you’re a romance cover artist, and you just can’t find the perfect mate for your on-cover make out session. You could grab someone off the street, or, judging by these covers, you could just...grow your own partner.
The first two are from Amelia Elias, who hurts us so, so good.
Sarah: I’ve never grown an Asian man with a mullet out of my crotch. But then, I’ve never been blonde on a surfboard in space. If this is the birth of the future, no thank you.
Candy: So THAT’s what happened to Dustin Nguyen.
You know, when I think about it, I think Johnny Depp was the only person to make it out of 21 Jump Street with anything resembling a viable career. I guess he was the only one who listened to the advice that you gotta be be ready to, be ready to Jump, 21 Jump Street.
Sarah: Anyone watch NCIS? It’s Anthony DiNozzo, aka Michael Weatherley, phoning headquarters to report a very painful wedgie. He might need to go in solo to offer intervention.
Candy: Whoa! I know there are gods and saints for just about anything you care to mention--the kitchen, the bedroom, firemen, barbers, beermakers. I think we’re looking at the birth of the newest of celestials: the Patron Saint of Booty Calls.
And now, another submission from Lady Rhian, who we suspect is surrounded by nothing but bad cover art.
Sarah: Don’t be afraid to try the greatest sport of all
Everybody tries it once
and you’ll never need another Real Doll!
Just spawn a girl from your manly chest
Don’t worry much, it won’t stain your vest
You gotta spawn a girl and you’ll be humpin any time you want.
Pay no attention to the taffeta in hot pink
Her clothing can come off
And your chest will heal faster than you think
She’ll see your mullet and she’ll get turned on
But long as she’s down there she can smoke your dong
I tell you, spawn a girl and you’ll be humpin’ any time you want.
Candy: I just love heartwarming tales about organ harvesters. This one’s more novel than most, however, because as you can see from this cover, this particular fellow’s favorite method of incapacitating his victim is to rip out her jugular.
by SB Sarah • Tuesday, May 08, 2007 at 10:24 AM
Melissa Francis alerted me that Nora Roberts has been named one of the top ten most influential entertainers by Time Magazine. BOO YAH. She appears on the list as #7.
How wicked cool is it to see a romance author in the top ten, flanked by Leonardo DiCaprio (#6) and Rick Rubin (#8). I’m going to take a moment to enjoy the thought of standing next to Leo for a photo op.
Ok, I’m back. If that photo op happens? Lucky, lucky Nora.
My one question: how come there’s a caricature and not a photo? That scary one of Nora crossing the bridge as J.D. “See my trenchcoat? I’m gonna kick your ass with my really nice boots.” Robb would have worked. What’s up with that.
Congrats to Nora - and way to go Time, for acknowledging that which we already knew. Romance authors and romance are influential, and worthy of acknowledgment and celebration, no question.
by SB Sarah • Monday, May 07, 2007 at 05:55 PM
Our Grade:
Title: Hell's Belles
Author: Jackie Kessler
Publication Info: Zebra/Kensington 2007, ISBN: 0821781022
Genre: Science Fiction/Fantasy
You know that movie Office Space where outside consultants come in and reorganize the place for efficiency? Hell’s Belles is like that, except the office is Hell, and instead of Milton, or that guy with the O-Face, you have a hot succubus named Jezebel, who isn’t too pleased with the whole restructuring, and heads off to Earth to hide out as a mortal while all of Hell is after her, due to a, well, hell of a bounty on her head.
So if you were a sexual succubus whose job used to be dragging naughty souls to hell after fucking them to death, where would you go hide out? Jezebel, being the brilliant thing she is, finds paying work in a strip club - and hides out in exactly the same sort of sin and vice that used to be her profession and calling as a demon.
I liked the concept of a succubus thrust into human form and forced into permanently living in a foreign environment she’s not entirely comfortable with, because her unease at a lot of situations somes from not only complete unfamiliarity but from the fear of having absolutely zero powers in a place where she used to be exceptionally powerful. That’s a big ass blow to the ego, and yet Jezebel doesn’t spend a lot of time wallowing or bitching about her fate. She knows she chose to run from Hell, and she has to suck it up. She also has gain confidence as a demon masquerading as a human and trying to survive in an impossible situation, because if she screws up, she is so worse than dead.
Jezebel, while doing her thang as a human, meets Paul Hamilton - a very hot cop with a lot of emotional baggage. Add to that the increasing politics of Hell’s reorganization, and Jezebel has to choose between her growing attachment to Paul, and her desire to keep him safe from the seriously nasty things that are after her.
Kessler has a taut and somewhat tense writing style that makes for a fast and addictive read, and she employed a few devices that stuck with me even after I finished the book. For example, she made me think about use of popular music in contemporary romances. I used to think that the mention of a song or artist would immediately date the novel and render it stuck in a very specific range of time. But Kessler references a specific song, Marc Broussard’s “Home,” which I happen to love, and given the beat, the description of Jezebel’s dancing, and the scene itself, it worked and worked well. Referencing a song that isn’t chart-topping popular but interesting, clever and unique - the song itself is a kickass hybrid of Louisiana blues and funk - doesn’t date the book so much as add a layer to the story and the character. I understood more about Jezebel based on her association of the song: she is becoming something of a hybrid as much as the song already is.
My biggest problem, though, with the story rested on one aspect of Jezebel’s adjustment to human form. Does she have a memory? Does she have senses as a human that she didn’t have before? Is there some disconnect between senses, which she has, and a soul, which she does not? Every time she encountered something familiar - even if she’d only been in the human’s form for a day or two - that reminded her of something having to do with Hell, it would be right on the tip of her tongue, or tickling the edge of her brain, and I wanted to smack her with something heavy because OMG YOU WERE JUST THERE TWO DAYS AGO SURELY YOU REMEMBER. I was just there WITH YOU and I remember what it was. As far as a plot device to forward the suspense, it was frustrating, because I wasn’t sure if the protagonist/narrator was being a complete idiot, if she was unreliable, or if she wasn’t used to her human-limited senses. Ultimately it happened frequently enough that I wanted to bean her with her dancing pole.
Jezebel’s limitations as a human aren’t fully explained in terms of what it meant for the human whose body she copied. Clearly this is a series because there were some major pipe-sized loose ends left for the next book, but I find it frustrating when a large element isn’t revisited after for the beginning of the book, and while the character and storyline in question has to appear in subsequent books (I would hope!) I felt disappointed not to know even a little of what happened. Creating a first of a series that stands alone yet makes it clear there’s more story to be told is quite a balance, and it’s hard to accomplish. I’ve also heard from more than one author that publishers and editors want it OMG CLEAR that there is a sequel, hence big honking storylines left unresolved. Whatever the reason, it makes me a cranky panda.
However, even picking up the book again a moment ago to get a fact or a detail straight for this review meant I lost a good ten minutes reading again, because the prose sucks you in and so much happens so fast that reading it is one what-happens-next after another. So I really, really want to find out what happens next - and I have to wait until November (*pout*).
by SB Sarah • Monday, May 07, 2007 at 08:10 AM
I hope Candy’s bitchfork is polished and her torch ready to be set aflame, as the RWA Board has released their recommendations for changes to the RITA™ and Golden Heart™ awards process. Included in these edits are changes to the categories for entry.
This material is only available on the RWA website for registered members. So I’m posting below what I transcribed, and if they ask me to take it down since it is ostensibly protected content, I will. I know that they’ll be sending it to me in writing sometime soon, so we’ll see what happens.
Discussion ahoy!
Aside from the questions addressing who can enter, when were they published and should they drop the lowest score the meatier part falls later: reformation of contest categories.
These recommendations are open for input from the members until May 15 (hurry up and get articulate) and will be discussed and voted into policy at the July board meeting. I think my flight arrives just in time for me to roll into the board meeting (literally!) as one travel-rumpled Smart Bitch.
Let’s get to the meaty part, shall we?
Contest Categories
The board recommends that the short Regency category be eliminated since there are no longer any major publishers printing this type of book. Any short Regencies remaining can be entered into the new historical categories.
The board recommends that the novella category be eliminated. The board recognizes the skill required to craft a short story. However, the novella does not fit the contest purpose of recognizing the best romance novel.
The board recommends that the Traditional category be folded into the new Short Contemporary category. While Traditional authors wanted a new definition that allowed for nonexplicit sex within the story, the board maintains a consistent policy that the level of sexuality should not determine a category.
The board also recommends eliminating the “Best Novel with Strong Romantic Elements” from the Golden Heart - though that will remain as a RITA category.
And then comes a whole mess of bold face, underlined, struck and edited text and omg I need more caffeine. In a paragraph that could have stood for a bit of clarity and editing, the board writes:
The problem of word count has been an on-going problem. The board hopes to have books judged by level of complexity without basing the category definitions on series category romance lines, as well as allowing for overlapping word counts. This should eliminate this problem and allow the novel to be judged on the romance.
Judging on the romance? Or judging on the quality of the writing? Or both? Grk!
And onward into the part wherein I need more coffee omg move out of my way. The board recommends the following changes:
Best Short Contemporary -
The old definition as per the RWA website: Romantic novels released as individual titles, not as part of a series. The word count for those novels is over 70,000.
Judging guidelines: In this category, the love story is the main focus of the novel, and the end of the book is emotionally satisfying.
Recommended Change: “romantic novels which focus almost exclusively on the hero/heroine relationship, usually with only one main storyline, very limited subplots and in which the level of sexuality may range from sweet to extremely hot.”
Judging Guideline Recommendation: “In this category, the love story is the principle focus of the novel, and the ending is emotionally satisfying. Such novels are typically 40,000 to 65,000 words, consistent with, but not confined to, shorter series lines. Entries are not required to be series romances as long as they meet the stated definition. These novels may or may not contain a high level of sexuality.”
Best Long Contemporary -
The old definition: Romantic novels in which sensuality may constitute a strong element in the romance. The word count for these novels is over 70,000 words.
Judging guidelines: In this category, the love story is the main focus of the novel, and the end of the book is emotionally satisfying.
Recommended Change: “Romantic novels which focus primarily on the hero/heroine relationship, but often with a more complex structure than short contemporary, with at least one subplot, secondary characters and points of view and in which the level of sexuality may range from sweet to extremely hot.”
Judging guideline Recommendation: “Judging guidelines: In this category, the love story is the principle focus of the novel, and the end is emotionally satisfying. Novels with this level of complexity are typically 60,000 – 85,000 words, consistent with, but not confined to, longer series lines. Entries are not required to be series romances as long as they meet the stated definition. These novels may or may not contain a high level of sexuality.”
Best Contemporary Single Title -
The old definition: Romantic novels released as individual titles, not as part of a series. The word count for those novels is over 70,000.
Recommended Change: “Romantic novels which focus primarily on the hero/heroine relationship, but often with a more complex structure than short or long contemporary. These novels may contain one or more subplots, several secondary characters, and multiple points of view, and in which the level of sexuality may range from sweet to extremely hot.”
Judging Guideline Recommendation: “In this category, the love story is the principle focus of the novel and the ending is emotionally satisfying. Novels with this level of complexity are typically 80,000 words and up. In most cases, these are not series lines novels; however any novel may be entered as long as it meets the stated definition. These novels may or may not contain a high
level of sexuality.”
Best Young Adult Romance -
The old definition: Romantic novels geared to young adult readers. The word count for YA novels is a minimum of 25,000 words.
Judging guidelines: In this category, the love story is the main focus of the novel, and the end of the book is emotionally satisfying.
Recommended Change: “Novels with a strong romantic theme geared toward young adult readers and in which the level of sexuality may range from sweet to extremely hot.”
Judging Guideline Recommendation: “Judging guidelines: In this category, the love story is an important element of the novel, and the end of the book is emotionally satisfying. The minimum word count for YA novels is 40,000 words. These novels may or may not contain a high level of sexuality.”
Additional information from the RWA Board: “Rationale for changing Young Adult category: The Young Adult novel is our best way to guide young readers toward adult romance. Most novels are geared more to the teenager’s journey and the story is not exclusively focused on the romance. However, these novels are still required to contain a significant romance in order to enter this category.”
Best Short Historical Romance
The old definition: Novels or sagas which have a strong romantic element throughout. The word count for these novels is 40,000-95,000 words.
Judging guidelines: In this category, the love story is the main focus of the novel, and the end of the book is emotionally satisfying.
Recommended Changes:
New Title: Best Historical Romance to 1820
Description: “Romantic historical novel with a primary setting up to the year 1820. The story may take place at any geographic location. The level of sexuality may range from sweet to extremely hot.”
Judging Guideline Recommendation: “In this category, the story takes place primarily in years through 1820. The love story is the main focus of the novel and the end of the book is emotionally satisfying. If a book spans many years, the author should best determine the category in which it belongs. These novels may or may not contain a high level of sexuality.”
Best Long Historical Romance
The old definition: Romantic novels in which sensuality may constitute a strong element in the romance. The word count for these novels is over 70,000 words.
Judging guidelines: In this category, the love story is the main focus of the novel, and the end of the book is emotionally satisfying
Recommended Changes:
New Title: Best Historical Romance from 1790-1945
Description: “Romantic historical novel with a primary setting in the years 1790 through 1945. The story may take place at any geographic location. The level of sexuality may range from sweet to extremely hot.”
Judging Guideline Recommendation: “In this category, the story takes place primarily in years 1790 through 1945. In this category, the love story is the main focus of the novel, and the end of the book is emotionally satisfying. If a book spans many years, the author should best determine the category in which it belongs. These novels may or may not contain a high level of sexuality.”
Explanation from RWA Board (yes please, why the historical overlap?): “Rationale for changing historical categories: Again, the board wished to eliminate the word count problem. With numbers dwindling, we examined merging both short and long historical into one category but felt that the historical novel could grow in the future. We hoped to allow for the change in popularity of one time period over another by providing overlapping years. An author whose book spans many years should determine where the novel best fits.”
Best Romantic Suspense/Gothic Romance -
Old Definition: Romantic novels in which suspense is a major element of the plot. The word count for these novels is a minimum of 40,000 words.
Judging Guidelines: In this category, a suspense plot is blended with a love story, which is the main focus of the novel, and the end of the book is emotionally satisfying.
Recommended Changes: “Romantic novels in which suspense is a major element of the plot.The level of sexuality may range from sweet to extremely hot.”
Judging Guideline Recommendation: “In this category, a suspense plot is blended with a love story, which is the main focus of the novel, and the end of the book is emotionally satisfying. These novels may or may not contain a high level of sexuality.”
Best Paranormal Romance -
Old Definition: Time Travel, Futuristic, Fantasy, Paranormal. Romantic novels in which the future, a fantasy world, or paranormal happenings are a major element of the plot. These may be single-title releases or books published within established category romance lines fitting other category descriptions. The word count for these novels is a minimum of 40,000.
Judging guidelines: In this category, the love story is the main focus of the novel, and the end of the book is emotionally satisfying.
Recommended Changes: “Time Travel, Futuristic, Fantasy, Paranormal – romantic novels in which either the future, a fantasy world or paranormal happenings are a major element of the plot. The level of sexuality may range from sweet to extremely hot.”
Judging Guideline Recommendation: “Judging guidelines: In this category, the love story is the main focus of the novel, but alternate worlds or paranormal happenings are an integral part of the plot. The end of the book is emotionally satisfying. These novels may or may not contain a high level of sexuality.”
Best Inspirational Romance -
Old Definition: Romantic novels in which one or more characters’ religious or spiritual beliefs (in the context of any religion or spiritual belief system) are a major part of their developing relationship, not merely a minor element or subplot. All inspirational books, set in any place or era, shall be eligible for this category. The word count for these novels is a minimum of 40,000 words.
Judging guidelines: In this category, one or more characters’ religious or spiritual beliefs (in the context of any religion or spiritual belief system) are blended with and form a significant and substantial part of the love story, and the end of the book is emotionally satisfying.
Recommended Changes: “romantic novels in which one or more characters’ religious or spiritual beliefs (in the context of any religion or spiritual belief system) are a major part of their the developing relationship between the hero/heroine. These books may be set in any time period or setting. The level of sexuality is usually non-explicit but may range from sweet to extremely hot.”
(To Which Sarah Said Out Loud: AWWWW YEAH BABY INSPIE HOT SEXX0RING! WOOT!)
Judging Guideline Recommendation: “In this category, one or more characters’ religious or spiritual beliefs (in the context of any religion or spiritual belief system) are integral to the hero/heroine relationship. The end of the book is emotionally satisfying. These novels may or may not contain a high level of sexuality.”
Best Novel with Strong Romantic Elements -
Old Definition: A work of fiction not belonging in another category that contains a strong romantic element, such that one or more romances contained in the story form an integral part of the story’s structure, but in which other themes or stories may also be significantly developed. The word count for these novels is a minimum of 80,000 words.
Judging guidelines: Any kind of fiction, of any tone or style and set in any place or time, is eligible for this category. The romantic elements, while not the primary focus of the story, should be an integral and dynamic part of the plot or subplot. The NR term does not apply to this category. Instead, the book may be judged NSRE (no strong romantic elements).
Recommended Changes: “A work of fiction not belonging in another category that contains a strong romance that forms an integral part of the story’s structure, but in which other themes or stories may also be significantly developed. The level of sexuality may range from sweet to extremely hot.”
Judging Guideline Recommendation: “Any kind of fiction, of any tone or style and set in any place or time, is eligible for this category. The romance, while not the primary focus of the story, must be an integral and dynamic part of the plot or subplot. The Not a Romance (NR term does not apply to this category. Instead, the book may be judged No Strong Romantic Elements (NSRE) . These novels may or may not contain a high level of sexuality.
Best First Book -
Old Definition: A full-length book entered in any of the other Contest categories, except Novella, which is the author’s first published novel shall be eligible for this award. If entered by a writing team, the book must be the first published novel for all members of the team.
Recommended Changes: “A full-length book entered in any of the other contest categories, and is the author’s first published novel from any publisher in any format shall be eligible for this award. If entered by a writing team, the book must be the first published novel for all members of the team. The level of sexuality may range from sweet to extremely hot.”
Judging Guideline Recommendation: “Judging guidelines: In this category, the love story is the main focus of the novel, and the end of the book is emotionally satisfying. These novels may or may not contain a high level of sexuality.”
You get all that? Holy cow.
Upon first reading and transcribing, my reaction? “We Are All Erotica!” The changes make room for erotica/romantica in every category (even Inspirational and I’m still giggling about that - “Oh God, Oh God” indeed!) and I can see why. How would RWA define a category of “Best Erotica?” Number of times the word “cock” is mentioned? Frequency of weeping overwrought va-hay-jays? “Romantic story with a driving sexual storyline (hur hur) in addition to the romantic storyline?” That could encompass stories that deal with sexual manipulation but aren’t erotica.
By making room for erotica in every category, there’s room, it would seem, for erotica authors to enter their books based on subject matter and plot - and let’s face it. Recent kerfluffles have addressed the lack of plot in some erotica releases of recent note, and those who crave good erotica say it’s not all about the Benjamins. It’s about plot AND sexuality.
WILL these changes make room for erotica in every category? Will erotica be found in next year’s finalists? Time will tell, I guess.
But let me just send up a hearty, “BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!” at the noted absence of “Best Gay/Lesbian Romance” - and lemme do it again: “BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!”
While there’s no restriction on the gender of the romantic pairing, and the category descriptions leave room for the protagonists to be homosexual or heterosexual, allow me to don my Cape of Hypocritical Bitch and say, “BOOOOOOO!” one more time.
I’m cautiously optimistic about erotica and romantica finding a place in the finalist list next year in any category, but I’m not so optimistic about there being a gay romance appearing in that list.
Why? Because let’s be honest: past shenanigans paint a fairly clear message that gays=not always the most welcome. Sex has demonstrated that It Sells Well Holy Cow. Harder to ignore that.
Should Gay/Lesbian romance be judged separately? Or is that a condescending slap in the face of gay & lesbian romance - that somehow the romantic encounter between two men or two women is “different” than the romantic encounter between a man and a woman?
Ideally, Gay/Lesbian romance SHOULDN’T be an independent category, and shouldn’t have to be in the first place. But here’s my worry: so far, I’m down with this particular board. I’d buy it a big, big beer. And what these recommendations do is leave room for erotica and Gay/Lesbian romance by not defining (wisely) the gender or sex of the protagonists. What they don’t and can’t do is predict how these recommendations will be interpreted by future boards. There have been some hellabad presidents with agendas that made my hair curl and in the hands of the contest coordinators appointed by similar presidents? These recommendations are vague enough to exclude Gay & Lesbian romance easily and quietly. And in my opinion, including it is too important to leave it out. But therein you see very plainly my particular political agenda.
I’m well aware of the flaw in my reaction here - I’m ok with the inclusion of a Sex-o-meter that allows for erotic content in every category (Even Inspie HAHAHAH) but I’m not ok with the exclusion of Gay/Lesbian Romance as an independent category. And it does beg the question - do there have to be “African American” “Asian” “Latina” “Lithuanian” “Mutant Goatse” romance categories if there’s a Gay/Lesbian category? If they represent one minority with a category for independent judging, do they then have to represent them all? Difficult prospect, I realize.
Taking into account past history and agendas espoused by the past presidents, I’m dismayed that there wasn’t more of a declaration in terms of Gay/Lesbian romance. But on the whole (and in the hole), I’m pleased that there’s room for a variation in sexual content in each category.
by Candy • Monday, May 07, 2007 at 06:41 AM
Hello my frisky little kittens,
I got an e-mail from a reader who wants to know if there are any good romance novels featuring Black women and Asian men. Franky, I could only remember reading a couple of romances with Asian protagonists, period, and they were always paired with white people, so I thought I’d put the question to the very well-read and impeccably-groomed bitchery. Any titles come to mind?
by Candy • Sunday, May 06, 2007 at 08:29 AM
I love nature. I really, really do. You think biscuit-obsessed rapist cowboy heroes are fucked up? That ain’t nothing compared to what evolution cooks up, baby.
Take, for instance, this article about duck penises recently published in the New York Times.
Those of you who’ve raised ducks will know this already: male ducks are, well, dicks. Big dicks. But more than that, they HAVE big dicks. Big, corkscrewy dicks.
The champion phallus from this Meller’s duck is a long, spiraling tentacle. Some ducks grow phalluses as long as their entire body. In the fall, the genitalia will disappear, only to reappear next spring.
REGENERATIVE big, corkscrewy tentacle dicks. Mmmm mmmmm.
Why the presence of penises, though, especially given that most other bird species use their cloacas to reproduce? Answer: because ducks are quite the accomplished rapists.
In some species of ducks, a female bonds for a season with a male. But she is also harassed by other males that force her to mate. “It’s nasty business. Females are often killed or injured,” Dr. Brennan said.
Species with more forced mating tend to have longer phalluses. That link led some scientists to argue that the duck phallus was the result of males’ competing with one another to fertilize eggs.
But there’s more! ("Call now, and receive this beautifully hand-finished work of duckrape...") Scientists are now hypothesizing that the male ducks are evolving these crazy penises in response to the females evolving incredibly complicate--labyrinthine, even--oviducts. In fact, based on the incredibly high duckrape rate (about 30%) vs. the number of offspring sired by the forced matings (3%), there’s some speculation that the female ducks are able to sequester the semen in a pocket and shoot it back out later.
This is fascinating science and a worthy contribution to evolutionary science and avian physiology, but the implications are clear, as Lilith Saintcrow pointed out to me on Friday night: we need more were-ducks in our romance novels. Somebody notify Lora Leigh, stat!
And speaking of huge corkscrew penises, here’s a possibility for you paranormal m/m romance authors who have a fondness for were-beasts: many slugs have them, too. Slugs are hermaphroditic, and their mating habits can be...exotic. Spotted leopard slugs, for example, suspend themselves from thick ropes of mucus, entwine their bodies, extrude their gigantic blue cocks, wrap them around each other and exchange genetic material. For some amazing pictures, check out this website.
BUT THERE’S MORE! Sometimes, the penises become so hopelessly entangled that the only way for the slugs to disengage...is to chew away the cocks. This, kids, is known as apophallation, and banana slugs sometimes do this.
Extreme BDSM m/m paranormal were-slug romance: This is clearly an untapped market. When the sub-genre becomes huge in three years, just remember where you read about the idea in the first place.
by SB Sarah • Friday, May 04, 2007 at 12:04 PM
In the interest of full disclosure, before I ask the question, obviously, we take advertising here for books and authors. So far we&#
