Smart Bitches Trashy Books | All of the romance, none of the bullshit.

Examples? Sure!

If you go to JK Rowling’s site, you get a choice of languages, and your choice of a text site or graphic-heavy site.

The graphic-intense one is the one I do not get: the English version shows a desktop littered with stuff, and butterflies and bugs flying all over the place. There’s a news section - ok then - and behind that a tabloid filled with “rumors,” and a diary - last updated July 18.

...the hell?

Understandably, the woman is busy but look, I can post-date entries on this site to go live when I’m nowhere near a computer, and I do so regularly. Come on now. She’s had the biggest book launch in the history of the universe; surely she or a staff person can post main page content that’s current. Especially since today, July 31, is Harry Potter’s (and my Hubby’s) and Rowling’s birthday.

Then, I just get confused: hairbrush = extras? Paperclips = FAQ? Eraser = ?

Rowling had a huge lag between books as she wrote those big mammoth editions, and her site was certainly useful in prolonging reader interest between issues. But if I were looking for a piece of specific information about her? I can’t find it here. I’d leave the site and go find what I’m looking for on Wikipedia.

And Christ on a cracker, there’s sound effects on the site. Fine. Bust me, why don’t you? The cell phone ringing doesn’t add to the site. It’s not like I can click on the phone and get some secret easter egg feature.

*sigh*

And herein is a monster truck full of money spent on a website that, should I be looking for something specific, is largely useless, and bizarrely out of date by web standards. If I were looking merely to be entertained, this might be a fun way to pass a few minutes, but even then the lack of clear path or organization is bothersome to me. Ergo, I’m leaving.

After one page.

Clearly, this is not what a website was meant to do, drive the person away. In fact, Rowling’s site comes close to the bar set by the Most Bizarre Display of Opulent Disorganization On a Website: Melanie Griffith’s official site.

Not being able to use a website easily is frustrating for me, and a real shame since I know a lot of people probably put a lot of time and forgot the basic tenets that Kerry listed so easily. If the site is to promote an author, product product product front and center.

And some sites do this marvelously, along with information about the author (aka, the “bio” section), and news and interactive portions that are updated more frequently.

Examples? But of course!

Patricia Gaffney has a gorgeous site, with the main page offering the big author trifecta of web content: book & book excerpt, biographical info, and interactive info (aka a “Q&A blog").

From the same design team, a completely different type of author site that nails the trifecta as well: Susan Holloway Scott‘s site evokes the time period of her books, and offers visitors book information, author info, and news.

What about when you have to organize a HUGE amount of information? James Patterson’s site, while very commercial-looking, makes it easy to navigate his backlist, his bio, his other projects, and STILL the newest book is front and center. Of course, Hachette runs that puppy so I’m sure it’s a major, major point of his publicity machine.

Author sites like Julia Quinn’s (Designed by Wax Creative) and Niki Burham’s (also a WxC site) both organize book/author/promo/blog data into menus that are eye catching, and, thank you thank you, easy to navigate.

In my never humble opinion, good web design is an intersection of visual simplicity and content organization. It doesn’t have to be an extravaganza of Flash and animation, and it shouldn’t throw every word in the English language at the viewer on the first page, either.

It’s certainly an art form, and it’s not easy in the slightest. One of the areas of promotion I wish authors paid more attention to is the content and style of their websites, because more than any paper bookmark, the website is where readers like me go to learn more about who the author is, and to look for upcoming releases and the order of a series.

What websites work for you, and, more to the point, what are you looking for when you visit an author’s site?

So at the end of Book One, we find out Our Very Own Temeraire is actually a Celestial dragon, the most rare Chinese breed of all. The British are quite pleased, because Celestials have the power of Divine Wind--and no, it’s not the same thing as Savage Thunder, though both involve the forceful expelling of copious amounts of air. The Chinese, however, are rather less than thrilled when they find out that not only has one of their precious Celestials fallen into a commoner’s hands (according to tradition, only members of the imperial family are suitable companions for them), but he has been pressed into military service, too. A delegation, headed by the hostile Prince Yongxing, is sent to England to retrieve Temeraire and return him to his rightful station.

Except Temeraire has his own thoughts about that, and he refuses to leave without Laurence and his crew. And so Our Merry Band of Adventurers depart the shores of England for the Orient on a massive dragon transport ship. There, Laurence and Temeraire begin to learn about the great differences between the treatment of dragons in the West vs. the treatment of dragons in China, as Yongxing is not especially shy about attempting to woo Temeraire away from Laurence’s side. Adventures abound, as the ship encounters a hostile ship, storms, attempts on Laurence’s life (...or ARE THEY? Perhaps Laurence was just being being paranoid! *dun dun duuuuun*) and even a wild creature of the deep (which was an especially exciting episode that led to some interesting, if rather perfunctory, explorations on the nature of consciousness and sentience).

And all that’s before they get to China, where the real politicking and maneuvering begins, and where Temeraire and crew have an opportunity to witness the rather more progressive state of dragon rights in China. Between that and first-hand observations of the treatment of human slaves, Temeraire becomes quite the advocate for dragon rights, with Laurence agreeing with his assessments but feeling a great deal more cautious and less optimistic about the enterprise. Will Laurence discover who’s trying to kill him? Will Temeraire wish to return to England after experiencing for himself the disparity in the treatment of dragons? Will the Chinese court relent in their attempts to separate Laurence and Temeraire? How many of Temeraire’s crew will remain at the end of the book? Tune in to My Brother the Big-Ass Dragon.

This particular installment suffers from certain classic second-book issues: we get to know the characters better, but the action slows down, and a lot of the book feels like set-up for future books and not just a story in its own right. Don’t get me wrong; it’s cracking good fun, but it wasn’t quite as satisfying as the first book, and I was actually able to put it down for hours at a time, instead of risking life and limb by pulling it out and reading it in the car when traffic came to a standstill on I-5.

Its attempts to engage in a conversation about natural rights also felt somewhat half-baked; the implications of the status of dragons in China are interesting, but not adequately explored.

“But Candy,” you cry, “Give it a break! It’s a freaking fantasy novel!”

Well, yeah. Which makes it an excellent venue for this sort of conversation. Speculative fiction, with its rampant “what-if"-ism, has spawned some of the best fictional treatments of thorny political and philosophical issues, from 1984 to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? to Oryx and Crake. I’m sure the conversation will continue and improve in future books; it’s just that its treatment in this particular installment felt slight, when it wasn’t being a touch ham-handed.

However, enough with the niggling and the nagging, because there’s quite a bit to love about this book. Novik continues to do a stellar job with her characters. Laurence continues to unbend, and Temeraire continues to charm--so much so that I wish Novik would give us some passages from his point of view, though limiting the POV strictly to Laurence provides a certain power to the narrative as well. Secondary characters like Granby (on whom I have a small crush, I have to confess) are also being developed quite nicely.

Her attention to detail and narrative voice are also excellent. Her portrayal of 19th-century China is especially detailed, fascinating and even-handed, even as she convincingly filters the experience through the lens of Laurence’s point-of-view, with all its attendant preconceptions and cultural biases. That takes some doing.

All in all, if you loved His Majesty’s Dragon, this sequel is worth reading, even if not quite as crackastic as its predecessor, and there’s quite the doozy of a set-up for the third book, Black Powder War. As far as I’m concerned right now, Novik can’t write these fast enough for me.

Our proposed cover art: 

Source: I Can Has Cheezburger?

Sample Acceptance Letter:

Ms. SaraBeth Taegan-Brown
123 Bitchery Way
Funkytown, PA 15222

Dear Ms. Taegan-Brown

We here at Kantsingtownne were thrilled to the soles of our Blahniks to read your proposal for “How Big Wuz It Agn?” Certainly the question of size and girth of the amply-endowed hero will never be answered satisfactorily, and having your heroine examine the hero’s masterful wang by saying, “OMGLOLWTF?” was a stroke of comedic brilliance - to say nothing of referring to a condom as a “bukkit.” No wonder they never had one handy!

We are certain the LOLurve™ Cat Romance will be a huge hit worldwide, and are eager to launch this line of series romances aimed at the erudite, intellectual reader with ample disposable income. We adore your suggestion for product placement, as well, and are certain we can reach an agreement as to how to compensate you for your brilliance.

We are prepared to offer you a $1.9 million advance for a 200pp manuscript. Of course this offer comes with an unlimited offer of time aboard our private yacht, use of the corporate jet, and car service vouchers for your ground transport needs.

Please forward your completed manuscript to our North Versailles address by Friday.

Yours, etc.

Stamphanie Cedrickson
Series Development & Acquisitions

Ms. Honoria Clitorrh
18369 Lovemuffin Ave.
Beaverton, OR 97008

Dear Ms. Clitorrh,

Thank you very much for submitting MY GIANT WANGZ LET ME SHOW YOU THEM, but I must regretfully inform you that LovePocket Books will have to pass on it.

But even if we are passing on this title, I have to say there are many things you did right with this manuscript. For instance, we greatly enjoyed the way you gave the penises in this book a life of their own. Prehensile genitalia have been a staple of erotic shapeshifter romance for quite some time now, but allowing those penises to talk was truly a master stroke. The part in which Ardeur Cheezburger’s penis cries out “Miss mah bukkit!” touched us profoundly, for example--almost as profoundly as that penis later touches the heroine. We also greatly admired the innovation of having the point-of-view switching between third and second person, though we recommend using this in moderation--having the switch happen three times in the same chapter without warning resulted in a rather jarring read.

Ultimately, however, we didn’t believe that your book was quite the right fit for our house. Our lines of romances tend towards the sweeter end of the spectrum--amnesiac secret babies, virgin desert sheikhs, marriages of convenience between Navy SEALs, etc. Your novel, with its polyamory, sentient penises, inter-species sex and (to be frank) somewhat puzzling fetish with cheeseburgers doesn’t quite belong in our line-up. We do wish you the best of luck in finding a good home for MY GIANT WANGZ LET ME SHOW YOU THEM.

Regards,

Emmaline Duquesne
Associate Editor
LovePocket Books

Rules-Type Blather!
1. E-mail your submissions to and .

2. Only one submission per person.

3. Deadline: You have until midnight Pacific Time on August 1 to submit your brilliance to us.

4. Entries will be posted on August 2. You will be asked to e-mail your votes to us. One vote per person, and voting ends on midnight, Pacific Time, August 4th. Winner will be announced on Monday, August 6.

5. Remember to attach or link to your cover art!

Prizes!

The winner shall receive A TOTALLY AWESOME PACKAGE of an unabridged audio CD set of Susan Elizabeth Phillips’ Match Me If You Can, a $10 Amazon.com gift certificate, and a Smart Bitch Title™. 

The nailtail wallaby. Imagine that erotic hero nickname.

Or, the part that caught the Very Nice Editor’s eye:

The fabulous oolacunta, a rat kangaroo that is now extinct, streaked across the desert at speeds that made it seem to float above the ground. One naturalist and his assistants, working in relays with fresh horses, pursued an oolacunta over rough terrain for 12 miles in 1931 before finally catching up to the little fellow, which then keeled over and breathed its last.

Oo! La Cunta! It hovers across the ground until it collapses and dies from exhaustion? Remind you of any overworked glistening orifices™ you know?

As Bill Bryson noted recently, Australia also has a startling collection of town and location names that would drive the average erotic author to fits of combustible creativity. Bryson’s examples are fine enough: “Mullumbimby Ewylamartup, Jiggalong, and the supremely satisfying Tittybong.”

But then, consider these other fine examples of where Caden “Nailtail” Wallaby and Anita the hovering oolacunta could met up in hopping sexual bliss: Will their Loveday include a stop in Carrickalinga after a drive through Cockburn?

Gosh, I love Australia.

I’ll be the first to admit: pregnancy is often funny. It’s not comfortable, and it’s bizarre and scary and incredibly moving at times (literally and figuratively), but be real, here. I have to stand on my head to empty my bladder, and rolling over is like steering a cruise ship. I can’t reach the faucet on the sink because my belly is in the way and my arms are too short. And we won’t even discuss stretch marks and how they make me scratch my gut like I’m on the back porch drinking a beer.

And afterward? Motherhood of a toddler? Or an adolescent? Or heaven help us all, a teenager? If you can’t find the humor in it, you’ll go bananas.

All these women he describes in the throes of maternal formality? I have no patience for them anyway. Even without discussion of motherhood and children, women in my acquaintance are pretty amusing. I think yesterday might have been one of the more serious things we’ve written about here, and even then some of the terms Candy used made me snort.

The spinning imbalance of power and authority in the article between men and women, humor and seriousness, political and familial authority - thinking about that article too much just made me dizzy. Men, the social and political authority in patriarchal societies, are subjugated under the authority of women, and therefore we are mocked and certainly aren’t funny? Amongst ourselves, we ladies are serious, self-absorbed, and have the funny drummed out of us during the absolutely formal experience of childbirth?

So what the hell is with this assumption that women sit around taking themselves too seriously - are you kidding me?

Edited to add:

Ann Althouse’s site discussed the article, as did Melinda, a comic who drew a very clear parallel between women and anger, and anger and comedy. Then, a group of comics do some dissection amongst themselves at Jenisfamous.

Jane: I thought the debate on costumes was illuminating because not only was it a stand-in for the greater resentment felt towards the mainstream media for marginalizing romance, but also how important the issue of respect is to those careers are defined by the genre itself.  It was an issue that was fraught with emotion but for the most part was spirited but not unkind.  It is obvious that the two of the authors in question felt these were personal attacks and as Robin said, that would be natural.  Yet, the discussion wasn’t about the person, but the idea of marketing and the time and place of appropriateness.

What grew out of this debate on Cindy Cruciger’s blog was demeaning to us all in the way that it turned a legitimate discussion into a mockery.  In the rush to trample down everyone in their paths who did not hold similar beliefs, Cindy Cruciger and a group of e-published authors such as Selah March and Eva Gale engaged in the very acts that they purportedly despise: name calling, condescension, discussing personal appearance as if it had anything to do with ability or content.  Cruciger engaged in a wholesale deletion of posts and comments.

I did not respond before because I felt, as I commented in the monstrous thread about costumes and bloggers, that these types of comments deserved no response merely because I felt that the point of posting it was to gain a response.

I believe that personal attacks are not appropriate and try very hard on the blog, particularly in a review, to not make it personal.  If I say that the author is doing something with her books or her characters that I find objectionable, I don’t perceive that to be a personal attack.  A personal attack to me would be posting a picture of an author and saying, “I can’t believe she could write a sex scene like that.  She certainly doesn’t look like she could.” Which was, in essence, the gleeful statements that were made about the four bloggers on Cindy Crcuiger’s blog (which she has since deleted).

Cruciger’s blog has long been a haven for nasty comments like March’s in April when she stated ”I’ve been publicly humiliated by award-winning authors in front of entire classrooms full of my peers because my stories dared to incorporate PLOT” and “Can’t please all of the people all of the time, and if you try, you might just be writing middle-of-the-road crap that alienates the people who write ME fan letters about my “gritty, realistic” characterization.” Which are as off putting to me as some believed that the verbiage from the “rebels of romance” page was.  Other comments existed (until they were recently deleted) such as ”Where did Karen Scott say she went on vacation again? I think someone saw her …” and then quoting the passage from a news article “Weird-Looking ‘Lake Snake’ Sought by Illinois Authorities”.

So yes, when I came across a post on Keishon’s blog and Selah March wanted to engage in a debate, I refused because I knew that I would only be subject to sarcasm and viputeration.  When Cindy Cruciger posted our pictures or would make a comment about the state of DearAuthor, there was no point in responding.  It seemed to me that either these people wanted the traffic from linking or that they were simply determined to be mean, neither of which deserved a response.  But I suppose by remaining silent, I subjected others to this and perhaps I should have objected sooner.  For that I would apologize.  But, I don’t apologize for not wanting to support their careers or give them attention for which they don’t deserve.

Sarah: My reaction to both debates - the costumes and Candy’s rack - has been mostly to observe, but then, it takes a lot to set me off in general.

But my reaction to the discussion and what it turned into moved rapidly from “Holy cow” to, “Are you kidding me?” My perspective as someone who isn’t regularly called upon to defend romance, but does it anyway, is certainly different from those who posted in that thread. It’s not as if my career is based upon the genre, but for other authors, I can totally see their point. Ignoring the trolls, as is my habit, reading over Crusie, Roberts and other writer’s comments was certainly illuminating as to the other side of the debate: do costumes detract? Where is the line between fun and frippery that decreases respectability? Are costumes and dressing up in character for marketing purposes something that will be seen more frequently? Or is it reserved for other venues and not so much RWA?

But really, as Candy so rightly contrasted in her rant, how come it’s not ok for us to discuss or even question the presence of costumes, but it IS ok for others to not only discuss the presence of bloggers but comment upon our appearances and the way we look? WTF?

The amount of vitriol and cruelty was astonishing at the sites Candy linked to, and I have no patience for anyone who wants to throw mud when they don’t have anything of quality to add to the discussion - hence my decision to close comments on the original behemoth when it turned into a pile-on instead of anything meaningful.

No matter how much or how little I read on the sites Candy linked to, or in Google caches of the same, the more I’m thunderstruck. What really, really pissed me off is watching our site held up as the source of what’s wrong with the romance community online, when neither Candy, Jane, or I would ever dare criticize an author’s appearance as part of examining his or her books. There’s a line for us that we wouldn’t cross, no matter how much we didn’t like a novel. But to be accused of being the source of all that is crapful by those who cross that line blithely at our own expense is infuriating and disgusting.

That said, trolls aside, I am as usual exceptionally proud of how most of the time, folks on this site can debate and discuss topics wherein there is great disagreement operating within an environment of respect and consideration. Pity that a noxious few attempted to spoil it, but at this point, I’m happy to ignore them again.

Candy, Jane, and I debated about opening this thread to comments, because the last thing we want is a pile-on of hateration, or soothing pats on the head. However, we all agreed it was past time to respond. So in the comments, some ground rules:

1. This isn’t open season to attack us, or Cruciger, or anyone else. If you disagree with us, we trust you know how to do so respectfully. If you don’t, and post anyway, we’ll get crazy with the delete feature.

2. What we’re trying to address here is: What is a personal attack, and where should that line be drawn, if at all? Is it personal to attack authorial behavior or reviewer behavior? Can only content be criticized?

3. Please keep the discussion focused on generalities and behaviors. This isn’t an opportunity to re-hash. And please, if you reference a specific instance on another site to underscore your point, please link. If your HTML breaks, no worries - we’ll fix it.

4. Everyone: take a deep breath. Have some chocolate. Then post.