Smart Bitches, Trashy Books | Romance Novel Reviews | Come for the Dominican Bitches, Stay for the Man Titty

by Candy • Monday, January 21, 2008 at 12:50 AM

There’s been a lot of talk lately about the difference between plagiarism and copyright infringement, the issue of fair use, and what authors should and shouldn’t do when it comes to citing research in their works of fiction. A lot of bad information is being passed around, and a lot of conflation (TAKE A DRINK, BITCHES) between plagiarism and copyright infringement; there also seem to be mild panic outbreaks among some authors who appear to think we readers are going to stab at them with our Pitchforks of Plagiarism +5 if they don’t include detailed citations in their books.

As a petty pedant, the former drives me nuts; as a reader who is capable of utilizing common sense, the latter makes me shake my head with mild exasperation. And as you regulars already know, pedantry + exasperation = me blather long time. The first part of this article is going to be a detailed, largely fact-based discussion about definitions. The second is going to be what I, as a Reader of Moderately-Sized Brain, want to see from an author in terms of acceptable usage without acknowledgement, and acceptable usage with acknowledgement; that part is pretty much purely opinion-based.

Copyright Cake vs. Plagiarism Pie (and how to wield the Fair Use Fork)

As I’ve noted previously on this blog, copyright infringement and plagiarism are different beasts, though they occasionally interbreed and give birth to that Liger of the intellectual property universe: a copyright infringement case that actually involves plagiarism. Here are the key differences again, in more detail:

Copyright infringement is a matter of the law--and keep in mind that what I’m going to talk about is the American sub-species of this particular animal; other countries implement copyright law in different ways. Copyright law came about as a means for creators of an original work to exercise their rights--the right to profit from it, the right to create and distribute copies, the right to license it for other purposes or to other people, and the right to be credited as the creator of the work, among other things. It’s an attempt to strike a balance between allowing the creators of the work to benefit financially and to exert whatever control they wish on the fruits of their labor, and having the work enrich the culture as a whole by passing into the public domain.

Notice, by the way, that copyright law covers all sorts of work, and not merely works of fiction. An article in an academic journal is subject to copyright protection; so are textbooks, poems, songs, music videos, movies, etc. However, not all intellectual property is protected by copyright law. Short phrases and procedures, for example, aren’t covered, and other things are covered by trademark protection (such as logos and slogans) or patent law (systems and processes, for example).

Copyright law gives you exclusive rights, but only for a limited time. As the law stands now, works created on or before January, 1978 are copyrighted for the duration of the author’s life plus 70 years; for works created “for hire” (i.e., licensed by entities and people other than the creator), copyright lasts for 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation, whichever is shorter. Copyright protection didn’t always last this long; they were extended to the current terms thanks to the Copyright Term Extension Act, known commonly as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act due to the fact that Disney, among a few other holders of lucrative copyrighted material, lobbied very heavily to have the terms extended in order to avoid some of their popular works pass into the public domain.

So in short, in order to use material that’s been copyrighted, you generally have to get permission from the copyright holder and comply with whatever terms they might have set, including, in many cases, paying some sort of fee.

But wait! That’s not all! Call now, and for the price of FREE, we’ll tell you about the Fair Use doctrine!

In essence, Fair Use allows for the legal use of copyrighted material without asking for permission or clearing the rights under certain limited circumstances. In the United States, specific law governing that is the Fair Use section of the Copyright Act of 1976. There are two pertinent parts to Fair Use. The first part covers certain circumstances under which Fair Use will usually prevail--the section specifies that “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.” The second part is a four-factor balancing test to determine if each specific case is covered by Fair Use:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

(By the way: some people seem to have gotten the impression that I’m some sort of Copyright Enforcment Harpy, which really isn’t the case at all. I think copyright law is a good thing, by and large, but I have lots of opinions on why I think the state of the law as it stands is pretty goddamn broken, but this is not really the forum for it. I do highly recommend this comic by Duke University School of Law’s Center for Study of the Public Domain to get an overview of the issues and problems with current copyright law.)

So to summarize: copyright infringement = a legal cause of action. Plagiarism, because it also concerns unauthorized use of intellectual property, is related, but it is possible to infringe on copyright without committing plagiarism. The example I gave previously is one of the clearest I can think of: a filmmaker using a song in a movie without clearing the rights with the publisher but who fully acknowledges the writers and performers in the credits has committed copyright infringement, but hasn’t plagiarized.

This is because plagiarism is concerned with inadequate acknowledgment and/or false attribution. Plagiarism is the act of using somebody else’s work and either failing to acknowledge the contribution of the original author and/or outright claiming that you’re the author of the work. The Wikipedia article characterizes the difference between copyright infringement vs. plagiarism this way:

Plagiarism is different from copyright infringement. While both terms may apply to a particular act, they emphasize different aspects of the transgression. Copyright infringement is a violation of the rights of the copyright holder, when material is used without the copyright holder’s consent. On the other hand, plagiarism is concerned with the unearned increment to the plagiarizing author’s reputation that is achieved through false claims of authorship.

Plagiarism can happen (and does all the time) without infringing on copyright; if you copy pages of material from a book that has passed into the public domain for a term paper and neglect to cite the work in any way, you’ve committed plagiarism but haven’t infringed on copyright. They sometimes do intersect--Kaavya Viswanathan’s case comes to mind, for example.

Bla bla bla, whatevs, YOU NOW WANT US TO USE FOOTNOTES IN FICTION NOVELS, DON’T YOU, YOU GODDAMN HUNTER OF WITCHES
So all this talk about proper attribution of sources has some authors in a bit of a lather, and some have flung themselves onto the slippery slope with great angst and panache, and have slid down it at an alarming pace, hollering that we readers now expect them to provide detailed footnotes for every bit of research they’ve incorporated into their work or we’ll stab them for being dirty, dirty plagiarists.

I’ll confess right now that I haven’t read all the comment threads on this site that address the plagiarism issue, so I can’t actually say “There haven’t been any idiots who’ve advocated that sort of extreme standard, so calm down, ferchrissakes,” because for all I know, there may have been a few. I’m not, despite my love of comic hyperbole, a creature of extremes, and I’ll be one of the first to say that a work of fiction is different in character, purpose and tone than a research paper, and I certainly don’t expect the two to cite their sources the same way. Here are what, in my opinion, reasonable citation standards for a work of fiction:

1. If you use somebody else’s story structures (such as significant plot elements), a nod to the original author and/or work is nice, but not necessary. If I remember correctly, Lois McMaster Bujold acknowledged Georgette Heyer in A Civil Campaign, and Sharon Shinn explicitly said that Jenna Starborn was Jane Eyre in outer space. If the story is famous enough, you don’t even need to do shit; most people will get it on their own. Think of all the Romeo and Juliet knock-offs that exist without bothering to acknowledge Shakespeare.

2. If you’re using literary allusions or in-jokes in a rather limited context, no acknowledgment is necessary. This is especially true in the context of character development; if your character is, say, a geek who loves quoting episodes of The Simpsons, or a religious person who continually cites passages from the Bible, or a hipster nerd who peppers her conversation with references to Of Montreal lyrics, I don’t expect footnotes documenting every damn usage. Theresa Weir started every chapter in Cool Shade with snippets of lyrics from various songs without citing the song title or artist, for example, and I thought that was perfectly acceptable. If you want to make a note at the end or the beginning of the book about the allusions, have at it, but by and large, I’m perfectly fine with these going unacknowledged.

3. If you extensively utilize somebody’s research without actually using any of their words, again, a nod and a list of works would be awesome, but not strictly necessary. I’m not expecting footnotes, but a “I got most of my information from this book, and if you’re a nerd like me, here are some additional sources that I thought were fun and useful” makes me profoundly happy in the pants--even when I’m not wearing pants. (Or perhaps...especially when I’m not wearing pants?)

4. If you want to use large chunks of somebody else’s work word-for-word...well, really, my advice is: avoid this whenever possible. The tone shift will generally interrupt the flow of the story, and there’s honestly no way for you to cite this gracefully. If you still insist on doing this, however, then I want to see a citation--it doesn’t have to be as complete or extensive as what you’d find in an academic paper, but I’d want an author and a title at the very least. Please note that any whimperings about how “non-fiction works don’t count” and how they’re all just “boring old facts” make me, a former technical writer and a current law student, want to cut a bitch.

A lot of what I’m talking about is rather fuzzy, of course. The four-factor balancing test of the Copyright Act is rather fuzzy. My personal preferences for author acknowledgments are VERY fuzzy (what constitutes a “large” chunk? What sort of limited context am I taking about when it comes to allusions?). The fuzziness makes things difficult, but it also makes things interesting. What do you think is fair? Are your opinions different as a reader? As a writer? As an editor? I want to know, and I really want to hear from people who think differently from me about this issue, my hyperbolic “cut a bitch” statement up above notwithstanding.

54 comments •

Categories: But...that's not really about romance novels • Cassie Edwards

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

by SB Sarah • Saturday, January 19, 2008 at 05:16 PM

Shadow Bear and Defenders of Wildlife constituted one of the questions on NPR’s Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me.

The story is part of the Bluff the Listener segment, which features “three stories of plagiarism in the news.”

33 comments •

Categories: Cassie Edwards • The Link-O-Lator

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

by SB Sarah • Friday, January 18, 2008 at 02:40 PM

As of 5:44pm Eastern Time, 18 January 2008, we have raised for Defenders of Wildlife and other animal charities around the world a grand total of:

$5,032.75 US

Way to go, Smart Bitch Readers! And a big thank you to Nora Roberts, who is matching that total to $5,000.00, making the total raised in three days: $10,032.75.

And if you would like to contribute to the ferrets and other endangered wildlife, please feel free. You can also consider these Native American relief funds and charities, should you be interested in other giving opportunities:

Adopt A Native Elder - Charity Navigator Rating: Four Stars

First Nations Development Institute - Charity Navigator Rating: Three Stars

The Native American Heritage Association - Charity Navigator Rating: Four Stars

31 comments •

Categories: But...that's not really about romance novels

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

by SB Sarah • Friday, January 18, 2008 at 10:42 AM

While we’re on the subject of the Harlequin/Silhouette titles, most specifically the Presents line, take a look at this: The Romantic Novelists’ Association has announced the shortlist for the Romance Prize for 2008. The finalists are:

Lucy Gordon’s The Mediterranean Rebel’s Bride
Liz Fielding’s The Secret Life Of Lady Gabriella
Fiona Harper’s Her Parenthood Assignment and English Lord, Ordinary Lady
Kate Hardy’s Breakfast at Giovanni’s, which I had trouble finding in Amazon.com (that link is to Amazon.co.uk).
Julie Cohen’s Driving Him Wild

Now here is where I get confused: Julie Cohen’s book is about to be released in the US, but under a different title: instead of Driving Him Wild, we American folks will have to look for His For The Taking.

What the shitting crap is that all about? I’ve long refrained from reading too much into the category titles because it might make my head spin around on my neck, but take a look at that: “Driving Him Wild?” Female in control. “His for the Taking?” Lie there and take it! What kind of passive female crap is that?! American audiences prefer a male-dominant title? That’s pretty much the only conclusion I can draw from the decision to change the title, unless one of the new marketing hook words is “Taking.”

I’d like to be Taking this opportunity to ask: what the hell is up with the titles, yo? Seriously? Not just that one - all of them!

The decision to change Cohen’s title makes little sense to me. As a rule I think American audiences are sophisticated enough to appreciate cultural differences. I don’t think Harry Potter needed to be Americanized because we Yankees are too dim and navel gazingly xenophobic to appreciate the differences between a philosopher’s stone and a sorcerer’s stone, let alone what “troll boogies” are. Bend it Like Beckham was nearly released in the US as “Move it like Mia” and that was just ridiculous. I’m sure Beckham himself appreciated the slight boost in his American credibility anyway, seeing as he and Posh are all over the US right now. (Aside: a note to Victoria Beckham - we Americans are on the whole a happy, boisterous lot. It would probably help you a bit if you smiled, you know, every now and again.)

But I can’t place the change from “Driving Him Wild” to “His for the Taking” on cultural differences, unless there’s a huge community of Dominatrixes that buy Mills & Boon in the UK, whereas female subs comprise more of the Harlequin buying audience in the US.

Cohen’s title change really befuddles me, about as much as the whole titles question for the Presents line does as well: I ask again, what the hell is UP with the TITLES?

I realize the simple answer is that it’s all about marketing, but I am long past the “yeah yeah it sells yadda yadda” argument. I want to know WHY these titles with hookwords like “billionaire,” “tycoon,” “cowboy,” “boardroom,” “viking,” “Roman,” and, for crap’s sake, “Mistress,” sell, even if there’s a vocal group of readers, including myself, who find them insulting, demeaning or at the very least irritating.

Kimberly Van Meter left a comment in the entry about our RN.tv discussion about categories that read: “Don’t let the titles scare you. We don’t have any control over that stuff.” I am well aware that authors don’t have much control over titles, much less cover art, so believe me, I know it’s not up to the authors.

Kate Hewitt commented in that same thread, “Authors have *nothing* to do with the titles, and I don’t know a single author who likes them. That’s just marketing. They also come way after the book has been plotted, written, and accepted for publication.”

So who is it that likes them? Or is the question really how consumers of the categories thus titled use those titles in their buying decisions? Do consumers of the categories look past the titles because they know not to pay attention in the first place, or do they perhaps use the keyworded titles as indication for a specific type of story? Thus the “Tycoon” title is one word shorthand for a specific type of romance, where as “mediterranean” is shorthand for another?

From my perspective, I don’t see how it isn’t counterintuitive to closely word all the titles in the first place. Wouldn’t it be self-defeating if someone’s looking for a book they heard was good and they conflate (2 pts!) the title words and go home with a horrible “Billionaire Sheikh’s Mistress” when they were looking for the excellently written “Mistress of the Billionaire Sheikh?”

It’s almost like a secret society - the readers who love categories know to look past the titles. But that’s not much of an allure to someone like me who looks at the covers and the titles and says “What the crap are the publishers thinking?!”

Bottom line? eBooks from Harlequin rock my world because I really want to read category, and some of the category romances I’ve read have been exceptionally skilled pieces of writing, but let’s me be blunt: being seen with an Asus or a Bookeen is a LOT more reassuring to my pride and my professional identity than being seen with “The Billionaire CEO’s Virgin Boardroom Mistress.”

I’m not saying that because I give a shit what people think of my reading material (I so do not) but because I think titles like that in the wrong circumstance could get the reader into some hot water.

So, what is with the titles? Do you buy them? Do you like them? Honestly, please speak up. I’m not looking to pound on you for your taste - if anything, we here at Smart Bitches are enthusiastic defenders of your right to enjoy whatever you want even if other folks think it’s in poor taste. If some of the authors don’t like the titles, and I and other consumers don’t like them either, who are the people that do, and why do you like them?

101 comments •

Categories: Random Musings • Ranty McRant

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

by Candy • Friday, January 18, 2008 at 09:24 AM

As Sarah noted yesterday, the fine folks at Romancenovel.tv posted a video of the two of us talking about romance novels. (WHY do I look and sound like a chipmunk whenever I'm recorded? It's enough to drive a girl to drink. And I'm allergic to alcohol, which means I end up chugging chocolate milk, which really doesn't do much for my romantic image. GODDAMMIT.) (Also, in case this wasn't clear: the people at Romancenovel.tv did a great job. I'm just the least telegenic person ever, with the exception of Carrot Top.) Anyway, if you ever wondered how high-pitched and squeaky I can get when I become excited talking about something, this is an opportunity.

So I meant to write this long, thoughtful post about the evolution of the category romance and the differences in style between American and British/Australian category releases to go with the video, and I was outlining it when I realized, no, what I REALLY wanted to do was post a Top 10 Things I Learned from Category Romances and a very silly comparison table. Screw erudition! Capsule summaries are full of win and awesome!

Top Ten Things I Learned from Reading Category Romances As a Girl
(In other words: Most of these cover old-school category romances.)

10. It's entirely possible to be somebody's mistress while remaining a virgin.
9. Billionaires who regularly date actresses and supermodels will find your mousiness and awkwardness refreshingly real and promptly fall in love with you.
8. "No" means "Kiss me more punishingly." Remember: punishing kisses are a sign he's actually in love with you.
7. Child support? Who needs child support? Real women raise their babies alone! And conceal their existence from their fathers!
6. Australia sure has a lot of Greeks and Italians.
5. And so does England.
4. Sheikhs are never devout Muslims.
3. A traumatic sexual past can be fixed by fucking your boss.
2. It's entirely possible to be the mother to a secret baby while never having had sex, even if your name isn't Mary and you're not a native of Nazareth.
1. OH MY GOD ORAL SEX IS REALLLLLLLLLLL. (Again: Thank you, Anne Stuart. You changed my life.)

Key Differences between Category Romances in the American Mode vs. Category Romances in the British/Australian Mode

English/Australian Category Romances	American Category Romances
Fetishizes swarthy men, but only if they're rich (Italians, Greeks, sheikhs) and stripped of most of their cultural trappings, with the exception of their accents and their machismo.	Fetishizes redneck men, but only if they're rich (cowboys with their own ranches, NASCAR) and stripped of most of their class trappings, with the exception of their accents and their machismo.
The meek shall inherit the earth--and by "meek," I mean "secretaries," and by "inherit," I mean "marry," and by "the earth," I mean "their billionaire boss."	The meek shall inherit the earth--and by "meek," I mean "incredibly spunky owners of independent businesses," and by "inherit," I mean "marry," and by "the earth," I mean "the forceful captains of enterprise who are trying to buy out their companies."
We love our virgin boardroom mistresses.	We love our virgin amnesiac cowboy brides.
We <3 doctors!	We <3 military men!
Dude, where's Canada in all this?	I know, right? When was the last time you read a category romance with Canadian protagonists?

Have your own Top 10 list to contribute, or more differences to note? Let us know in the comments.

72 comments •

Categories: Random Musings • RomanceNovel.tv

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

by SB Sarah • Friday, January 18, 2008 at 08:00 AM

Robena sent me an email and her sig file cracked me up so hard, I asked where she got it. Turns out, all the succinct hilarity of her sig file is available for every novel at Book-A-Minute Classics. Need to know a summary of a classic novel? Go there. Laugh much.

I’m partial to this one:

The Collected Work of Jane Austen
By Jane Austen
Ultra-Condensed by Christina Carlson and Peter da Silva

Female Lead: I secretly love Male Lead. He must never know.

Male Lead: I secretly love Female Lead. She must never know.

(They find out.)

THE END

Plus the Printed Edition and the Secret Edition of Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone is a hoot, too.

25 comments •

Categories: Fun And Games • The Link-O-Lator

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

by SB Sarah • Friday, January 18, 2008 at 06:54 AM

Thanks Star Opal. Few things make me giggle harder than David Hasselhoff, a light saber, and a shitload of eyeliner.

Now I feel MUCH better.

25 comments •

Categories: Friday Videos

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

by SB Sarah • Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 12:53 PM

Bitchery reader Kat asks for help with this foggy roadstop on her memory lane - only instead of a book, it's a romance movie from TNT in the 80's. Normally I wouldn't be too keen on featuring a movie or tv show, since ostensibly this site is about romances, but damn. This movie sounds just plain bizarre.

Long ago, in the early 1980s, back when Turner Broadcasting meant UHF channel 17 in Atlanta, I was on my Thanksgiving holiday watching a movie on TBS. I was 14 at the time, and this was indeed in Atlanta. This movie has been haunting me for decades! I can't remember very much about it, but it was an historical romance, which is why I bring it up to the Bitchery. Maybe someone can ID the movie for me. I'm thinking it was made for TV, but who knows. Anyway, here is all I recall of it...

It was about a smuggler. It seemed to be set in the 1700s either England or possibly Revolutionary America, but I'm shying away from the setting as American for some reason. The hero had long dark hair with bangs. (My 14 year old self thought he was so handsome; I might think differently now.) Anyway, there was a blonde heroine who may have been an orphan with a little brother. I remember a little kid in it. She owned farm land that had smuggling caves on it. It was located near water. There was a romance between the two, but his smuggling kinda got in the way of a happy ending I think. It could have been that he was a folk hero type, like the Swamp Fox, but it wasn't the Swamp Fox. It was definitely a movie, not a television series.

There is at least one scene in a cave where the contraband is hidden with the hero. I don't recall if he was with the boy or other smuggling friends or the girl. Maybe it was with the girl telling him to give up the smuggling. And of course this is something that he has to do for some reason he isn't telling her. I'm thinking his little hidey hole was found by British soldiers (which makes me think it could be Revolutionary America, though that still doesn't feel right to me).

I also remember this big panoramic scene of the girl's farm with her running, but maybe I'm on crack and confusing this with Heidi or the Sound of Music! It was so long ago. I just remember being totally enamored of the movie. I was such a romantic back then.

I don't recall anything other than this. I'm guessing it was made in the late 70's or early 80's. I really don't think it was the film April Morning. The theme seemed to be smuggling more than revolution, but I could be remembering this wrong. Any help you could throw my way would be much appreciated!

So - a rare HaBO: the oddly romance-drenched smuggling television movie. Anyone?

35 comments •

Categories: Help a Bitch Out

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

by SB Sarah • Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 11:43 AM

I was working on a list of questions submitted by Bitchery readers for an interview with freelance writer Paul Tolme, but unfortunately, Mr. Tolme is on deadline, and has found that he does not have the time for an interview with us as originally thought. Major bummer! He has, however, written the following letter.

First off, thanks for all the kind comments. The response to my Newsweek.com story has been overwhelming. You romance novel readers and writers are a passionate bunch. I’ve been applauded, castigated, criticized and propositioned.

Now let me apologize. I poked fun at the entire genre of romance novels in my story, and that was wrong. For this I have been disciplined. I was a bad boy, and I’ve been properly spanked. Not all romance novels are created equal.

Lastly, the outpouring of financial support for black-footed ferrets by romance readers and writers including Nora Roberts and Smart Bitches is extremely heartening. This crazy saga of plagiarism and hot romance has done more to highlight the plight of black-footed ferrets than any event in recent history.

Through the efforts of individuals such as Travis Livieri and others, the species is slowly returning. There are now 1,000 in the wild, and captive breeding programs are helping to reintroduce ferrets to more portions of their former range every year. The big obstacle is habitat loss. The vast prairie ecosystem that once covered the heartland of our nation has been almost entirely converted to human uses. Surely we can save a few small corners of the prairie for black-footed ferrets, prairie dogs and other threatened species such as burrowing owls and mountain plovers. It is a test of our humanity.

Best wishes and lots of love to all you romance readers. Your passion is sorely needed in the effort to save not just black-footed ferrets but all endangered species. I urge you to learn more by visiting sites such as www.prairiewildlife.org, www.defenders.org and www.nationalwildlife.org. Having my work copied in a romance novel has introduced me to an audience of readers I knew little about, and for that I am glad.

Now if you will excuse me I have to get to work on my sexy wildlife romance novel.

Cheers,

Paul Tolme

52 comments •

Categories: Cassie Edwards

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

by SB Sarah • Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 09:13 AM

It's that time of year: we're t-minus one month away from Valentine's Day, and it's time once again for media outlets to start pestering the romance writers because certainly romance writers, they are More Romantic and Sexy than the rest of us mere mortals. Pass the feather boa, because I need one to finish this entry.

A brilliant author forwarded me the following request from the Washington Post, and it is so over the top, well, judge for yourself:

Dear Romance Writers,

For a Valentine's Day story for the Washington Post Home Section, I'm hoping to feature the bedrooms of a couple of local romance writers (who better to create a romantic ambience [sic] than you creative ladies? And if there is a man among you with a romantic bedroom, that would be totally cool).

I'd appreciate it if you could send my query to your Washington area members to explain what I'm seeking:

*A couple of digital pictures of your romantic boudoir, preferably in daylight (even if it was designed to look fab in candlelight).

* You should be in at least one of the photos, since if you're chosen, you will probably be in the picture. (Feel free to wrap yourself in a feather boa or come-hither pegnoir).

*Your bedroom certainly does not have to be "done" by a professional designer or decorator, but it should look good (if you want to declutter a bit before photographing the space, by all means, have at it).

*The rooms do not have to be frilly/girly/pink, Victorian or any other stereoptyical romance-writer look. They can be Zen, minimialist, historic, Art Deco, Scottish tartan, country, shabby chic, cowgirl funky, whatever. The room just has to telegraph Romance and Love.

*Those of you who want to share your sanctum sanctorum should include a couple of paragraphs about what is romantic about it (extra points given for a heart shaped bed), and perhaps where some of your favorite things came from (great granny, your first great love, Wal-Mart, Sotheby's),

* I'll need your real name and your nom de plume, as well as a daytime phone number so I can get in touch with you. Practically speaking, the rooms we choose will probably have to be no further than 50 -75 miles from downtown Washington so we can get a Post photographer there to shoot it.

Ladies, this is your chance to spread a little Romance Writer Valentine cheer to your readers and to ours. I do hope you'll spread the word. I need the images and little eassays [sic] in hand by Jan. 25 so we can shoot the following week.

Thanks in advance for all your help. I remain,

Breathlessly yours, ----

148 comments •

Categories: Ranty McRant

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

by SB Sarah • Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 06:57 AM

It’s all category, all day, here and at RomanceNovel.tv where both Candy and I are yammering in a video about category romance, while Jane from Dear Author is writing at the rn.tv blog about her experiences reading categories. Below is my entry on the subject.

Since I started my steady diet of category romance, I have learned the following three things:

1. I’m something of a judgmental wanker and I owe all category authors an apology. I dismissed this particular facet of romance because I didn’t think it was enough bang for my buck - I read so fast, it takes me about 2 hours to finish a category, at the most, and my prejudice was based on the fact that 2 hours is not a lot of enjoyment for the cover price. I was SO wrong. I’ve got plenty of enjoyment, like merde and mon dieu (TM Nathalie Grey). Yeah, my head? Was up my ass. I was SO wrong. Seems my own attitude needed adjustment, because as Marisa from RN.TV said while we were taping last week, category romances can be a perfect “quick fix” romance read, and so far, I’ve enjoyed many of the ones that I’ve read. So? I was wrong. I stand so very, very corrected.

2. Beyond my prejudice that size matters, I also dismissed the subgenre because I felt vaguely insulted by the concept: here’s a bunch of books this month! Next month, more, with similar titles, but not the same contents! It’s like WCKG FM in Chicago’s promo: “This may not be your favorite song, but it’s got a lot of the same notes.” As a consumer I felt like the category industry looked at the books as interchangeable parts, that one sheikh was as good as two billionaires (especially if they’re IN THE BUSH OMGLOLHAHAHA!) and I was all snorty about what I perceived as dismissal of me as a reader. Remember what I said about my head, relative to my ass? Yeah, that.

A wise category insider took pity on me and told me the following bits of info, which, as they are from one source, are unverified. Seems the titles that drive me so freaking nuts, oh, how they irritate the shit out of me? They’re all based on “hook words” that are tracked for their sales power. And books that experiment with the formula by using non-hook-word titles? Do not, in this individual’s research, sell as well. So all that sheikh virgin mistress baby boardroom tycoon billionaire title mix & match that drives me so bananas? Sells like crazy. And I have to wonder why the hook words work - my first guess is the reassurance that shopping by keyword guarantees a similar storyline every time. But I could be wrong.

3. Harlequin’s decision to issue all their titles as ebooks? Freaking brilliant. Well played, y’all.

51 comments •

Categories: RomanceNovel.tv • The Link-O-Lator

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

by SB Sarah • Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at 12:41 PM

I received this letter in my inbox a few moments ago from Travis Livieri, who worked with Paul Tolme on the original story about black footed ferrets, and who is currently the Executive Director of Prairie Wildlife Research:

it’s really encouraging to see so many people become interested in black-footed ferrets. It’s obvious to me that your website users are very passionate about romance novels and I can really appreciate passion for something. I’ve been working in the field with black-footed ferrets for 12 years, giving my best to restore this beautiful creature and I’m always amazed at the interest and generosity of folks when they learn about black-footed ferrets.

Paul has been a classy and generous gentleman in how he has handled the ‘controversy’ and we’ve both enjoyed the buzz this has created, particularly because it has focused attention on the plight of black-footed ferrets and endangered species. We’ve seen an immediate increase in the ‘adoption’ of black-footed ferrets (www.prairiewildlife.org and www.blackfootedferret.org , same adoption program) and the donation challenge by Nora Roberts with Defenders of Wildlife are tremendous examples of how wonderful romance novel readers are! I harbor no ill will towards Cassie Edwards and I sincerely hope there are no negative ramifications for Cassie, the romance novel community or anyone else.

I actually ordered a copy of the book for myself and will always smile when I think about romance novels.

Have a great day!

Travis

85 comments •

Categories: Cassie Edwards

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

by SB Sarah • Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at 10:32 AM

Bitchery Reader JMC writes:

I've finally succumbed to the lure of the HABO. I'm searching for an older (late 80s, very early 90s) series romance novel. It's driving me crazy. A couple of used booksellers have tried to help, but no luck. So I'm hoping all of the Smart Bitches can help.

I read it either as a senior in high school or a freshman in college, which would've been in 1991. I'm leaning toward high school, since college curtailed much of my romance reading. Pretty sure it was a category/series, but I'm not sure which line; likely a Presents or Hqn Romance.

Set in the UK. Heroine is an actress who gets offered a part in an historical movie about Richard the Lionhearted and his crusade. She's worked with the other actors before in her only other big role, a movie about Shakespeare and his patron. Married one of them but then broke up in a big scandal. Turns out the ex is not only directing (I think) but doing the screenwriting here as well.

She's got red hair -- early in the book she's happy b/c her agent got her cast in a shampoo commercial based on her hair.

Turns out that the big scandal was all a Big Mis engineered by the other actor who was angry about their chemistry on set ruining his big break into movies.

Help? Anyone?

Man, that doesn't ring any bells for me - I'm thinking of a combination of about four books I've read. Anyone got the answer?

25 comments •

Categories: Help a Bitch Out

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

by SB Sarah • Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at 09:49 AM

Here’s an unusual request for help from our masterful collective mental library of awesome: Andrew, who has been lurking for awhile, sold a book. Yay, Andrew! Funny thing is, he’s a novelist who’s publisehd 17 novels, mostly Fantasy and Science Fiction. Trouble is, this time he’s being told by the purchaser of his manuscript that he’s written a… paranormal romance.

“Really?!” says Andrew.

“Oh, yes,” sayeth his publisher. “You’ve written a ‘dark historical paranormal fantasy romance.’” AND, hot diggity for Andrew, it’s a series.

But Andrew, he is befuddled, and he is no dummy. Instead of being all, “Eeeeyew I don’t write romance!” he turns to the Bitchery for help. He needs a reading list:

Thing is, since I’ve been a SF/Fantasy writer for the past fifteen years, and not a romance author, my knowledge of the genre is only a few pages deep.

What I’d like is a good crash course in (preferably in-print and/or readily available) books you all think a neophyte (paranormal) romance author should read. Not only archetypal examples I’d need to be familiar with, but if you’re inclined, a few examples of “Oh God, please don’t do this!”

I asked Andrew for more specific details about his book, because the term “paranormal romance” encompasses as many diverse varieties as the word “food,” and he wrote:

87 comments •

Categories: Good Shit vs. Shit to Avoid

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

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