AGlimpseIntoWhatWeTalkAboutDuringWorkHours

by Candy Wednesday, August 17, 2005 at 09:16 AM

Here’s a snippet of an e-mail conversation that started out about the weird periodic outages Smart Bitches has been experiencing on the West Coast. It quickly degenerated into… well, you’ll see.

Sarah: I will email Esosoft and ask about the outages. I know I was online yesterday at about 7.40 EDT, which would correspond to 4.40 PDT, and didn’t have a problem, but I wouldn’t bet the farm that the times coincided exactly. Anyway, I’ll email them. Weird, I tell you.

Candy: Heh, I wonder why it’d be OK on the East Coast but not on the West? I’d think it was due to fuckery on my company’s end, except it’s happened to me at home, too, and other Esosoft sites aren’t down.

In other gross news: I just put on my jacket ‘cause the office is motherfucking COLD, y’all. And I think Eric drooled all over it last night because I smell cat spit.

Let me repeat that: I’m at work, and I smell like cat spit.

Sarah: You smell like cat spit? I smell like Oliver love rubbing drool, too, because he rubbed his face all over my sweater and now it smells like him - and has a looooot of orange hairs on it in places I can’t reach. GAH.

Cat spit. Very sexy. I bet Hermes stocks it in eau de parfum.

Candy: Yeah--cat spit is one of the most potent aphrodisiacs in the world. Casanova used liberal applications of it together with oysters and the like to seduce women.

Sarah: I seriously think, to delve into the off-color for a moment, that you need to market yourself with the married woman-cat spit combo. The musk of the illicit with your marital status, coupled with the unmistakable allure of cat spit, and you’ll have to beat the men away from yourself with a stick. A big one.

Candy: To make your off-color comment even more off-color: What kind of a stick? Is it fleshy and throbbing?

Sarah: Hee! Well, it depends on the individual you’re trying to beat off. He might come with his own stick, though!

Candy: Mmmmm, duelling throbbing sticks… Like duelling banjos, only with less creepy, inbred hillbilly idiot savants!

Or so I’d hope, anyway.

Picture of {name}
10 commentsTrackback Bookmark to del.icio.us Add to Technorati favorites Digg this post on digg.com RSS
Categories: Random Musings

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

Click.Read.LaughuntilNoseBleeds.

by Candy Tuesday, August 16, 2005 at 04:44 PM

Oh boy. Those of you who like the snarking we dish out every week on our Covers Gone Wild feature will looooove this site: It’s Not Porn, Really!

Books, judged solely by their covers. I love it.

Bam’s other blog, It’s Not Chick Porn! is also a hoot.

Bam is now my favorite romance-reading sociopathic bisexual girl.

Picture of {name}
15 commentsTrackback Bookmark to del.icio.us Add to Technorati favorites Digg this post on digg.com RSS
Categories: The Link-O-Lator

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

Buy!Buy!Buy!

by Candy Tuesday, August 16, 2005 at 02:21 PM

I’ve been meaning to post a link about this for DAYS now but I keep spacing it out like the good little space cadet I am.

Anyway, Marianne Mancusi’s house was struck by lightning while she was in Reno for the RWA conference. She lost everything--everything except her dog (which, seriouly? Made me sniffle in relief when I read about it). Luckily, some truly awesome people have rallied round and donated all sorts of stuff, AND there are all sorts of eBay auctions going on now, with the proceeds going to Marianne.

We Smart Bitches are donating two items: a Guest Bitchery session (auction ending in approximately 1 day, 18 hours, so bid soon, motherfuckers!), whereby you can bitch to your heart’s content right here in this little space of ours, and a manuscript critique by Sarah and me (kinda like a review! But without the public evisceration!).

Me? I’m coveting the autographed copy of Bet Me. (Yeah, y’all are feeling surprised, somehow?) But there are loads of other goodies too, including other autographed books and manuscript critiques from people who can actually walk the walk, as opposed to a couple of smart-mouthed chippies who have never finished writing a novel in their lives but who have very definite opinions on what’s crrrap and what’s not.

So go forth! Bid! Spend wantonly! It’s for a good cause.

Picture of {name}
Leave a commentTrackback Bookmark to del.icio.us Add to Technorati favorites Digg this post on digg.com RSS
Categories: News

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

SmartBitchesInterviewwithGayleWilson,President-ElectofRWA

by SB Sarah Monday, August 15, 2005 at 11:52 AM

We, the Smart Bitches Candy and Sarah, are proud to present the first in what we hope will be a series of interviews regarding the romance world, and who better to start with than Gayle Wilson, President-Elect of Romace Writers of America.

We asked Ms. Wilson a few questions, addressing recent events and other Very Important Issues, and here are her erudite answers, though she asks that we clarify that she is answering for herself, and not as a spokesperson for the RWA. We Smart Bitches love it when people are willing to speak for themselves, so welcome and thank you, Gayle, for being our first interview!

1. We read your apology and our readers thought it was a very appropriate response. What do you have to say to angered members of RWA who are still very upset regarding the recent decisions of the RWA, aside from the awards ceremony (e.g. the graphical standards policy, the survey of what constitutes romance)? What would you like to say to members who are outraged at the overall direction the organization seems to have taken?

Please understand that I am not the official spokesperson for RWA.  What I say here is only the opinion of one member in good standing, albeit one who attends a lot of board meetings.

I believe that one of the biggest problems this year has been our failure to communicate promptly and appropriately with our members.  In some cases, like the definition of romance controversy, the board was considering areas in which our financial resources should not be committed.  For example, should RWA provide space at our conferences for publishers who don’t publish romance, and if so, how do we define “romance”?  In this instance, because we evidently didn’t make that motive perfectly clear to members, some of them came to believe that the board was trying to shut them out of RWA.  On the graphical standards issue the board was trying to protect the organization from having extremely graphic ads in our publications that we were told might trigger postal regulations requiring different and expensive packaging for our magazine.  In that case, the board’s decision was rushed because we didn’t have complete and accurate information.  As soon as we received that, we suspended the standards until a member committee could consider whether there was a need for them.

I personally believe that if the members had been immediately informed of the whys and wherefores of some of the decisions made this year, much of the current distrust would not exist.  The board is made up of people who truly have RWA’s best interests at heart.  We have, however, made mistakes.  We regret them, and we have learned from them.  I know that simply saying that will not reassure outraged members, but I hope that by our future actions we can restore the trust that was damaged this year.  That’s one of my major goals.

More,more,more!>
Picture of {name}
46 commentsTrackback Bookmark to del.icio.us Add to Technorati favorites Digg this post on digg.com RSS
Categories: Interviews & Smart Responses

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

AnotherChancetoEducateCandy!

by Candy Monday, August 15, 2005 at 08:34 AM

Update! Sylvia Day posts Debra Dixon’s rebuttal, and based on other evidence, concludes that Medallion dropped the ball. The comments have some interesting reading material, too. Found the link on Alison’s blog.

A couple of days ago, Kate Rothwell posted a letter from the CEO/Editor-in-Chief of Medallion Press about how their status as RWA-approved publisher has been yanked.

OK, I can see the value of vetting a publisher and giving it an organization’s Stamp of Approval so that aspiring authors who sell to small presses can be assured that they’re legit operations, not scam jobs.

But this part of the letter struck me as very, very strange:

Several months prior to Book Expo America 2005, we received a call from your [the RWA] office alerting us to the fact that you would be sending out a letter asking us to re-qualify for RWA approval. We were also told at that time that we had done nothing to warrant the re-qualification, but that your organization was having trouble with a particular publisher and chose not to single them out.

How weird does THAT sound? One iffy publisher was under investigation, but all the other small presses had to go through the re-qualifying process so that the iffy publisher’s feelings weren’t hurt?

Weird, weird, weird. I don’t get it. Can someone enlighten me on why this would be necessary?

Also, how often in the past has the RWA cleaned house for its list of approved small presses? Or is this the first time it has made presses that previously qualified go through the qualification process AGAIN with no evidence of malfeasance (e.g. opening up a vanity press division)?

I’m genuinely curious. Anyone care to educate me?

Please?

Picture of {name}
19 commentsTrackback Bookmark to del.icio.us Add to Technorati favorites Digg this post on digg.com RSS
Categories: The Link-O-Lator

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

Page 407 of 477 pages « FirstP  <  405 406 407 408 409 >  Last »