









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.
10 comments •
Trackback •
Categories: Random Musings
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.






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.
15 comments •
Trackback •
Categories: The Link-O-Lator
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.



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.
Leave a comment •
Trackback •
Categories: News
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.









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.
2. Aside from the pressure of addressing decisions made by a previous board, what are your goals for the RWA? What key areas do you feel need to be addressed?
We need to get a handle on the innovations in technology, both for our own uses within the organization (such as the new software mentioned below) and so that we can understand the changes taking place within the industry. We have a new five-year strategic plan which addresses the need for us to be cognizant not only of what’s happening now, but of what looms on the horizon. It also acknowledges that we need better communication with our membership, more education in the form of contract reviews and analyses to help them in their career choices, and perhaps even a for-profit subsidiary to provide them with services we can’t provide under our current tax status. And *please* take note that we are only studying the feasibility and advisability of the latter right now. It may not work out, but again, as an organization we must always be thinking ahead of the curve.
As writers, we’re living in a period of tremendous change in terms of technology, both in publication and distribution. At the same time we seem to be facing an ever-shrinking market for print material of all kinds. Society is rapidly evolving in terms of leisure pastimes. The movie industry is facing some of the same problems we face. Frankly, it’s going to be challenging to continue the great success romance has traditionally enjoyed, but we’re dedicated to doing the best we can to see that happens.
3. Based on reader and author comments, some people are concerned that there’s a communication disconnect between the Board and the rank-and-file members. Do you think there’s a communication issue? If yes, what do you think can be done to address these issues? Would an interactive website that allows members to track issues and proposals be an option?
I think we absolutely must communicate better, and that’s one of our primary goals for next year. We need to use Chaplink, our chapter presidents’ loop, to get information to members quickly through their chapter leaders. We need to use that loop to solicit ideas, as well. The presidents have their ears to the ground, to use a cliché, and they often know what members are concerned about before we do. Communication should always run both ways, and often, as in any organization, people don’t write the board until we’ve upset them. In addition to that, the board definitely needs to do a better job of explaining the reasoning behind decisions and of letting members see, at the very least, the most compelling information we consider when we make them.
The idea of an interactive website might be possible with the new software the organization has just purchased. That will be up and running in January, I believe, after all members of the staff have been trained in its use. The software can track committees and their charges and even allow committee chairs to upload their own reports. The office is excitedly trying to figure out all the ways in which the software can make information gathering, storage and dispersal easier and more useful to the organization. I’m very hopeful about its possibilities.
4. Romance genre question: In your opinion, is there room at the table for erotic romance? Gay/lesbian romance?
In my opinion, it’s a very big table. Our market share is the envy of every other genre, and I think that’s *because* of our diversity. Within romance, we literally have something for everyone’s tastes. Besides, as the board said in our statement at conference: The organization doesn’t define the genre; the genre defines the organization. And the genre is vibrant and growing and evolving.
Romance Writers of America is the largest writers’ group in the world because we have always been inclusive. Personally, I would not want us to be any other way. I know that most of my fellow board members feel the same way. When someone joins RWA, we ask them to acknowledge that they are pursuing a career in romance writing. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t free to write in other genres as well. As an organization, we must be concerned with serving the needs of our core membership—those who *are* actively pursuing a career in romance--but we certainly aren’t out to deny to any of our members the incredible array of services that attract so many writers to this group.
5. Recently, some members (including Jenny Crusie) have expressed concern about the public image of the RWA, and some readers of ours have described the inner workings using terms such as “the ladies having tea, the cat-fighting, the country club snobbery.” Others are concerned about the potential decline in credibility after the recent Board’s decisions to address cover art and the definition of romance. Do you agree that the public image is tarnished, and, if so, how would you go about addressing this?
I would hate to think that our image has been tarnished. I think most of these issues were within the membership, but I admit that when there are multiple internal issues, the controversy does begin to spill out into the industry and possibly into the public domain. The internet has some effect on that with the popularity of blogging. Authors talk about their concerns in their blogs and readers, editors, and publishers pick up on them. The days of keeping the organization’s business known only to the organization’s membership are over. But then that’s true for any organization.
“Cat fighting” and “ladies having tea” seem contradictions in terms to me. I don’t believe most of us in RWA engage in those or in snobbery either. In all honesty, most of us are too busy trying to keep abreast of changes in our industry and in making a living.
As far as addressing the image of romance, tarnished or not, I think we continue to do what we’ve done for the last ten years. We publicize our market share, our diversity, and the incredible successes of our members. We’ve just renewed the academic grant program for another year, and I think that will eventually pay big dividends in the area of image outside the community. We’ve made huge strides in the last few years in letting people know the positives of romance. We just have to continue to work as hard as we have been to spread that message.
6. Why do you think romance art departments think we want to read books with covers featuring men whose breasts are bigger than ours?
LOL. I think you’d better direct that question to the art departments. (Hey, something RWA can’t be blamed for! )
7. Most important question: what are you reading right now? Who are your favorite “auto-buy*” authors and what genres are your favorites? (*An auto-buy author is someone whose books you buy automatically with no inspection of the plot. You already know it’s going to be good.)
Right now, I’m mostly reading e-mails
I really wish I had more time to read more. Before I began writing, I read probably 5-20 books a week, depending on whether it was summer (when I wasn’t teaching) or during the school term. Now, being on the Board of Directors, trying to write, meeting family obligations—well, you all know that drill. Also, after sitting at the computer all day, manipulating my own words and characters and plot, I find that I don’t grab a book to relax into as readily as I once did. It’s harder to get into someone else’s story after being so immersed in mine.
That said, my all-time favorite author is Dorothy Dunnett, who wrote historical fiction and contemporary British mysteries. The six books that make up her Lymond Chronicles and King Hereafter are my comfort reads. I’ve probably read each a dozen times.
In romance, I read very widely. Of course, I have favorite authors and favorite themes and friends who are auto-buys. If I start to name them, however, I’m bound to leave someone out. I know you don’t want me to cause hard feelings.
I also read straight mysteries—people like James Lee Burke, Elizabeth George, and James Patterson. I like Gene Wolfe in Science Fiction, although I’m not perfectly sure that’s the right genre for what he does. I read horror by people like Koontz and King. Sometimes I just get on a reading kick because of a movie I see or an article I read. For example, I read the Hornblower series by Forester because of the A&E movies with Ioan Gruffud. So…I’m actually a pretty equal opportunity reader, but romance is always my first love.





46 comments •
Trackback •
Categories: Interviews & Smart Responses
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.





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?
19 comments •
Trackback •
Categories: The Link-O-Lator
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.