Regardless of my history as mood philosophy, my historicals still far outsell my contemporaries.  In fact, overall in the romance world everywhere – historicals tend to far outsell contemporaries.  And that bothers me.  It bothers me a lot.  There are some great contemporary writers and some fabulous stories set in our very own era.  I like to think that some of those fabulous contemporaries, a couple of them to date, are mine.  And just like my historicals – my “now” is apt to look and feel a lot different because from over the top, everything looks better. 

I wish we could give contemporaries their own month.  Better yet, why not give them their own season.  Yes, I think Spring should be the era of now.

As we anticipate the “Spring Into A Contemporary” movement, we’re sprucing up our contemporaries with brand new titles.  To be more accurate – we’re adding a subtitle.  The change has already been made to one book - Griffin’s is now – Dangerous Relations:  Griffin’s Law.   We’ll be changing the other one – now titled The Billionaire’s E-mail Seduction — shortly.  The covers of both books will catch up soon too. 

Why the change?  It came about because we were tinkering with the title of my WIP, which is – you guessed it – a contemporary.  I’d been calling it “The Office Ink” or “The Office Ink Spells Murder”.  But while the book centers around a murder – it’s mostly a romance.  This murder occurs at a family law firm.  After my dearest hubby suggested the subtitle, I realized that not only does it suit “Office Ink,” it also suits all my contemporaries. 

My contemporaries are all focused on what happens when love intersects with the law.  Dangerous Relations describes events for the lovers and events surrounding the lovers.  It’s a great “hook” for all of the books and we hope the “hook” reels in more readers to check out how now looks from over the top. 

We haven’t settled on a firm title for E-mail yet.  Adding the subtitle to the front of E-mail would produce a title of unwieldy length.  It’s current title is already a little wordy.  I’m thinking of “Dangerous Relations: Tempting The Billionaire” or “Dangerous Relations:  Seducing The Billionaire”  or “Dangerous Relations:  Enticing The Billionaire.” But that title is still up in the air. 

I do hope that more readers will make it a point to pick up a contemporary – particularly one of mine!  It’ll remind all of us that all the excitement, spark and sizzle of love didn’t end with the Regency era.  Love is as timeless and eternal as forever. We may live in “now” rather than “then,” but we still deserve a happy ending – and some quacking good fun reaching it. 

Join us at QA Romances this year and SPRING INTO A CONTEMPORARY!!!

Sci-Fi novels sell inexplicably well. The fact that we have an illiteracy rate of almost 50% might be partly to blame for the popularity of science fiction. Many people don’t have the ability to read books written at a level any higher than children’s books or science fiction novels. Regardless, sci-fi sells so well that there are more and more articles and interviews with science fiction writers where they are put on pedestals and treated as though they belong in the select company of writers of much higher standing – like romance novelists.

What readers need to understand is that science fiction novels – by their very nature – are meant to be inferior. Surely, no ivy league colleges will ever teach science fiction novels as part of the curriculum. No science fiction novel will ever be thought of as a classic alongside Spencer, Dickens, Quinn, Lindsey, Garwood or Woodiwiss. If a science fiction tale were that good, it would simply be known as drama or literary fiction or a classic horror tale. No one would ever call Well’s “The Time Machine” or Bradbury’s “Farenheit 451″ science fiction novels. They would be referred to as classic scientific fiction.

The very thing that separates classic scientific fiction from sci-fi novels is that sci-fi novels must by default be bad, tacky even or they’ll no longer be classified as sci-fi and will get placed in a higher category.

It’s difficult to respect something deliberately meant to be a lessor work. One should always do great work. If a writer classifies his own book as science fiction, that tells me that even he doesn’t think much of it. If that’s the case, readers shouldn’t think much of it either.

——————————-

The logic makes as much sense when applied to science fiction as it does when applied to romance now, doesn’t it?  That is to say – it makes less sense than I do at 6 a.m. before my morning coffee.  Truthfully, science fiction is a fine genre with some amazing work and there are writers out there putting out some steller stuff.  Yes, some of it may even be taught in colleges one day – right down the hall from courses on romance.

Wait – courses on romance have been taught in some amazing colleges, haven’t they?  And Eloisa James, a graduate of Harvard, Yale and Oxford is a Shakespeare professor at Fordham University.  Oh, yes, and she’s written many New York Times bestselling ROMANCE NOVELS.  (But don’t tell Mr. McCaskey.  The strain of wrapping his brain around that information would probably be too much for him.)

Boogle on over and quack out your thoughts!!!

The stove is stainless steel with a black ceramic surface, convection cooking, a hidden lower cooking element and a steam clean option.  It was born and bred right here in the USA.  It replaces a stove that was new in 1986 when our house was built.  We got our old stove with the house when we bought it in 1993.  It was a coil eye stove and the thing was so old that we couldn’t find any eyes that fit properly to replace one that died.  My hubby had reinstalled the upper heating element in the oven a couple of times.  We had more stains than you could count on the lower heating element.  Cleaning meant “Easy Off” fumes and lots of elbow grease. 

The new stove is beautiful and it’s expecting a little Maytag friend soon – a stainless dishwasher that should be delivered in early February.  I don’t even want to talk about how gross our dishwasher is.  Suffice it to say, the thing was – like our stove- new in 1986, purchased with the house and it is now falling apart – literally. 

I was staring at the stove and thinking about life last night.  See, the stove and dishwasher were purchased with a combination of writing money and the Christmas bonus from my day job. And last night while I stared at it, the little hamster that turns the wheel in my head woke up and commenced running.  When my hamster brain ran hard enough, the light bulb turned on – and I smiled. 

I’ve always believed that I’d be successful when my fiction writing paid enough to allow me to quit my day job and write full time.  That’s still my goal.  I still believe that being a full time author is where I’ll be happiest and most fulfilled.  But my stove made me realize that maybe I was committing the same error as our politicans in Congress.  My stove made me realize that compromise doesn’t always mean failure – sometimes it’s a hallmark of success. 

Like just about everyone everywhere I’ve had to make a bunch of compromises since the bottom fell out of the economy.  I’ve had to get to the point where I prioritized bills – the houshold bills first, then my eldest son’s college expenses and then everything else.  The everything else means that I pay what I can on everything else and either the companies deal with that or they don’t.  And because I grew up in a perienally poor household where I got stuck talking to all those creditors, having a re-run of that era had convinced me that I was a complete failure.  My stove made me realize that wasn’t true.

I’ve reached a point with my day job and my writing where I could get my eldest back to UCF for the Spring Semester of his Junior year and we could replace our ancient stove and dishwasher.  I’m not writing on my fiction full time but I do essentially write full time.  (My day job mainly consists of legal research and writing.) That means that I haven’t reached my goal — but I have progressed on my journey.  

And success isn’t measured solely by reaching that one goal.  If I reach it — when I reach it — there will be a new goal.  If I don’t have goals I have no direction for my life.  So there will always be a goal.  But the goal is only a mile marker – it’s not the finish line.  As long as I’m running towards the next marker and making progress, then I’m not a complete failure.  Even if the phone is still ringing and my answering machine is still full of hang up calls, I’m not a complete failure.  I’d only be a complete failure if I failed to try and just threw up my hands. I’d only be a complete failure if I stopped setting goals and heading towards them.

I haven’t said “I can’t.”  I’ve said, “I haven’t gotten there yet.”  And I’m still in the race and heading in the right direction.   I’ve made progress and the next time I doubt that, I’ll look at my shiny new stove.  It’s a concrete reminder that success isn’t a destination – it’s a journey.  In our horrendous present economy, many people have been forced to face things they’d rather not, and do things they’d sworn not to.  It would be awfully easy to say – I can’t or I won’t or I quit.  No matter how tempting it is to throw in the towel, I owe it to myself and my family to continue running along the road, heading for the next mile marker. 

It’s important to allow ourselves time to stop and assess when we reach certain plateaus.  The stove might not seem like much to lots of folks, but it means a lot to me.  Success is a very individual thing but certain things about it are common to all of us.  Success is not getting to one place or achieving one thing – it’s staying in the race and keeping that towel firmly in hand, ready to wipe sweat from our brows, tears from our eyes — or sometimes,  just sometimes to wave in a cheer. 

The next time you’re in a place where you’re thinking of throwing in the towel because you’re not where you wanted to be or planned to be, stop and take a look around at where you are.  You may not be at the next mile marker yet, but you’re not at the last one either.  Like me, you’re on the way. 

Success is a journey.  We may not make the trip the way we planned and we may have to stop and plot a new route.  None of that means we got it wrong.  In fact, all of it means we’re getting it right.  Sometimes, along the way, life may throw in an appliance or two. If you look into the stainless steel hard enough, intently enough, your dreams might reflect right back at you.   They’re still there – bright and shiny and waiting, just waiting for you to reach out and grab ‘em on your way to all your future success. 

See – in the duck lady’s house, a Maytag just might turn out to be a crystal ball.

So, let’s hear it for the tropes!  Let’s give the tropes a hand!   There’s gold in some of those “overused” plot devices. 

As a previous post mentioned, I’m now the (proud, overjoyed, adoring) owner of a Kindle Fire. So I’ve been boogling around the Amazon, seeking valuable booty for my value-oriented budget.  Yep, I’ve been looking for a lot of stuff for a little money.  In this economy – who isn’t, right?  Well, while I’ve been boogling, I’ve realized how important those tropes can be.  Some of ‘em will make me click the “read more” button on the description every time. Others have to be exceptional to hook me.  You know what I realized? 

There are certain tropes that I love in my romances.  No matter how often I read those plots, I’m still apt to check out the next book with a similar plot device that catches my eye.  The types of tropes we treasure may be very similar, or they may be as vast and varied and different as we are as people.  But, I’ll bet if you tickle your memory “bone”, you’ll realize that there are certain tropes that draw you in too.

What does it for me?  My list is too long for me to recall entirely – even on a good day.  But I’ll almost always check out the full product description for guardian/ward romances.  I’ll do the same for “almost” sibling romances or for those where a fellow falls head over toenails for his best friend’s little sister – or even for his daughter’s best friend.  I think it’s the lure of the forbidden in varying degrees in all of those stories that draws me in, combined in some of ‘em with the angst of someone falling for someone who’s way, way too young for them – by society’s rules anyway. 

Often the tropes will combine, and touches of the “forbidden” added to betrayal will also get me to click more almost as a matter of reflex.  I love stories where one brother falls for another’s intended or where the heroine has a mad case of bad, mad love-ust for her big sister or best friend’s boyfriend or betrothed.  If a writer sets up the hero as an “honorable beyond reproach” type – then I can’t wait to watch him find the lady who teaches him lessons in humanity.  Sometimes these come where the heroine meets a guide taking her to her father, family, big brother or betrothed.  Together they confront a vast, wild terrain that’s only partly composed of setting and scenery.

I could go on – and on and on – but you get the point. Likely, you got it earlier, but then, likely you’re much brighter than a daft duck lady.  The point is that there are tropes I love – in part- because they are tropes.  ”I Love Lucy” features a daffy leading lady I feel ”not so strangely” connected to.  In lots of those shows Lucy got into hilarious hot water because of her ongoing desire to be a part of Ricky’s show.  Yeah, it was a trope and yeah, it still makes me laugh every time I watch.  It’s like “knock knock” jokes – you have some idea where it’s going, but you know you’ll enjoy the trip anyway. 

I think tropes get a bad rap.  They’re the Rodney Dangerfeld of creative concoctions. Tropes just “don’t get no respect. No respect, no repect at all …”   Lord knows, the PCP (PC Police), like to turn up their better-than-thou noses at anything they consider to be – even remotely trope-like.  And yet, if you view life in the right light – with more than a touch of humor – you’ll realize that members of the PCP have themselves become – TROPES.  Yes, Virginia, it’s true.  Just think about it……

The next time you’re about to decide that you’re so bright you need stronger shades and you’re way, way too smart to be hooked by a trope of any kind, size, shape or description – I’ve got a point you need to ponder.  One of the biggest reasons people read romance is for the happy ending.  Most people – me, particularly, being amongst that number – consider the “Happy Ending” or HEA to be a feature that defines romance, as in, if it ain’t got a HEA it can’t be a romance. 

Well, that does make a HEA a common plot device. Since it appears in every book that can claim to be a romance, then it is certainly so well used that if anything’s “overused” a HEA must be amongst that number.  So that makes a HEA – a trope.  

Like I said before – let’s hear it for the tropes!!!

Boogle on over to the Divas site and give my piece a read.  THERE’S A HUNKY GUY IN AN AMERICAN FLAG THAT MAKES THE CLICK WORTHWHILE ALL ON HIS YUMMY OWN. 

After you spend some quality time drooling over flag guy, be sure and leave a comment!

It’s not a list you’d expect to see Stephen King, James Frey and Lee Child on – now is it?  But they were just 3 of the nominated authors.  The full list includes:  

• 1Q84 by Haruki Murakami
• On Canaan’s Side by Sebastian Barry
• The Final Testament of the Holy Bible by James Frey
• Parallel Stories by Péter Nádas
• 11.22.63 by Stephen King
• Ed King by David Guterson
• The Land of Painted Caves by Jean M Auel
• The Affair by Lee Child
• Dead Europe by Christos Tsiolkas
• Outside the Ordinary World by Dori Ostermiller
• Everything Beautiful Began After by Simon Van Booy
• The Great Night by Chris Adrian.

This year’s prize was won by David Guterson for “Ed King,” which is described as a “reimagining of Oedipus Rex”.    With that book, should Mr. Guterson have been surprised to win the tongue-in-cheek honor?  One thinks —– not.  The author wasn’t surprised, as it turns out.  “Mr. Guterson sent a message: “Oedipus practically invented bad sex, so I’m not in the least bit surprised.”

In the ceremony where the award was presented to Guterson – or someone on behalf of his publisher, Bloomsbury,  the judges said Guterson’s sex scene won because of its  “uncertain register, euphemism and ineffective irony,” particularly in the part where “she abused him with a bar of soap.”  Parts of the entry that snagged Guterson the prize can be read here.    I haven’t read Guterson’s book, but the description of the “no man’s land” between a woman’s “front parlor” and “back door” made me want to scream at the author to remind him that even if a book isn’t a romance, a sex scene should always carry some emotion for the love of all ducks in the universe.  It shouldn’t ever read like confusing directions from the guy at the gas station.  Romance has truly gone by the wayside when a character in the middle of a sex scene makes observations like  “a freshly made ear and a freshly made vagina look very much alike”.  That one’s from Murakami’s 1Q84, by the way. 

One of the authors nominated this year had the dubious honor of having been nominated before.  Christos Tsiolkas, whose “Dead Europe” was nominated this year, responded last year to his prior nomination for “The Slap” by speculating that the judges had “weird formative sex experiences at Eton”.     As Tsiolkas’ comment was mentioned at this year’s ceremony at London’s In and Out Club, a member of the audience noted that the author’s theory sounded “completely reasonable.” 

The books’ highly sexed leading characters are compared to ”wakening beasts, lightning rods, outrageous sea creatures and “the midnight train.” Quotes from this year’s nominees include:

“In the shower, Ed stood with his hands at the back of his head, like someone just arrested, while she abused him with a bar of soap.” (Ed King/Guterson)

“She was wearing jeans. The fabric whispered under my palm. She leaned back and her head bonked on the door. ‘Ouch!’ I said. ‘Are you all right?’” (11.22.63/King)

“[Her breasts] seemed to be virtually uninfluenced by the force of gravity, the nipples turned beautifully upward, like a vine’s new tendrils seeking sunlight.” (1Q84/Murakami)

“Faster, harder, faster, harder. The room began to shake. Just faintly at first, like a mild constant tremor, like the edge of a far distant earthquake. The French door trembled in its frame. A glass rattled on the bathroom shelf. The floor quivered. The hall door creaked and shuttered. My shoes hopped and moved. The bedhead hammered against the wall. The floor shook hard. The walls boomed. Coins in my abandoned pocket tinkled.” (The Affair/Child)

None of my books has made the list yet. I think that’s because I can’t write a sex scene without remembering that romance isn’t about sex – sex is about romance.  Likely, my books also haven’t made the list because the judges haven’t heard of me — yet.  But you never know – my books on Amazon are selling quite well in the UK so next year might be my year. 

If next year’s my year I’ll begin my acceptance speech by commenting on the trophy and suggesting where they might put their foot….

The video is a Kensington romance novel covershoot and includes some great comments from industry pros at the publishing house.  About the second or third time you watch it, you might be able to pay attention to the comments.  Don’t even try to take in the dialogue the first time around. The first time is a feast for the eyes and spirits of all who find returning to work after a holiday a real downer.

And like the headline says:  You’re Welcome.

The RWA Prez had been judging a Food Network Romance Cakes cooking competition. She ruled out one of the finalists because it showed a married couple.  She said books featuring a married couple weren’t romance novels. 

It’s an interesting question.  What is romance? What books fit the genre?  I guess every reader and every writer has their own definition.  To me, a book is only a romance if it fits three key criteria. 

First and foremost AND forever, amen – to be a romance it must have a happy ending.  By that, I mean that by story’s end the hero and the heroine must have committed themselves to more than a relationship. They must have committed themselves to each other forever.  (My definition of a happy ending is pretty strict for such a loosey goosey duck lady, isn’t it?)

Second, the book must focus on the relationship between a couple. And third, the book must focus more on internal than external action.  It’s both an exact and a very loose definition.  But I don’t think every book that many consider a romance fits.  Several of Nicholas Sparks don’t fit the definition because there’s no HEA. Gabaldon’s “Outlander” doesn’t fit for the same reason. 

A romance novel is a tale of the heart.  Action, interaction, scenery and setting are window dressing. Emotion creates the story, emotion carries the story and emotion concludes the story.

The other writing divas are much saner, normal folks.   I’m their monthly dose of over-the-top duck-borne daffiness. 

I wrote the post to start a discussion and expected it to arouse some passionate discord.  If you check the comments, you’ll see that it has.  But I’m always game for more. 

So, boogle on over to read the post and comment — agree, disagree or wander off on your very own tangent.  As y’all know, I also love a good tangent.