One of my titles is in the Washington Post!

Actually, it's Treva Harte of Loose Id, one of my publishers, who's in the WP. She gave a great interview! (Click on this post title to see it.) But, yes, one of my LI titles got a mention -- Exploring Savage Places, Book 3 of the Utopia-X series. Just a mention, mind you, but what a monster shock to see it. I mean, the effing Washington Post!

Many thanks to TeddyPig for his attentiveness to all things e-publishing. I caught wind of this on his blog, The Naughty Bits.

They come bearing gifts.

Doesn't it always start that way? You think they're making nice, so you open the gates. And . . . BLAMMY! Before you know it, an army of sweat-glazed, muscular Greeks with ravishment on their minds are clambering out of --

Uh, wait. Hmm. (Kris, might my gift have a trapdoor somewhere? Should I, like, keep it near the bed just in case?)

Pickled Photoshop

The demented darlings at Pickled Cupid (click on post title) have done it again. If you can look at this without having nightmares, you're a stronger person than I.

(Sorry... I can't even extend this post, because too many of my synapses have already sizzled into extinction.)

A Stunning Review from Book Utopia

Acts of the Saints, my near-dead Samhain black sheep, was generously resurrected by Book Utopia, one of the most impressive review sites for (often, but not exclusively) GLBT fiction. B.U. told me this was one of the longest reviews she'd ever written. Click on the post title to see it.

Honestly, I can't begin to say how much I respect a critique of this nature. The depth and detail of it--hell, the sheer intelligence behind it--leave me nearly awestruck. This is "textbook" reviewing. I'm enormously grateful for the time spent on a novel that's pretty much languished in oblivion for three years.

(Yes, this is the same book reviewed by Mrs. Giggles and mentioned in the June 2 post below.)

Publishers' Bestseller Lists

I'm talking about e-pubs, since they're the ones I'm most familiar with. (Yeah, okay, I dangled a preposition to avoid an awkward construction. Just so you know I know.)

Samhain has always posted its bestsellers at My Bookstore and More. It even ran a popularity contest last year in which readers were invited to vote for their favorite books. More and more e-pubs are coming forward with weekly or monthly sales rankings for their titles. Some make this information available only to authors; others, to the general public. Some still don't release the information at all.

I have decidedly mixed feelings about the sales-posting trend. On the one hand, I fully believe a forthright approach is to be applauded. Vigorously. Too many e-publishers have embraced secrecy, often for its own sake, and/or engaged in slinky and self-serving behind-the-scenes machinations. Authors and readers alike have a right to feel confident they're dealing with an upstanding business entity that has nothing to hide.

On the other hand . . .

I have serious reservations about this practice.

• Regarding public postings: Should readers be encouraged to buy books that are already selling well? This makes no sense to me. People being what they are (and I'll likely insult you here, so bite down), the herd mentality prevails. If book shoppers see that Eat My Shorts by Benny Bushwacker is Number One this week, they'll likely stop looking and buy Eat My Shorts instead of another book that could very well prove a more satisfying read. Shouldn't overlooked titles be brought to readers' attention instead of those that are doing well on their own?


• Regarding both public and inhouse postings: How does it affect a publisher's non-bestselling authors to see that their efforts aren't being "rewarded"? Will they succumb to a defeatist attitude? Or will they start playing copycat? Neither consequence is desirable. The former could cripple truly good writers who have much to offer, and the latter will result in a slew of derivative submissions as lowlist authors try to ride the high-flying coattails of their more successful peers.


• Finally, there are those doofuses who will go around proclaiming they're bestselling authors or such-and-such a title is a bestseller, even though these distinctions only exist at Peapod Publishing. (I confess, I just threw this one in because it annoys the snot out of me!)

A couple of my publishers share sales rankings with their authors and only with their authors. They're damned good publishers, too. I sure as hell don't fault them for doing what they're doing. Openness invariably garners my respect.

That said, I never look at the figures. I don't want to see them. I don't want to feel discouraged, or pressured into writing stuff for which I have no real affinity just because I think it will increase my sales. I don't want to become a mope and I sure as shit don't want to fall prey, however subconsciously, to the copycat syndrome.

I'm wondering how readers and other writers feel about this trend. Are you influenced by bestseller lists? If so, how?

Metaphors and Similes Run Amok!

Sometimes, we do get a little exuberant with them, don't we?

Weeel . . . not as exuberant as some of them there writers on Literotica!

I howled like a wolf with him on my back. I was the Roman warship and he was the slave rower, accelerating to Ramming Speed until we crashed into the enemy ship in a blaze of orgasmic ecstasy, spreading the Greek Fire of our boiling sperm all over the universe!

I was his oil derrick, balanced on my head and hands while he fucked down into me, drilling into the hot oil of my guts. I was a prisoner of war tortured with his magnificent stake up my hole, forced to sit on him until I revealed the secret: "I surrender! You're too much for me! The secret is--"

Why do blurbs ask me questions?

I assume they ask you questions, too.

Blurb: Will Roger and Gil be able to outrun the snowballing horror that threatens to crush their love?

Me: Uh . . . how many guesses do I get? Hmm. Now this is going to keep me up all night. Will their love be crushed or not? Damn. Could you at least give me a hint?

What is with that?

I must confess, some of my very own books have had blurbs that ask questions to which even a lone and partially disabled brain cell would know the answer. I've conscientiously been trying to keep questions out of my blurbs. Thus far, at least recently, I've been successful.

Maybe blurbs should come with multiple-choice answers. That would engage potential readers a lot more, don't you think?

Blurb: What will happen to Roger and Gil as they try to outrun the snowballing horror that threatens to crush their love?

1.) The snowball will melt from the heat of their blazing passion.

2.) Gil will get flattened like Gumby. Following a period of complete immersion in self-pity, Roger will take up with a woman who has a meaningful tattoo and is as sexually confused as he.

3.) The snowballing horror will clip Roger, leaving him battered and broken, and Gil will hightail it like the yellow-bellied, faithless, self-serving pussy he is.

4.) Roger and Gil will part ways with their love and let it get crushed to save their own asses, because they're more into sex than romance anyway.

5.) There is no snowballing horror; Roger and Gil are drama queens.

6.) This blurb is actually for another book. The publisher just likes messing with people's minds.

My feeling about blurbs is this. They should give a reader some idea of what the story and central relationship are about without dishing up any spoilers, without being cutesy or coy, and without overemphasizing a particular plot element (like sex -- sheesh -- or mystery or danger). Better yet if they give me some feel for the book's overall tone.

Over at the Liquid Silver forums, my upcoming release there was just given its own thread about a week ago. The blurb for Bastards and Pretty Boys is right near the top (there's also an excerpt further down the thread). I rather like this blurb. Click on the post title to see what you think. Does it need to say more? Or not?

InDescent sequel will appear at LSB.

It's official. To Be Where You Are, the sequel to InDescent, will also be published by Liquid Silver Books. This novella answers a looming question. Some of you know what it is. ;-)

I almost titled the story An Empathy of Burns, which I still kind of like. "Empathy" in this context is used as a collective noun -- you know, like "flock." Then I realized I couldn't realistically expect anybody to get it, because it's just plain weird . . . and, yeah, I coined the phrase. I am kind of a fan of collective nouns, though, many of which are a lot weirder.

(Why am I rambling? Since I have no idea, I'll just go go bed.)

InDescent and Miscellaneous Aversions

Jenre, an honest and insightful reviewer, tackled my m/m urban fantasy InDescent on her Well Read review blog (http://tiny.cc/gJjr0), devoted primarily to m/m fiction. The review was also put up at Reviews by Jessewave, which you can get to by clicking on the title of this post.

At Jessewave's, the review generated an interesting discussion. It highlights how different readers perceive characters and their motives, and also demonstrates how plot elements that people find distasteful can make or break a book for them. I've already posted a (lengthy) list of things that grind the gears of m/m fiction readers. But they're certainly not alone in their pickiness.


This fascinates me. Aside from the usual gag-inducing/taboo themes (cannibalism, bestiality, "romanticized" or gratuitous rape, torture, incest, sex involving minors, fetishes involving really icky stuff), I'm willing to accept most anything an author puts in his/her work, as long as I'm reading a good story well told. I'm not, for example, a big fan of yaoi. And I'm not a fan of certain character types. But, hey, let Katrina Strauss spin out some yaoi or Frank Tuttle throw a detective (rather, a "Finder") at me, and I am so there. The Age of Sail? Couldn't have cared less . . . until Alex Beecroft came along. I have some issues with BDSM, too, but so many authors handle it so well (and, sometimes, in such original ways) that it no longer automatically hits my recoil button.

Have you ever found one of your reading prejudies vanish in the space of a just-plain damned good book?

Exploring Savage Places Available Today

Oh please, do not let the LI home-page blurb confound you! Click the title of this post to go directly to the book's sales page. Exploring Savage Places, Book 3 of my Utopia-X series, is now available.

The Pleasureplex of Xanandru, a city governed by a drug-dazed libertine, panders to the basest human instincts. But before its excesses can be reined in, Xanandru will make or break the promising relationships of four honorable men.

I'm currently at work on Utopia-X, Book 4 (as yet untitled). Pablo and Win, whose story kicked off the series, return to center stage. As planned -- by me, anyway -- Utopia-X will not go beyond four or five books.

Magic Jack, the Flower

Because our cool, wet weather has made for some dreary days, and maybe you've experienced some dreary moments too, here's a spring wonder from my native species flowerbed.

Meet Jack-in-the-pulpit. He's quite magisterial and likely belongs in a wizard's garden. The plants that surround him -- demure wood violets and fancy ferns, elegant irises and flirty phlox -- act as if they don't know he's there. But they know. Just like Transylvanian peasants know who's in the mountaintop castle that throws its shadow over their village.

Jack stands toward the rear of the bed, partially concealed by his own broad leaves. He watches and listens and keeps his own counsel. At night, when the whippoorwill calls, summoning toads and mice and beetles to hold congress at his feet . . . that is when the magic happens.

And I stay away.

Author Marriages

I've always found this an interesting aspect of publishing -- authors who get together, or are thrown together, between two covers.

These are obviously symbiotic relationships. (Symbiosis is a kind of mutual parasitism, which isn't a had thing in terms of species survival. Or writer advancement. In fact, it's a very good thing, since benefits flow both ways.) But what kind of symbiosis is going on in Authorland? Is it crass, creative, or convivial? Or all three? Or something else entirely?

A crass motive -- or maybe I should call it "pragmatic," which is less perjorative -- would involve an author seeking to enlarge his own footprint via another author's established fame, growing fame, industry connections, marketing savvy, fanbase segment -- you know, the aspects of the business that put a shine on reputations and money in the bank. Creative motivation is fairly self-explanatory. The parties are driven by a desire to stretch their wings, take some imaginative chances, and perhaps learn from each other. Conviviality as a basis for partnership simply means two writers genuinely like each other and think they'd have fun working together, maybe to alleviate the essential loneliness of this profession.

Just an aside: I wonder what brought Stephen King and Peter Straub under the same covers? Does anyone else have the feeling they probably did better as singles than as a couple?

So here are my questions. Why do you think writers hook up? And unhook? Have you ever seen evidence of unhappy or even disastrous pairings? Do you prefer to read collaborations or anthologies? Have you ever been able to untangle the authors' voices if the book is a collaboration (say, the voice of Vivien Dean from the voice of Pepper Espinoza in a Jamie Craig story)?

Feel free to throw in any other observations. I am, as usual, curious.

An 87 Review by Mrs. Giggles I Never Knew I Had

The book on the left was published shortly after Samhain opened its virtual doors for business. Acts of the Saints tanked pretty badly -- very badly, actually -- because the authors who helped kickstart the then-new epub were primarily from Ellora's Cave. Ergo, the readers who flocked to SP were fans of EC-style fiction.

Believe me, this book is not EC-style fiction.

(That's an Anne Cain cover, by the way. I've been her fangirl since I first laid eyes on it. Not original art, granted, but gorgeous composition. She was a real joy to work with, too!)

At the time of this novel's acceptance, Samhain's vision was to be a broad-spectrum publisher that focused on quality fiction in a variety of genres. It wasn't their intent to be just an erotic romance publisher, although one could hardly tell from their initial crop of offerings. I saw the writing on the wall fairly quickly (how could I not?) and gritted my teeth for the nosedive my book was bound to take.

And dive it did.

Now fast forward. Two days ago I was cruising Mrs. Giggles' archives, looking for Scott & Scott books, when -- lo and behold! -- I came upon my old author name. Knock me over with a limp dick. But the biggest surprise was yet to come.

Although Acts of the Saints is light years away from being a standard romance, Mrs. G. gave it an 87 and said the prose was "alternately beautiful and blasphemous" and the story had hooked her completely. My first reaction was profound embarrassment over the fact I had no idea this review existed -- I believe in thanking reviewers, just because it's the courteous thing to do -- and still don't know when it first appeared. So I can only shamefully extend my sincerest apologies.

Anyway, regardless of the age of the review, I'm deeply grateful to Mrs. Giggles for taking a chance on this book. As she points out, it definitely isn't for everyone's taste. The lady has balls.

Exploring Savage Places out on June 9.

Exploring Savage Places, Book 3 of my Utopia-X series for Loose Id, will be released on June 9. I've already received gratifying feedback on this novel from some of the unsung heroines on LI's editorial staff. Always a good feeling when unsolicited positive reactions drift my way!

The Spirit of Pure Evil Haunts the Internet

Jenre -- normally a sweet, thoughtful woman -- was temporarily stripped of her right mind when this demon disguised as an innocent child (yeah, sure, just look at that face!) made its way to her blog, undoubtedly with a little help from She K Who R Shall Not I Be Named S. Bereft of all reason, Jen passed Dolly Demento on to me.

So, in the spirit of giving, and to save my own arse, I in turn pass this charming fetish on to CLARE LONDON, author extraordinaire, whose book Freeman left me begging shamelessly for a sequel and whose unflagging good nature and support are truly humbling. She's also the best drunk blogger on either side of the Atlantic, although she probably can't hold a candle to those Aussies.

I know you can turn this powerful mojo to your inspirational advantage, Clare, when you write that story for She K Who R Shall Not I Be Named S. Go to it!

Recommended Read

Well, it seems some people really do like InDescent. Following is what Satyr Vael at Literary Nymphs Reviews had to say about it. (I've eliminated the synopsis portion of the review, even though SV did a superb job of conveying the gist of the novel. You can read the entire review by clicking on the post title.)

The book's rating was 5 Nymphs and a Recommended Read.

"The sequel to Obsessed, InDescent is another foray into Jackson Spey’s world of sex and magic. Once again, I found myself falling utterly in love, all over again, with Jackson and Adin. They are both beautiful but flawed men, and together, they are breathtaking.

"K.Z. Snow paints an amazing picture of the magical inhabitants of the Prism and expertly zips Jackson through the demons in his own soul. The end result is more than I ever expected, and it only shows how strong Jackson and Adin’s love truly is. If you read Obsessed, then I absolutely must insist that you read InDescent."

Madame Butterfly, aka Leah, also did a very thoughtful review here. Although Leah had a few issues with the book, they were completely valid, and I took them to heart (as all constructive comments should be taken). By the way, Satyr Vael and Leah also reviewed Obsessed, available at Changeling Press, and were equally kind in their assessments.

I'm really grateful for their views. (And many thanks to Jeanne Barrack for pointing out the Nymphs posting to me. Homies got my back!)

The Aisle of the Forgotten

Establishments that sell used books mean one thing to me as a reader and something else entirely as a writer.

I've been a bookstore habitue since high school but didn't discover used-book shops (or is it shoppes?) until college. Now I can't stay away from them. No other type of place in my experience has offered excitement and tranquility in equal measure. No other type of place has so transported me.

The thrill of discovering a beautifully written, bound, and/or illustrated book is a thrill with shimmering edges that never go dull. Add to this the unexpected, occasional joy of easing the covers apart and finding an old bookplate or bookmark, a flattened four-leaf clover or rusty rose, a Victorian calling card or WWII ration coupon. The crispness of the text in a seventeenth-century volume is astonishing. Each letter has visible depth. The yellow brittleness of some twentieth-century paper is poignant. Leaves flake at the touch.

When I started writing, I saw older books -- some of them, anyway -- in a different light. Because I haven't lived in or near a large city in a while, I've been getting used books at resale shops and library sales. It's at the former that I've found row upon row of the Forgotten.

The Forgotten are usually novels with modest bindings, missing dustjackets and, often, the former owners' signatures scrawled on the inside front covers. (Sometimes, on a rear flyleaf, you'll even find a penciled grocery list.) They were written by women with names like Helen Constance Wiggins and men with names like J. Henry McElroy--names sturdier than the authors' books and reputations turned out to be.

Every time I see one of the Forgotten, I feel a drizzle of sadness. And I smell the unmistakable odor of kinship. I imagine how Mary Kelmsford Johnson must have felt when she got that letter of acceptance from her publisher -- how her pride swelled, how her future suddenly blazed with brilliant promise. She'd become an AUTHOR. People would read the words that flowed from her heart and take those words into their hearts. She would leave her mark on history . . .

How seldom it turns out that way. For every William Faulkner or even Louis L'Amour, there are untold hundreds of Bertram R. Youngbloods and Margery D. Pilsmeyers. Their legacies are books with cheap, scuffed brown or blue bindings, sans dustjackets, languishing on resale store shelves. Not a single shopper is willing to fork over a dollar, or even a quarter, to read their once-precious words.

So here we are, a whole new crop of hopefuls, wondering if we should make book trailers and invest in refrigerator magnets to help our stars shine brighter. Here we are, waiting with crossed fingers and bated breath for our accolades, our five-somethings reviews and bestseller rankings, each time our words appear before the public. And when that recognition doesn't come, we feel the breath of Helen and Bertram and Margery stirring the hair on our napes as they whisper, "Don't worry. Someday your work will be welcomed. We've reserved a place for it in our aisle."

What a profoundly humbling adjustment in perspective.

M/M Fiction Elements that Piss People Off - Update

Elements in M/M romance fiction that infuriate readers and writers alike -- gotta be a million of 'em! I first posted this list on September 3, 2008, when I'd just begun venturing into the genre. Time for an update.

Wow, the stuff I've learned over my nine-month gestation period! There are far more pisser off-ers than I initially realized. So here's the original list, with an addendum below in color.

(And the picture? That's for all the pastors who secretly desire Adam Lambert. You know who you are. Now get back to your stalls in those rest-area and park bathrooms. And say hi to Bill O'Reilly for me.)

• Emo characters (The term emo has become WAY more inclusive than it should be.)


• Exceptional endowment (The pink torpedo is out; the pink Twinkie is in . . . as far as it can go, that is.)


• Too much sex


• Too much swallowing of the salty snowball during sex


• Too little sex


• Too little swallowing of the salty snowball during sex


• "Odd" positions during sex


• Too much talking during sex


• Too little talking during sex


• Too much BDSM


• Not enough BDSM


• Blue eyes (!)


• A history of abuse as a child (Guess that's old news. YIPPEE! Child abuse no longer exists!)


• Tension or plot conflict that involves homophobes (Guess they're old news, too. YIPPEE! Vicious, mindless sexual prejudice no longer exists!)


• Love at first sight (Well, yeah, that's baloney--eHarmony be damned.)


• Arousal at first sight (Come on. Denying there's such a thing as arousal at first sight is like denying there's such a thing as stupid or ho-doggy presidents.)


• "Gay for you," i.e., protagonists who claim to be straight and only get bent with and for each other. (It's the "I swear I have always been and will always be straight" part that makes this oxymoronic. But I don't know of too many writers who try to peddle gay or bi heroes as hardcore het's.)


• The deep end of the sensitivity pool: too much crying, too much schmaltz, too much angst (Where's the line and when is it crossed?)


• The shallow end of the sensitivity pool: too much hard-nosedness, too much glibness and flippancy, too much insouciance (Ditto the above comment.)


• Too many cops/detectives/cowboys/firefighters (For me, at least, they are getting stale. I have a hard time being engaged by characters who remind me of the Village People, although some authors can pull it off.)


• Lack of alpha traits and a plethora of "womanish" traits


• Too much cussing (See above.)


• Unrealistic dialogue (See above.)


• Obligatory HEA (I agree with this one.)


• Too much pondering of emotions


• Too little attention to emotions


• Lack of chemistry (How published authors can produce a lack of chemistry between two protags in a romance is beyond me.)


• Use of animal similes/images/metaphors/sounds (Kind of difficult to steer totally clear of them, especially when it comes to dialogue tags . . . those repetitive buggers.)


• Menages that involve two gay men and a woman (I must admit, this plot device does bewilder and annoy me.)


• Pointless drama (I'm not entirely sure what that is.)


• Female characters who are a.) villains/foils, b.) goddesses/Earth Mothers, c.) ignorant of their men's true sexual preference or orientation, d.) you name it.


• Infidelity, for any reason


• Various terms for the prostate, including "prostate"


• Various terms for the glans
• Self-lubricating anuses (I had no idea such a thing existed in m/m fiction. But I read about it on a blog -- Emmy's, of course -- so it must be true.)


• Too many public displays of affection between the protags


• No public displays of affection (thus implying shame)


• Not enough older heroes


• Promiscuity


• Promiscuity treated as a moral or emotional deficiency


• Too little incorporation of real-world gay issues


• Sexual activity involving women -- any sexual activity, regardless of context


• Too much world detail


• Too little world detail


• Twincest, or any kind of incest (I'm all with this one.)


• Twinks


• Meddlesome female friends, usually of the "fag hag" variety


• Yaoi derivation (Guess it's related to that emo objection listed above.)


• Heroes who are rotten bastards


• Heroes who are sugar cubes


• Handicapped heroes (not because they're handicapped, but because this device has become overused)


• A whole bunch of stuff relating to historicals (Somebody more versed in the subgenre than I am can ferret out and address those points.)


• Female authors of M/M fiction (Yup, every single last one of us, because we're clueless.)

I've added a whole separate category, which I call "Erection Objections."

• Erections with feelings (No, I don't mean emoboners; I'm referring to physical sensations, like aches and pains.)


• Erections that "leak" (Hey, you know the fuckers do. Maybe they don't weep copiously, but they do leak. I've seen it with my own eye. Uh, eyes.)


• Erections that appear too fast


• Erections that go south too fast


• Erections without protections
• Erections that are referred to as . . . erections (WTF? From now on, I shall refer to them as filing cabinets.)


• Erections that are unusually active and move in unnatural ways


• Erections that are far too large to allow for a recipient's physical comfort, even if he's anaesthetised


• Double/triple/quadruple -- well, hell, let's go for the whole bunch of bananas! -- penetration

Any others? Come on, I hate incomplete lists!