These things must stop!

My bloggedy-bloggedy (that's when you hop from one blog to another) has been sporadic of late, since I've been focusing on composition, edits, and submissions. Whenever I get this hitch in my blogalong, people's posting habits begin to jump out at me -- y'know, because I'm not exposed to them every day. Based on what I've noticed, I've decided to issue some decrees.

• No more breaking up sentences with periods. Put 'em at the end where they belong. People tend to engage in this habit when they're trying to express their shock over something. Just thinking about giving you examples is already annoying me. Okay, here goes: Oh. My. God. Wow. Just. Wow. Quit. That. Before. I. Kill. You.


• Snorting is okay, but no more snorting coffee through one's nose. Or throwing up in one's mouth, or spraying Coke on the keyboard/monitor. No more! We need some new expressions of amusement as well as disgust, like "You just made me fall backward in my chair and crack my skull open!" Or, "I just had to do the Heimlich maneuver on myself!"


• No more thanking a reviewer for "taking one for the team" when she snarks on (what she perceives as) a truly dreadful book. Whose team? Where? What's the name of the team? I don't get it. Furthermore, nobody who uses that phrase is expressing sincere gratitude. The subtext is either Fuck, I wish I'd gotten attention by snarking on this book, or Damn, it's fun to pile on an author who's just gotten her ass whupped! Thanks for getting the game started!


• No more reviews of Harlequin novels. Please. I mean it. We know what they're about. We knew twenty years ago. We no longer need to be reminded. The. End.

I could go on and on about this because I'm on a roll, but I'll take a step back now and let you take over.

Psychopathology and the Internet

It's a connection that's becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

Before the World Wide Web came into being (and what a mixed blessing that's been), people with character and deeper psychological disorders were compelled to try to control their destructive impulses, not draw undue attention to themselves, and "fit in." Worst-case scenario: their influence was usually restricted to their immediate, real-world surroundings. Best-case scenario: they sought and received help.

Certainly not an ideal setup but, human nature and biochemistry being as flawed as it is, about the best we could hope for. (And I apologize for my phraseology not being clinically accurate or sufficiently PC.)

Now, however, every child molester, stalker, con artist, thief, hate group, and generic nutjob can find like-minded wackos all over the globe. Networks have formed that enable, reinforce, and encourage behavior previously seen as morally reprehensible and socially unacceptable. Sociopaths have found a power base. The lunatics are taking over the asylum.

I've been mulling this over for a while. Haven't been able to ignore the subject, really, given the number of toxic spiders crawling the Web (and that includes YOU, ebook pirates -- go grow a conscience!) Then I came upon a post today by Mrs. Giggles (click title), and it was the catalyst that prompted this vent.

What a creepy place the 'Net is becoming.

The Eternal "Why?"

Specifically, in relation to the Readers' Corner of the Webmaze.

"Gazing at 'the books of others' is a less transgressive but often no less transformative method of cultural eavesdropping."

I came upon the above sentence on one of my less and less frequent visits to SBTB, where pimpage, Harlequin, and ever more intellectual analysis/defense of romance fiction now seem to reign. (YAWN.) Anyway, I read the above declaration and thought, What the hell is this person babbling about? "A less transgressive but no less transformative method of cultural eavesdropping"? WTF? Then I read on, in spite of my immediate recoil, and discovered all she's talking about is being nosy. That's it. She's talking about eyeing up somebody else's collection of books.

Why do some people feel a need to obfuscate rather than communicate? And double why do they do it when discussing anything relating to popular fiction? Kids, in case you haven't noticed, James Joyce did not write this stuff. (He only wishes he did. Ha.)

Why can't I make lists that come out at the right blog-acceptable number? Thursday Thirteen. Ten Things I Hate/Love. I always end up with four or seven or thirty-six. Or one.

Why can't I seem to integrate the words trope and meme into my vocabulary? Everybody else who talks about books has done it. I've come to despise these words, and I don't even know why. They've never done anything to me!

Why

are so many people on a lecture jag? Everywhere I turn, somebody's ascending some mount to deliver a lecture. How authors should/shouldn't behave online, react to reviews, react to their contracts, react to each other, set up their websites, run their blogs, write their books, promote their books, and pick their peas. (I just threw in the last one because I needed a final example, that's all--no cryptic meaning.) And then there are the lectures centering on epublishers . . . but I'm already tired.

Why

have some people had their sense of humor surgically removed? A sense of humor, like a mind, is a terrible thing to waste. Thou shalt not excise thy sense of humor, even though it's one letter away from "tumor."

Why

do I instinctively like or dislike certain people I've never met? I can go to one blog and instantly be turned off by that person's persona, go to another and instantly dig her/his persona. This makes no sense, yet I can't seem to control my reactions.

Why

do people who consider themselves denizens of Romanceland (ugh, I'm really starting to hate that word, too, as well as its variations) never tire of Wankfests? There's a big hairball rolling around the 'Net right now that has to do with Quartet Press closing before it opened. Weird, yes, but hardly worthy of 86,376 posts at 59 different blogs. So why did QP fold up their tents? Beats me. I just chalked it up to "shit happens" and went back to my WIP.

Feel free to add your own Eternal Whys while I dream up some more.

TwitterFail

One thing I hate about being between books: I waste my time on stupid things. Like following links online.

So there I was, just taking a leisurely tour through my favorite blogs, peeking into this window and that to see what's new, enlightening, and/or moderately entertaining. I came upon an intriguing batch of posts related to something on Twitter called "#romfail." The term is, from what I read somewhere, a "hash tag"--hence, the hash mark. (Am I right?) Beyond that, I have no freaking clue what a hash tag is.

Now why did I follow any link to Twitter? Why? Curiosity, plain and simple. When I see words like "haters" and "mean girls" and various 'n' sundry insults being bandied about, I smell a Wankfest. And these Internet events can be highly entertaining--as long as you follow them quietly, from the sidelines.

So off I went in search of this apparent Wankfest, because I was in the mood for some chuckles.


Why didn't I know better? Why didn't I remember that trying to follow any-damned-thing on Twitter is like trying to watch a play in which the actors spontaneously dash on and off stage and spout seemingly unrelated lines of monologue with some mystifying bursts of dialogue thrown in?



Then there's the circle-jerk factor. Cliques seem to form around certain high-profile Twitterers or Tweeters or Peeps or whatever the hell they're called. I inadvertently stumbled into one of these. Didn't post anything, of course, because I felt like a homeless person who'd just wandered into an elite club. And, besides, I couldn't figure out what the hell anybody was talking about!

How do the rest of you deal with Twitter? Is there some Twitter Guide to Comprehension I failed to find? Or a secret access code to TwitterSense? I feel as if I should participate--it seems like such a grand party for other authors and readers and reviewers--but every time I step through the door, I feel like the victim of a practical joke.

Yikes. Who dreamt this shit up?

Is a Great Divide forming?

More and more I've been noticing a marked difference in my reactions to blogs that center on romance fiction. The well-established, high-profile sites I used to visit regularly, like Dear Author and Smart Bitches, have begun to seem stagnant and are starting to bore me. It's the laidback "upstarts" toward which I've recently been drawn, like Reviews by Jessewave, Well Read, Kris 'n' Good Books, and several others.

I'm sure the shift in my reading and writing tastes has something to do with this -- I've developed a deep appreciation for m/m fiction, little of which is explored by the major blogs -- but there's also something of the "Old Guard" versus the "New Guard" at play here.

Frankly, I couldn't care less about Harlequin's various lines. Category romance has never appealed to me. Even a lot of the non-HQN romance print titles have a category "feel," which means I'm not interested in those, either. E-book publishers have, as far as I'm concerned, been putting out the most compelling fiction.

Yeah, okay, there's plenty of derivative material issued by e-publishers, as well, and quality can be hit-or-miss. But I find so much more variety in their output, so much more explorative risk-taking, whether serious or lighthearted, that reading an e-pubbed book has become much more of an adventure than reading the safe and predictable stuff that's sandwiched between two paper covers.

Ever more frequently, I find myself groaning and beating a hasty retreat whenever I click onto a post that has to do with some Harlequin or Big NY Print Publisher release. I'm sick of seeing the same names turn up, sick of the whole RWA/RT mindset that lauds workmanlike (i.e., boring) writing, cardboard-cutout characters, and connect-the-dots plotlines. I'm REALLY sick of standard heroes and heroines, including and especially the new breed of chick who's sexy, sensitive, and self-assuredly violent, all at once. ("Oh shit, do I want to be Paris Hilton or Vin Diesel? Guess I'll be both!")

Spare me, forever, the kickass heroine, whom I find just as revolting as the TSTL heroine!

Anyway, I can't help but wonder if there's a division forming in Romanceland, if certain bloggers/reviewers will continue to give more space, time, and credence to works originally published in print rather than works originally published in pdf, or to m/f fiction rather than other types of pairings/groupings. Will the lip service they pay to e-publishing and to GLBT romance ever be accompanied by genuine respect (for publishers other than Samhain, that is)? Or is the mainstream becoming increasingly more distanced from its tributaries?

Are we going our separate ways?

JMHP (just my humble puzzling)

Throwing the Perfect Wankfest II

An ongoing (for now, at least) dustup here http://tiny.cc/JXSDy made me think of how important it is, when throwing a Wankfest, to wax eloquent. Garden-variety name calling and reptitive back-and-forths impress nobody and do little to make one's point adhesive.

Some seasoned curmudgeon from Washington, D.C. posted a brilliant example of what I mean on Craig's List, February 2009. Learn from him or her. Following is merely a paragraph plucked from this epithetic sea. If you wish to view the whole glorious thing, go here: http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/wdc/1051162624.html.

"I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. So stupid it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. Nothing in our universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics that we know. I'm sorry. I can't go on. This is an epiphany of stupid for me."

Now that's a wanker!

Kwitter

kwitter

The network that lets people know

what you aren't doing, can't do,

don't want to do, gave up doing,

or tried to do but failed!

Throwing the Perfect Wankfest

Seems like every couple of weeks (hell, maybe more often than that, but I don't get out much) a wild 'n' crazy go-round kicks up in Writer Land. Some people have a genuine flair for staging these kinds of things. I don't. So, of course, I had to make a study of them.

From what I've been able to gather, there are certain components essential to a successful Wankfest. Here's a bulleted checklist I've compiled. Should you ever want to launch your own Wankfest, just make sure you have the following:

• Live Journal account. I really don't know why this is important, but it sure as hell seems to be. LJ is the preferred venue for Wankfests.


• Attitude (and plenty of it). Now pay attention, because there's a difference between a mere rant and a Wankfest. Attitude in and of itself has many variations. Basically, there are "acute" or ephemeral attitudes, like the one I have this week because some virus has invaded my body (or the one you might have because your partner has been a complete dickhead or your computer is being difficult or your boss is a complete dickhead or your kids are acting up or your publishing company is rife with complete dickheads). Then there are "chronic" or permanent attitudes, which stem from fixed mindsets and the issues that trip our self-righteousness triggers. Acute attitudes usually result in mere rants; chronic attitudes are the true progenitors of Wankfests. (Of course, there are exceptions. With some people, the acute and chronic are inextricably linked.)


• A worthy enemy or enemies. Well, duh, you can't work up and keep up a proper head of steam without someone or something out there stoking your ire. So choose your enemies well. Make sure he/she/it is good for at least a week's worth of wank. Wankfest attendees have short attention spans and lose interest if one trebuchet full of shit isn't quickly followed by another, even bigger hurl.


• Like-minded allies. It's tough to be the only person on your side. You need homies. Homies will cover your back when you're away from the computer and out dealing with those RW forces that have made or helped make you ornery to begin with. Homies (cynics call them "suck-ups" or "sock puppets") will also reinforce your sense of moral rectitude, which in turn contributes to your . . .


• Stamina. A Wankfest is essentially a war of attrition. You must be able to hold out longer than your opponent(s). You must be able to fling the conclusive glob of really stinky shit when your enemy least expects it and isn't ready with a comeback. This amounts to having the last word, and it is the last word that (you can only hope) will stick, so to speak, in attendees' minds.

CAVEAT: Based on my observations, Wankfests can be like crack. Stage them sparingly. If you attend them, pop in and out without drawing too much attention to yourself, lest you end up being affiliated with one side or the other. And, if you're an author, always remember:

Thank you, Babel Fish.

Somebody wants to befriend me on LiveJournal. However, everything on her page (I think it's a she) is in some Cyrillic alphabet (I think it's Cyrillic), so I of course had no idea what this person was about. I brought up Yahoo's most excellent resource, Babel Fish. It's the Dudley Do-Right of translators. And voila! My wannabe-friend's message became clear as . . . well, you decide:

This to you not after the samovar with the pancakes mother-in-law to dance.

I'm so glad this person found me. Now I'm not only in possession of a nugget of wisdom, I have a title for my new book. Can you guess what it is?

• Samovars and Pancakes
• The Pancake's Mother-in-Law
• Dancing with My Mother-in-Law
• After the Samovar with the Pancakes (Comes the Mr. Coffee with the Toast)
• This To You, Not My Mother-in-Law
• Babel Fish Translates George Bush's Last Speech

(Sorry, I have to go pee. My bladder can't take such harassment.)

Authors Versus Bloggers/Reviewers

A big sigh opens this post. I'm not sure what to say, since I understand where both sides are coming from in these skirmishes. Blogger/Reviewer A rips on Author B. Does Author's book really, truly, irredeemably suck, or is that only Blogger/Reviewer's possibly ill-informed opinion? Has Author truly behaved in some reprehensible way, or is that merely Blogger's opinion? Should Author pay heed to that opinion? Should potential readers of Author pay heed to that opinion? Should Author's or Blogger's fangirls rush out of the woodwork with their verbal weaponry, eager to bash one or the other?


It's become abundantly clear to me that there are bloggers with large followings whose words are taken more or less as gospel. No matter what they post, many readers are just waiting on the sidelines to leap aboard their bandwagons. (Sorry for throwing all kinds of metaphors into the blender!) Often, if the blogger is an intelligent, fair-minded person and the writer's book and/or behavior is demonstrably BAD, the bandwagon is a legitimate place to be. Sometimes, though, the bandwagon seems to be carrying an ill-tempered bunch of braindead groupies out for blood.


I do love some of these sites. They bring to my attention books and issues I would otherwise not have been aware of. But the "Oh my God, you're so right, she/it is so odious" choir usually grates on my nerves. Authors (or publishers, in some cases) often have as valid points to make about the microcopes they're under as the people manning those microscopes. Sometimes the lenses are smeared or askew. (Another apology; damn, some days are just metaphor-rich!)


Human nature is mind-bogglingly complex. Rarely can one person's character or motives be summed up in a snappy phrase or two. I find it troublesome that so many bloggers and authors alike are more than willing to be reductionistic in their thinking and assume somebody is borderline psychotic or riddled with character deficiencies because he/she voices certain opinions or has a lapse in judgment. It isn't that I'd like to see us all form a circle and sing "Kumbaya"--hell, I'm too much a cynic and loner for that--but it would be nice to see people examining issues from more than one swallowed-whole perspective.

Can YOU judge a book by its cover?

Another observation from my late-evening blog-hopping (and one that was confirmed by a little vid I saw featuring an editor from a NY publishing house): Covers can have a significant impact on book sales. Some readers might be resistant to this notion. I know I was. Hey, we're all about content, right?

Well, apparently not.

Packaging plays an extremely important role in the peddling of a product. Any product. Corporations and their advertising firms spend bundles of money researching the effect various visual elements have on consumers' psyches. Many of our reactions are "visceral" or subconscious, but that doesn't lessen the importance of those reactions in our decision-making processes.

So, back to books. One might assume covers only count when they're arrayed on the shelves of brick-and-mortar outlets. I've come to realize this isn't so. E-book covers also catch readers' attention, often in a distinctly positive or negative way, and thus influence their immediate impressions--of individual companies, authors, and any given book's literary worth. This initial impression then affects a reader's decision whether or not to take a chance on that publisher, author, or book.

Here's what I've noticed within the e-publishing community. Certain high-profile reviewers--those whose attention is most coveted--seem to gravitate toward certain publishers' output and avoid others'. It's a bit mystifying, since the same authors often have titles out with different companies. Mrs. Giggles, for example, seems to favor Samhain and Liquid Silver books. Dear Author seems to favor Samhain books. Ellora's Cave offerings don't show up with nearly the frequency one might expect, although they do occasionally appear. Loose Id, a highly regarded company, is beginning to make its presence known. However, I can't remember ever having seen a Changeling Press book reviewed at any of the more "influential" sites.

Hm. Why the seemingly preferential treatment? I think a lot of it has to do with covers . . . and the resulting perceptions of those companies' (not to mention others') products. This has to be it, because, quite frankly, quality and crap in terms of content are spread pretty evenly throughout all e-publishers. Print, too, for that matter.

Samhain, Liquid Silver, and Loose Id do have classy cover art. Whether subtle or stunning, their covers are well thought-out and artistically composed. They have both visual and emotional appeal. Such art speaks well for--and, at its best, reflects--whatever story lies behind it. Ellora's Cave covers are heavy on chests. (I guess a pun is lurking there, but just ignore it.) Bare chests here, bare chests there, chests chests everywhere. Or what the Smart Bitches, bless 'em, so aptly call "man titty". This seems to strengthen the oft-expressed opinion that all EC books are essentially the same: They're porny pap; they're sexual romps devoid of substance. (This is very much NOT the case, by the way, but try to convince some people of that!)

And then there's Changeling. I publish with this company. And I love it like crazy. Changeling is a standup operation run by wonderful people. Many EC, Samhain, LI, and LS authors also publish with ChP, so it isn't some damned waste dump. But, alas, Changeling's much maligned covers seem to have put it at a disadvantage in the first-impression race. Needless to say, this can be a worrisome situation to authors. A well crafted piece of fiction deserves to be fronted by a well crafted cover . . . and, when it isn't, can suffer in terms of both critical recognition and sales.

So, yes, something as superficial as the way a book looks is often viewed as an indication of how a book reads. There's absolutely no relation between the two. But you'll never convince all buyers of that.