in which they make me talk about me...
May. 26th, 2008 11:30 pmMy essay about writing fantasy for Luna -- and the connection between my dark fantasy-writing self and the romance-publishing establishment, and my penchant for non-Happily-Ever-After endings -- is up at http://paranormalromanceblog.wordpress.com/
Go, give them many hits. Make me look popular. *grin*
Go, give them many hits. Make me look popular. *grin*
no subject
Date: 2008-05-27 06:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-27 09:23 am (UTC)(would you demand that a male author have botox and/or Photoshop the lines from his face, at 40, in order to be "beneficial"? THINK about what you're posting...)
no subject
Date: 2008-05-27 10:28 am (UTC)Nice article, though.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-27 11:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-28 12:42 am (UTC)Okay.
It looks like the only thing that's defining the Wren and Sergei books as romance is the name of the imprint, as you conceived of them as urban fantasy (which is where I would have pegged them) and you're not changing the storylines to happily ever after to fit some cookie-cutter notion of a romantic storyline, nor are you defining yourself as a romance writer. (Do you even go pitch at RWA events?)
My wonder as reader is how anybody is defining anything anymore. I'm not saying that to be snarky, it's because I can go into my library and pull out four books, each of which have a character with some form of supernatural power, are set in a slightly magicked-up version of the "real" world, have a male and female who are attracted to each other, and whom work together to solve some form of puzzle involving physical danger to themselves or others.
Four books. Same plot elements. One's listed as romance, one as mystery, one as fantasy, and one as YA. Frankly, your defining yourself as a fantasy author is as valid and accurate as Luna & Harlequin defining you as a romance author, and as if Berkeley bought your next Wren & Sergei book and suddenly calling you a mystery author... because as far as I can tell, the ONLY defining difference is the marketing brand of the publisher who signs the respective checks.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-28 12:50 am (UTC)The trick is tagging every possible readership, and not limiting a book's appeal to the starting point. TPTB at Harlequin seem to have trouble recognizing, for example, that Luna books have a male readership, too. If we could harness that, and make sales-power from it... hello USA Today bestseller list! :-)
no subject
Date: 2008-05-28 01:05 am (UTC)I've heard that said at a mystery con too, I think by
What's frustrating as reader is that "every possible readership" seems some days to be turning into "every possible genre is cranking out the same basic setup." I would LOVE to read a book that didn't have a love interest in it, just for the rare change!
I get the impression from a variety of places that TPTB @ Harlequin have been making money doing one specific thing for so long that they no longer recognize the existence of alternatives.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-28 01:08 am (UTC)well, they started Luna, despite having avoided F/SF their entire history, and took me on despite not having much of a traditional romance content a'tall, so they can't be too blinded by The One True Way... (and there were books in the list that used polyamory, incest, and a host of other traditional no-nos....)
It will be nice, though, I admit, to work on Vinespell. Lots of relationships, and none of them romantic.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-27 11:19 am (UTC)I wasn't really thinking about wrinkles. Anne McCaffrey's pictures are of a very old woman with wattles and white hair. I still love her work and I fear the day she will no longer be able to write more stories of Pern (although she's breaking her son in on the world, I do see that most of the stories are already written/told). The biggest difference seems to be in the posture of the subject.
my last comment on the topic
Date: 2008-05-27 05:32 pm (UTC)Re: my last comment on the topic
Date: 2008-05-27 06:37 pm (UTC)My only excuse is that I'm a man & don't always engage brain before mouth. Please accept my apologies for my stupidity.
Re: my last comment on the topic
Date: 2008-05-27 08:44 pm (UTC)In other words, it was sexist and -- were I allow it -- demeaning. Being male is no excuse for that -- don't make me buy you a one-way ticket to Wiscon!
Re: my last comment on the topic
Date: 2008-05-28 06:43 am (UTC)Yes.
women consider comments that involve appearance on a personal level. This is due to the fact that in days of old (try last week P Brain!) women were not considered as people, but as decoration (congratulations on finally getting to vote).
I wasn't thinking of what you looked like, but more of the positioning of the pose and what that body language said.
Because I was thinking one thing (and stupidly used the wrong words to try to express myself, but I ain't no writter) you were hearing/thinking something else Part of which is because of different genders and part of which is different personality types.
(frozen) Re: my last comment on the topic
Date: 2008-05-28 10:25 am (UTC)Here's some serious advice,
That's not "being a writer." That's "being a mensch."
no subject
Date: 2008-05-27 06:39 am (UTC)BTW, I totally disagree about the photo. It's great.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-27 11:10 am (UTC)the connection between my dark fantasy-writing self and the romance-publishing establishment, and my penchant for non-Happily-Ever-After endings
I've been accused of not writing romance, even though I do like at least the promise of the HEA. Why? Because what I make my characters go through in the process of trying to get to that moment—the moment where the potential for a happy future lies—I put my characters in situations that veer uncomfortably close to "too real." To me, that seems to be almost as big a litmus test as the HEA.
Interesting stuff to ponder.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-28 10:30 am (UTC)(quick hit of Gilman's Theory of Genres: Romance and Mystery are structures, Fantasy, SF, and Horror are enviroments. Blending them is basic landscaping and, done well, pleasing to the eye. Blending two structures, or two landscapes, is much trickier, and with greater chance of Fail)
no subject
Date: 2008-05-27 11:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-27 12:12 pm (UTC)Huh --
Date: 2008-05-27 08:46 pm (UTC)Now, the article --
Date: 2008-05-27 08:50 pm (UTC)Like, if a door opens and there's a bricked-up wall, it's not a mistake -- it's a feature. Hang around and watch Wren pull herself out!