Sunday, July 31, 2005

I flunked the history test.

This one is frustrating, because sometimes I thought it had an agenda, leftist? oh. Maybe right wing? Huh. . . . ... And then I got a rotten score, even with my history geek boy at hand. AND WORST OF ALL, I don't know which answers I got wrong. But you go ahead, See if you can correctly answer the questions of the How Revised Is Your History? Test.

And then there's the original test that led me into wasting hours on the internet and I curse whichever blog forced me to wander over to it. I found somewhere. Beth's place? I can't remember and I'm not going to go look for it. It's too late. And I got no work done and I have revisions to do. Bah.

The Expatriate
Achtung! You are 38% brainwashworthy, 9% antitolerant, and 14% blindly patriotic

Congratulations! You are not susceptible to brainwashing, your values and cares extend beyond the borders of your own country, and your Blind Patriotism ("patriotism" for short) does not reach unhealthy levels. In Germany in the 30s, you would've left the country.

One bad scenario -- as I hypothetically project you back in time -- is that you just wouldn't have cared one way or the other about Nazism. Maybe politics don't interest you enough. But the fact that you took this test means they probably do. I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt.

Did you know that many of the smartest Germans departed prior to the beginning of World War II, because they knew some evil shit was brewing? Brain Drain. Many of them were scientists. It is very possible you could be one of them, depending on your age.

Conclusion: Born and raised in Germany in the early 1930's, you would not have been a Nazi.

Link: The Would You Have Been a Nazi Test written by jason_bateman on Ok Cupid

in which truth is sweeter than fiction

I just thought as I read this that if the birthday party scene had been the climax in a novel, no doubt it would be required to be gritty and at least half the characters would be bitter, estranged or mean. Instead it's just...nice. And still fun to read.**

Sigh. AND I just love seeing again the fact that we can take the cards marked family and shuffled them til we're dizzy--and they still end up as family. There are still picnics and photo albums and kids.

If people who loathe "alternative lifestyles" (a godawful phrase, but I don't have a better one for anyone not living in the mom-dad-jr-sis unit) could see that lesson, they'd be happier and less scared. They could get on with their own picnics and photo albums and lives instead of lying awake at night and worrying about the neighbors.

On the other hand, the link might not be worth beans to you if you haven't read else's earlier blog entries.

** But I know I have a penchant for the amiable.

Saturday, July 30, 2005

Today's Toast

Ebay's the best. Thank you, Aya

not dead yet!

My friend P is in the waiting game. A parent is ill, and has been for a few years. Setbacks, recoveries, gathering the family to say goodbye, waiting, recoveries, setbacks ... hospitals, rehab, hospitals, nursing home.

A couple of days ago, P went to a funeral for a friend's father and felt miserable through the whole thing. She's appalled to discover that when someone else's parent keeled over, her main emotion is envy. She sat in a crowd of weeping people and wished it was her parent in there. She said that the worst part is that she knows a lot of the desire to have it over and done with rises from pure selfishness.

Not exactly a fun thing to learn about oneself. Yup, I remember wishing the process would end, and feeling guilty about the desire to have it end. Bleh. Sucks, dude. But I'm guessing it's pretty common.

Now that I'm seeing someone else living it, fretting over that element in a whole tangle of emotion seems almost silly because it makes so much sense. The longing to say goodbye to suffering isn't Evil. The only possible evil in the situation might be slipping an unwilling parent a black pill. A more common and perhaps more cowardly evil may be staying away because you can't bear to witness the suffering. I was guilty of that one now and then, too--but only now and then.

This stuff does not keep me up at nights. Why do I bother writing about it? Maybe because when P talked to me, she was almost whispering, as if this were the worst thing in the world. I figure it's bordering on verboten. Time to write about it then.

Thursday, July 28, 2005


I was going to keep on spouting more advanced POV wisdom, but I swear, I'm thinking the fewer of us who present trend as Fact the better the world will be . . .. Yeah, so a bunch of romance is written in deep third (deeeeeeeper'n a well) and have only the hero and heroine's POV and no head hopping blah blah blah. But hell, I'm sick of presenting it because I can imagine someone, somewhere, might jump on a new writer for some bogus rule that I repeated.

A lovely bit of omniscient opinionated INTERESTING description of a room or a person will be dumped. A heroine-looking-in-the-mirror-scene-for-description that actually works (there must be some?) will be cut. Bah.

When I cleaned out my office last spring, I came across a contest entry from a few years back. The judge's remarks were hellacious. Not unfriendly or rude or mean. . . but stupid. They did not fit the damn story. I can picture the judge scribbling notes about every single point some editor or writer or nut-job uttered. Obviously she had memorized the contents of some workshop or book as God's unswerving truth.** And back when I got the stupid contest entries--I thought that the judges had taken some kind of training that meant THEY knew what they were on about. I turned the story on its side to fit. It had been a small story, rather sweet and quiet. I wish I had saved the original to see if it did work. . . but no, I had to pump it up. I mean, OMIGOD NO BLACK MOMENT. . .When I was finished following advice, the story had turned into a bloody mess. I dumped it or maybe it got lost on a broken computer?

Silly goobers, all of us who take too many notes. I'm not talking major tragedy here. We'll all survive, and maybe some of our writing will, too.

**I recall seeing GMC a lot, so maybe it was a Deb Dixon influence. Except DD's very clear that she's not the answer for every writer and book out there. Maybe the judge forgot to write that part down?

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Learning to hush up

I'm taking a bunch of free online workshops. In past years, these have been the bee's knees. Now I'm so full of opinions that I can barely read a line of the presentation before I want to say, "now wait a moment. Where the hell did you read that rule? And what makes you think it's worth following?" I have to hit delete on various workshop emails before I write the verging-on-flame (definitely snotty) retorts.

For instance.... what is this current rage for ridding the world of "ing" words? Hmm? Sometimes the damn words are fine. People skitter around trying to avoid them and end up with long garbled sentences. Are they hoping to avoid all forms of to be? de"was" ing? Looking for signs of passive voice? That it? I'd look it all up but I know it'll all end with a headache.

Now I'm heading back to the old online workshops that I've saved over the years to see if I was soaking up wisdom of the ages or second-hand garbled tripe. Probably both.

I plan to add my own to the pile of presentations. A whole thing about POV. Here, I'll post a bit of it. You feel free to tell me how wrong I am. I could use the help, plus it'll lower my snotty bitch mode a few notches. God knows I could use that about now.

Here’s a quickie review of the basics:
First person= I
Second person (lots of experimental fiction uses this)= You
Third person=he/she

Third person/omniscient=I was taught that this means a view of everybody, inside and out, with a strong author’s voice as narrator. The author as God. Now seems to mean a kind of outside camera angle, more of a third person objective.

Third person subjective=limited to one character, inside and out, all other characters only from outside.

Third person deep=same as third person subjective. This POV is as limited and deep as first person. Most romance seems to be written with this POV.

Third person objective=rarely seen in a romance. No thoughts revealed! All seen from outside. Think camera. These days often referred to as omniscient.

Monday, July 25, 2005

Required Rioter Reading

Thank you for pointing it out, PBW. Pat Holt's essay is wonderful--Ten Mistakes Writers Don't See. Yeah, yeah, you've read it all before. Read it again anyway.

Also from PBW-- her Top Ten Signs You've Attended Too Many Writing Workshops (the link is at her site) This is the one I liked best:

9. Conned: The writing conferences you plan to attend in one year exceeds the number of novels you've written in your life.To grow as a writer, make a rule: for every writing conference you attend, you have to write and finish at least two new novels.

Hey, if you substitute "published" for write, then I really shouldn't be in Reno anyway.

ONE more word

I mean it, you romance rioters and readers. All these loops and groups -- everyone's been moaning about packing and traveling. That's bad enough. Now there are lots of cell phone #s being exchanged and plans being made.

ONE more word about how much fun you're going to have in Reno and I'm going to have a hissy fit.

You're warned.

* * *

I do want full reports once you get back.

Saturday, July 23, 2005

Karen Scott! yooo-hooo

Hey KS, I write historicals that aren't set in England. They are historicals set in New York City. I was gonna push myself but figured that was tacky at your blog. Not at mine! Nossiree, that's my job around here, pushing my books in your face.
You can find descriptions of my historicals at my website: And they're not even out of print yet!

See? One day I can't write worth shit, the next I'm strutting the stuff. Anyway, that's so yesterday, being down about writing. I managed to churn out three pages at the DMV today. It was wall-to-wall people at the CT DMV. Thirty folks ahead of me, lots of energetic toddlers, and muzak interrupted by a chirpy electronic voice announcing numbers. I haven't re-read the pages I wrote to see if they're any good, but considering the circumstances, I am proud of actually producing anything. Who cares if it was worth saving?**

Okay, so I'm a writer again. That means that my current depressed mood is brought to you by: "I'm Not Going to RWA and Everyone Else Is" Day.


A blah yet PC reference to good old Sam Johnson's "Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."

Friday, July 22, 2005

"Not Fooling Them Anymore" Day

Every few months, or weeks, or days -- I want to stop writing because I know no one wants to read it. I mean, why bother? And it doesn't matter who says "shut up, goober, just write the books." I can't shake the the Not Fooling Them Anymore mood. Blah. (My work is superficial repetitive junk and don't bother telling me otherwise because you're just being nice.)

Luckily today I don't have to force myself to write. I have boy dentist appointments and blood draws and a filthy house to act as a shield between me and insecurities.

I don't plan on making a habit of it. I'm not talking about Not Fooling Them Day. I can't control that. I mean the scurrying away from the computer when the insecurities strike. I can always scan the want ads or talk to one of my cubicle dwelling neighbors. Yikes. I don't care if you guys don't want to read the stuff. I'm churning it out anyway. Maybe someone will give me steady pay to shut the hell up?

Thursday, July 21, 2005

A Londoner's Message To Zealots Playing the Martyr Game

Kate Johnson: Stop blowing holes in my country! It's v tiresome. There are deserty places where you can explode things, you know. The London Underground is not an appropriate place. Now, run along.

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Cap'n! I cannae hald 'em!

My husband seems to have discovered a All Original Star Trek, All the Time channel and he watches them at 3 am when he's got insomnia. I've grown fond of the out-dated clunky old show. . . and now. . . .Sniffle.
Bye, Scotty. You delivered the lines with such aplomb.

Freeze right there, Mr Spock, or I'll put you to sleep for

I can't change the laws of physics!

The more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain.

Just before they went into warp, I beamed the whole kit and kaboodle into their engine room, where they'll be no tribble at all.

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

This reviewer is not as happy. . .

The review is a couple of paragraphs of pretty good description of the basic plot followed by:

The rest of the story follows their relationship and Bryan ’s resolution of his problems. This is a light, entertaining story without a lot of deep plot, relatively interesting with predictable sexual issues, and sweet characters. It works well as an e-book.

(That's from here)

Works well as an e-book? Huh. . . Does that mean it's short? (It is.)

I wonder what "e-book" means to them. I zipped around the site and the reviews for e-books tend to have lower ratings. Is that a reflection of the quality or the expectation of the reviewers? Or both?
Never mind that particular review. . .Moving right along and catching the next available tangent:

I wish there was a subjective method of measuring which aspects of a book--other than the story--hold the most power for reviewers.

Let's say you don't know the author, so you can't really base future expectations on past performance. What do you go with instead?

Say you get a lovely cover on cream-colored paper--maybe something like this, only without the little "Kilroy Was Here" guy at the top. Do you have higher expectations for the book and are more critical? Or do you open it expecting that weird lapses and/or passages of dull prose are on purpose and give it more of a fair shake than say, a man-titty Fabio thing?

I have to admit I expected a great deal from this book-- first of all there was that gorgeous cover. And the publisher put a lot of effort into marketing.
I recall that I was disappointed by it. (It's been a long time since I read it.)

But I think this isn't a matter of a book not living up to the cover. Gramercy Park was handed out to all the attendants at a RWA conference. The book's got some fine writing, a great, well-researched portrait of the place and age, and has a nice dose of melodrama. However it is not what I'd call a romance. I remember it as a single title with romantic elements. So there's another expectation; call it context. You expect to find Romances at the Romance conference--unless you know you're getting a Tess Gerritsen. But you don't know, cause it's a blank slate, remember?

We got the expectation based on the cover and the context. I suppose the reputation of the publisher goes with the expectation.

What else? Maybe how well the back cover and the contents match? Okay, yes, there's a matter of the damn story.

Promoting Summer--a happy review

Title: Perfection
Author: Summer Devon
Publisher: Ellora's Cave Publishing
Publisher URL:
ISBN: 1-4199-0295-4
Reviewer: Dani Jacquel, Just Erotic Romance Reviews
Rating: 5 /5 Stars

Bryan is a woman-magnet. Literally. His body is producing pheromones that make him utterly irresistible to women. Old, young, married; it doesn't matter, they all end up going wild for him. It's so bad that he flinches when a woman comes to close. And he certainly can't have sex without the woman acting crazed and lovesick because of that. For a while, it was okay, especially when a corporation agreed to pay him to run tests and collect those pheromones. But now that he knows there might be a way to cure his problem, he's escaped the corporation. He ends up in a diner where Allie works as a waitress. Oddly enough, she seems to be affected much less severely than any woman he's come across. And while she can't possibly be the perfect woman that will fix his problem, she is rather cute and likable.

When I first saw Perfection up for review, I was curious about it so I found the author's website. I didn't get an excerpt, but I did get a taste of what the author's writing style might be, and Perfection lived up to that. There was a sense of fun and lighthearted romance in Perfection, not to mention a writing style that conveyed a strong personality. The characters were likeable, and before I knew it, I found myself reading the last page. I suppose I could say the pace was fast, but when I was reading, it felt more like I was reading a 100+ page book that felt like a 40-page book. Each step of the story, which was romance-centered, felt complete and left no room for filler or little parts that left me feeling bored. The very light, almost imperceptible, humor that littered [*
snort*] the story and gave Allie a little extra nudge for her personality made the story better than it would've been without it. Overall, the story is one of the better romantic comedies I've read in a few months. Combined with the sensual sex mixed with hot tension, Perfection has me hoping to read the author's next book.

Monday, July 18, 2005


male neighbor: How's the porn writing's going?
me, slightly curt: Fine.
neighbor: So when am I gonna be featured? You put Greg in [I used another neighbor's name in Somebody To Love].
me: Maybe when you don't call it porn?
neighbor: I didn't mean your . . . regular stuff. I meant your porn.
me: Huh?
neighbor: The online book.
me: You read it?
neighbor: Yeah, of course. I really liked it.

And at that moment I understood. To him, being called a porn writer wasn't an insult. Hmm. It was the romance, the "regular stuff", he didn't like and wouldn't name--for fear of hurting my feelings, I'm guessing? I love my neighbors. No, I really do.

Cheating on Smart Bitches Day

I'm taking credit for 35+ whiny entries (PERFECT for the occasion) at the Romance Unleashed Blog contest. Hey, I'm the one ending it on a Monday, the official SBDay.

So go read "my" marvelous bitches and write your own. The winner will be picked tonight. He or she will get 11 autographed Romances to read and bitch about.

Ha, creative bitching and promo in a single post--with absolutely no work on my part. A lazy writer's dream. Does it count, Beth? Huh? Does it?

Saturday, July 16, 2005

More Harry Potter Day Stuff

Actually I won't bother because Lori and I are yammering about it over at RomanceUnleashed. Ritual, hype, books, blah blah blah. Every blog on the planet is probably addressing the issue, right?

Go check it out and weigh in with your feelings. I have to go wrestle the book out of a kid's hands. His 30 minutes of reading HP are up.

update: ack! ack! I put in an HP spoiler in one of my comments below and the comment thingie didn't leave enough space (even though I did) so the spoiler is hard to avoid. You have been warned.

Friday, July 15, 2005


Where have all the comments gone? Woe is me. Or whoa is me, as the big kid wrote.

Thursday, July 14, 2005

cluck, cluck

Yeah, there's another flap happening. PBW, Shannon and the Squawk radio people are on it. (I'm only putting in the squawkers link because PBW and Shannon are on the sidebar. As soon as I figure out the sidebar I'll be adding more and more accurate links.)

There's a lot of angry back and forth and debate about the usual subjects with a few remarks about naked or dressed chickens.**

But one little post hit me longside the head like Groucho's duck****. dingadingadinga!

Sasha over at PBW's wrote:

Erotica and Romance are two separate genres. Very true. And they DO have their own shelves in bookstores. However, erotic romance, is just as much a romance as historical, suspense or paranormal. And in some cases, even more than chic lit. Yet, RWA has embraced those sub-genres. I have to say I am totally disappointed by RWA as an organization, and the writers within it that do not support their fellow authors in the quest for publication.

Yah DUH, is all I have to say. Thank you, Sasha (I cleaned up the spelling a bit, hope you don't mind.)

And Elizabeth Bevarly, I love you, but you're wrong about EC, or at least most of the books I've read there -- and all of the books I write for them. I suspect you've figured that one out by now that there are plenty that fit the romance ticket. But if you haven't, I'd be glad to send you my books. And I'd even allow you to write a coolio plug for me. I'm that kind of generous woman.

**and let me just say right off that I love them squawk radio chickens.

**** I find a theme and, no matter how fowl, I stick to it.

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

The Boy Picked A Number

Summer's contest is over and . . . .

gtwm, also known as Shirley, is the winner!

I don't know how she found out about the contest-- but she's definitely the winner.

She gets the basket of goodies and the download. Hmmmmm. I hope she doesn't live in the deep south. Those Linder chocolate bars will turn into sacks of melted chocolate.

how to have fun without entering contests.

mob threat generator.

Dubya says.

last contest for days

Last chance to win a self indulgence basket! We have your skin products,
your hot books, candles and CHOCOLATE!!

Here's what you do:
1. go to this page:
2. read the excerpt.
3. answer these three questions

a. What's on the hero's arm?
b. How'd he get it?
c. What does the heroine do for a living?
4. send the answers in an email to

Monday, July 11, 2005

Smart Bitches Day--extremes of the unpublished

The contest over at the Romance Unleashed blog is chugging along with everyone happily bitching about plot devices they hate in romances. Very good. Not as upbeat or inspirational as that blog tends to be, but I think some wiseassed bitchery's a good plan for most blogs.

So I'm reading a lot of unpublished work right now, judging contests. A few of the entries I read cause me . . . enormous frustration. Tonight's raging bitchiness is brought to you by the letters PM and S and entries 1 and 2:

entry 1. Hey, I've read this in another contest and it's goddamn perfect. Why isn't this person published already? How come some idiot editor hasn't spotted this story yet? Are they that booked with great stories that they keep shoving this one aside? If that's true, we're all doomed. The writer is way better than I'll ever be. She's a fucking GENIUS. DAMMIT. Get her published so I can read the rest of this book.

entry 2. Uh oh. I can say "close the thesaurus." I can make suggestions about plotting, pacing, POV, GMC. I can point out backstory dumps, errors in grammar. and tag examples all over the manuscript where she could consider making changes. I've made sure she knows that many of my correction are my opinion only, not Fact.

But The Story Sucks. The basic conflict is based on misunderstandings brought about by stupid lies by the hero and the heroine. I suppose that can be pulled off if they're funny, interesting people or they have vital reasons to lie. They don't. The heroine is TSTL, and the hero is a leering, over-sexed pimple on the butt of humanity--if butt-pimples had libidos. I won't go into more detail ... and in fact I think I'll take some out.

I've written paragraphs of suggestions and I've pointed out how subjective judging is. Yet urgh. I can't imagine how she'll feel when she opens the judging package. The numbers aren't rotten but only because I don't see the point in smashing someone down with horrible numbers. (Bad enough she's not going to win) No, what really is depressing is that I bet she's new enough at writing that she doesn't know what's ahead for her. And it's all starting with my little package of joylessness. Maybe, if she's lucky and stubborn, it'll end years down the road with a contract that probably won't pay more than a month's rent. Ugh. I think I need a drink.

Does this count as a bitch, Beth? Or just cranky dreariness?

Sunday, July 10, 2005

The President (of the RWA) Speaks

Why Define Romance?

Many RWA members are under the opinion that the definition of romance that appears on our website is the official RWA definition of romance. That definition was crafted by a committee, later brought before the board, and, in the final analysis, was added to by RWA's production manager. It's [sic] use,PR purposes. [actually this is from an email that might have been screwed up so the line might be "It's used for PR purposes"]

All of these years, while that definition sat on the website and was used by the press, RWA has actually had three definitions of romance that were used for programs and services: one that has been applied toward publisher recognition, another for the RITAs, and a third as a general mission statement.

As the genre expands and changes, as our membership grows and expects more from us, our internal definitions have been caught in the fray. RWA needs a tangible, clearly provable, non-subjective method for determining what exactly we mean by a Romance Novel, for publisher and agent recognition, newly formed chapters wanting RWA approval,contests, PAN membership, and for the allocation of our resources. Many feel we should have it be as broad, as all-inclusive as possible, but that would require that we're all on the same page; as the letters we've received this week have proven, we are not.

We are not trying to narrow the membership, nor tell people what to write. We are attempting to keep RWA alive and healthy.

In November of last year, the RWA board decided to attempt to come upwith a fluid definition that will adapt easily to the changing timesand the changing marketplace; a task force was formed to study RWA's bylaws, policies and procedures, and to come up with a few possibilities.

The task force was able to reach consensus on most of the wording, butwhen it came to the concept of whether a romance should be between a man and a woman as was previously assumed or be left open for much wider interpretation, they did not want to make that decision for the membership as a whole. The society in which RWA lives is changing; we have members who write romance, who have been writing it successfully, between two women or two men. They may wish to sign their books at the literacy signing, or to advertise in the RWR. Was that okay with themajority of the membership? We honestly did not know, and we had been criticized heavily for not asking for membership opinion on graphic standards; we didn't want to make that mistake again.

So we came up with a survey. Not a vote, nothing set in stone. Just anon-binding request for an opinion. We are not attempting to legislate morality - we are attempting to find out what our community wants us to be so that we can make the decisions we're being asked to make, and will most likely be asked to make more often in the future.

Tara Taylor Quinn, President
Okay, then. What do you say?

Saturday, July 09, 2005

Oh. Right.

We ran around on Wednesday getting Senija ready for a trip back to Bosnia for a month. I was just reminded of one reason she'd return now.

Stay well, Senija. See you in August.

whoops. This is Remiza. I keep trying to post my Senija picture, but it won't go from my computer to here. Bah. I'll try later.

sentimental about cyberspace?

That's sort of sad, as in "You collect empty egg cartons? That is really sad."

But I went back and looked around the old place. Sniffle. I mean those great FIFTY FIVE WORD BUTTONS that Hyde and Shylah made! I can't toss them. We'll have to use them again.

Bye for now, blog.

I have trouble throwing out ratty tee-shirts, too. There's one I got in Holstebro, Danmark in 1974 that I still own. It was celebrating the city's 700th year (the city was founded in 1274. Or rather it was mentioned in some letter from a bishop)

I wore that shirt a lot in 1976 when the US was going on and on about our bicentennial. I lived in DC and was just entering the extremely snotty stage of life. Well, perhaps not just entering. . .

huh.. I just maundered on about My Past at the old blog, too -- must be a moving thing.

Friday, July 08, 2005

the latest contest

This one isn't mine, but one of my books is in it. And I'm shoving the contest down people's throats big time because I told the other RU authors how much FUN contests are. "When you make people work, the results are FUN. . . No really!. . .You'll love reading the FUN entries," I told them.

So far there aren't any entries, fun or otherwise.

So here's the deal:
1. Go to THIS spot.
2. Whine according to the directions. It's easy.

Maybe you should think Beth and her Smart Bitches day. Check out her Monday entries. . . You should keep the whining really, really short.

Win this contest and you don't have to do any shopping for your beach reading. Here are all the autographed books** you'll win:

Lady of the Knight, Jackie Ivie.
Scot history with a twist...the heroine get the knives and the hero gets to wonder how that happened. Winner - Best First Book 2004 Beacon Contest

Risk Everything, Sophia Johnson
The sparks flying in the battle between Rolf and Meghan set the pages afire -- guess who comes out the winner? RT 4 Stars

Here Comes The Bride, Laura Drewry
In this passionate western historical romance, a proper Boston lady takes refuge with a rugged rancher in Montana and steals his heart. RT 4 stars

The Seduction of Sarah, Cynthia Clement
Passionate pursuits rule the day when England's high society is confined to a country estate. Romance Junkies 4 Ribbons.

Unveiled, Kristina Cook

From the author of Unlaced, the story of two stubborn souls confronted with a passion impossible to ignore. Will they close the door on love--or unveil their hearts?"

For Her Love, Paula Reed
Amidst the racial turmoil of the seventeenth-century Caribbean, a woman of mixed blood overcomes her stormy past to find happiness with a courageous captain.

Love is All Around, Lori Devoti
“…vivid characters and subtle, laugh-out-loud brand of storytelling. A sparkling novel." Affaire de Coeur 5 stars

The Naked Duke, Sally MacKenzie
Regency-set historical. A proper American miss wakes from her innocent slumber to find a naked duke in her bed. Is it a nightmare or a dream come true? 4 stars, RT

Master of Pleasure, Jessica Trapp
Seeking revenge against the noble family who betrayed him, bastard warlord Godric Montgomery abducts the woman he was once promised, making her his captive--body and soul.

Hot Stuff, Flo Fitzpatrick

Romance sizzles between a sassy American linguist and an Irish adventurer in the hot city of Bombay when the pair go on the run with a mysterious statue in new romantic/action comedy. 4.5 RT, Gold Top Pick

Somebody to Love, Kate Rothwell
The stubborn Griffin Calverson meets his match. “…A fascinating story of forbidden love in 1883 New York.” Cataromance; 5 ribbons Romance Junkies

**note: I made everyone write her own description, that's why there is such a variety of rioting styles.

The books will come to you all neatly stacked, I hope, into a cloth carrier sack suitable for hauling books or wet bathing suits (after the books are removed). The bag is decorated a lot of really nice covers silkscreened onto the side.

Thursday, July 07, 2005


Holding our breath, watching the news, sending up useless fretful thoughts and prayers. Soon we'll be waiting to see what happens next, and hoping it isn't more of the same from any side.

I've read articles about the reasoning behind these attacks and the thinking is far removed from any reality I understand. How can purposefully targetting and killing civilians further any cause?

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

Proud Political Aunt

Okay, it's political, so I should probably put it in my other blog. This one is supposed to be about writing.

I'll just post it here. Because honestly, whether you're right or left, you have to admire a kid who works hard for what he believes in.

My sister's kid, Alan, is one of the broadcasters on the July 1st show, President, Interrupted -- an analysis of the president's speech. Be patient. It takes a while to load.

Even if you support the president at least some of the comments will make you think. (Yes, some of them are as obviously propaganda as any of the president's words.)

Ha, lookie there. The one slightly negative comment was from my sister, his mom.

Disturbing but fascinating. But disturbing.

Photoshop gone wild. The photowizards are just too good.

(I got the link from Bron, bless her sick soul)

Monday, July 04, 2005

RWA, again?

If I'm going to complain when they do dumb stuff, then I should applaud when they do good stuff. This is what I hope for from a professional writers' group. Thank you, Nicole Burnham

RWA will be undertaking an a legal analysis of agency contracts, as well as the agency clauses inpublishing contracts, with an eye to educating members about what these clauses mean and how thewording in these clauses can affect authors' intellectual property rights and writing income.If you have signed with an agency in the last year, or if you have seen a change in contract terms ineither your agency contract or in the agency clause of your publishing contract in the last year, RWA would like to hear about it. Please forward a copy of your agency contract and, if possible, theagency clause of your publishing contract (this is the provision inserted by the agent into your publishing contract which states the name of the agent and how they are to be paid, and is usually near the end of the contract) either by snail mail or e-mail to:
Nicole Burnham
RWA Region One Director
PO Box 229
Hopkinton, MA 01748
nic @ (take out the spaces in her email addie) If e-mailing, please be sure to put "RWA Contract Analysis" in the subject line. If you wish, feel free to mark out the author name and any monetary amounts (though percentages are helpful.) All author names will be kept strictly confidential. Information gathered will be used for articles in the RWR, workshops, and other educational programs to better inform members of the meaning and effect of contract language. If you have any questions about this program, please e-mail Nicole Burnham at nic @ is granted to forward this post in its entirety.

Go back two spaces...

I just posted at my old blog ( and it's mostly about a contest. . . no, no, don't get excited. It's a promotional contest. Yeah, the prize is fine, but the contest, she is boring. For me, at any rate.

Other holiday fun, I'm trying to figure out what to do at romanceunleashed's blog for a contest and I promised to list this month's releases today. And here I always thought I hated promotion.

Fireworks tonight and for the first time in more than a decade, we'll get to go close. The boys say it's time. They can face the loud booms at last. Oh, I remembered to warn the refugees I saw last week about all the explosions they'd be hearing. For obvious reasons, firework displays freak them out. The first year I worked with refugees, I heard about the kids who hid in closets after dark every night. They came to the US and at last felt able to sleep out in the open. Then the fourth of July rolled around, a few explosions later and -- back into the closet they went. They sweated and cried because they were scared and it was too hot, but they refused to sleep anywhere else.

Saturday, July 02, 2005

Bitchin' !! and sagacious

Can that Bec can do a blog or what?

I love my new look. Don't expect the contents to be any different but they'll sure appear more intelligent.

I used to handwrite first drafts and then type them up--they always, always looked so much more profound typed up. Maybe this will have the same effect. Slight degooberification was called for in order for me to look like a professional. I wonder if I can import dancing bananas though.