I've cut out bits here and there but the gist is there. I don't want to cut too much because she's a good writer (other than the actual thinking/tolerance part) and it's bad idea to ignore that fact. . . . romance isn't about just any "two people" celebrating "love in its many forms." Organizations such as the Man-Boy Love Association would certainly refer to themselves as celebrating love "two people" (or more) finding love in one of its many forms" . . . while they actively promote pedophilia.
Think RWA can't go down that slipper slope? Think again. Under our present definition, we cannot exclude such "love stories" under the category of "romance". We, as a culture, seem to have forgotten how to say "enough is enough," but RWA can--indeed, must--do better than that. . . .
And, please, spare us the arguments about "censorship" and "inclusiveness." Preference for "one man, on…
me: Okay, this isn't going to work. I have these characters drinking tea again. They need to do something else immediately. These words are chopped. Two hundred gone. And let's see, the confrontation is coming up soon. Any suggestions?
also me:Oh. My. God. Why bother? No one reads your books. No one thinks they're anything more than adequate. You can't seem to change your style to fit what people want. You're old news. OLD. NEWS. Stale old voice. There's no point in writing yet another book that no one will wants--
me: How about if they finally talk instead of just hinting around? Yeah, and maybe that guy will say what's been on his mind since chapter two.
also me: Jesus. So boring. Talk, talk, talk. You know that your--
me: How about if they--
also me:--you know your books are worthless because people want conflict and angst. They don't want to read another book with so little at stake. me: Good point for once. Let's get some conflict with an actual mean…