The HEA Cafe

In the last year, the RWR (Romance Writers Report) has published letters to the editor with complaints of romance books having too much sex and foul language. Critics have said they don’t want to see beyond the bedroom door, and they consider authors who use foul language as being challenged individuals when it comes to finding words that better convey emotions.

For those individuals who prefer a more sedate book, please note that the market drives the demand for certain types of books. To make a living one MUST make accommodations based on what’s driving sales. Instead of sniping at fellow authors, sit thee down and write the good book as my friend Claire says. The same to protesters of foul language.

Writing romance isn’t something we can do in a vacuum. We need to either incorporate our reality into a book, or at least present an accurate picture of the past. We need to write what readers believe is realistic, and there are many romance readers who believe that sex, foul language and/or both is a vital component of a romance. With all that in mind, I do think some of the protesters have a valid point. There can be too much sex and too much foul language. Now before you tackle me on that, please note that I write erotic romance. I write carnal sex scenes in my romance works. I also use “foul” language. But here’s what some writers and readers don’t understand. Too much of something is a bad thing.

When writing sex, the writer needs to understand that it’s the sexual tension the reader wants. They want build up or at the very least a really good reason for the culmination of sex. Readers on the other hand need to understand that what they see as “too much sex in romance” is really a sign of poorly developed sexual tension and/or characterization. So instead of ranting about there’s too much sex in romance, start ranting about the lack of characterization or sexual tension. There is a big difference. In this humble writer’s opinion, it’s not that there’s too much sex in romance, it’s that the sex in a lot of romance is simply underdeveloped sexual tension and/or character development.

I applaud sex and foul language in romance when used appropriately and not repeatedly. And I believe that’s the biggest part of the problem. I think it’s the repetitiveness in so many romances that irritates readers. They just don’t realize it. The issue of foul language can be viewed the same way. For a character or scene the use of “foul” language can be quite appropriate, but too much makes for repetition and the words lose their impact. There’s nothing more powerful than the F-word used at a point in the story where that’s the only word that will do. But using it every other line reduces the word’s impact. The same goes for using words like clit, clitoris, penis, etc. These throw me out of the read. (I’m continuously asking myself if the majority of women really use those words when they’re making love to their significant others? Maybe some do, but I’m willing to bet a lot of women don’t. In fact, they’re more apt to be a little more base. *grin*) For me those words don’t ring true. They don’t sound realistic in the context they’re placed..

And that’s what this post is really about. Realism. Is the sex realistic, appropriate and written into the story at the right point in time for the characters drawn on the page? Is the language used appropriate for the specific moment in the story? Has the writer avoided the issue of repetitiveness with both the sex and the foul words. Sex and foul language are integral to many good books. But when it’s overdone, it’s like overcooked beef — it’s dry and far from tasty.

Monica Burns is a multi-published erotic romance author. Her current release, Mirage, is receiving rave reviews, including a Top Pick from Romantic Times BOOKreviews and a “scorching” review from Sylvia Day.

Monica’s next release is Dangerous, a paranormal from Samhain Publishing. Visit her website for more information. http://www.monicaburns.com/BookshelfDangerous.htm

Or: Everything I needed to know, I learned from George Costanza

I’ve always loved to read, so it was no surprise to anyone when I eventually decided to write a book of my own. When I did, I attacked it head on. I planned, I worked, I outlined more than any woman should. The end result? I wrote three mysteries that didn’t sell.

I don’t know how many of you watch Seinfeld, but there is a time in George’s life where he decides what he’s been doing hasn’t been working, so he decides to do the opposite. That’s what I did with my books. I’d been writing serious mysteries, with lots of science and research involved. They’d generated some interest, enough to almost, almost sell. But nothing quite happened.

To take my mind off the latest mystery making the rounds with agents, I decided to write something completely different, a funny paranormal romance where I could build my own world and make up my own rules. I fell in love with the idea of a preschool teacher who is forced to run off with a gang of geriatric biker witches and THE ACCIDENTAL DEMON SLAYER was born.

Instead of a 20-page plot outline, I had a 5-page list of ideas, one of which included “but little did they know, all the Shoney’s are run by werewolves.” Instead of following the rules, I broke a few. Instead of painstakingly writing over the course of a year, I giggled my way through the book and had a complete manuscript in five months.

The opening chapters did well in contests and caught the eye of an editor, who asked to see the whole thing. That same editor bought the book less than a week after I finished it.

I still can’t believe THE ACCIDENTAL DEMON SLAYER will be an August 2008 release. And just this afternoon, I was working on the sequel, laughing with the characters and having more fun than I should.

While I’m not sure Seinfeld is the best place to go for life lessons, I really do think there’s something to be said for following your instincts – in writing and in everything else. Can you think of a time you’ve taken a different path? Broken out of a pattern and started something new?

You’ve likely heard the expression about “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” which cautions people not to quickly discard something that might be valuable (baby) with something of little value (used bathwater). It’s a tired old cliche. It came to mind, however, as I breezed through the brouhaha surrounding allegations of author Cassie Edwards’ plagiarism. If you’ve been living under a rock this week and I have no idea what I’m talking about, go here and here.

Okay, back with me?

I’m not going to talk about whether or not Ms. Edwards copied research text verbatim into her books. That’s already being talked about everywhere and my input on that would be superfluous.

I’m going to talk about something that I saw in a lot of comments and postings on the issue. It set me back a tad. It’s not something I’d not heard before, but I was surprised to see it crop up so quickly. And that something was this: “I’m never buying another book by Signet (Edwards’ publisher).”

Yes, I saw I’m never buying another Cassie Edwards’ book, which is a feeling I understand. An author has betrayed your trust or no longer subscribes to the same belief you do.

I don’t understand penalizing hundreds of other authors who had absolutely nothing to do with what Ms. Edwards did or did not do, simply because they write for the same house.

Note: I do not write for Signet/Penguin. I write for Bantam/Random House. Unrelated.

But this scares me. The last time I saw this reaction crop up was with book covers. A few–blessedly few–readers log from time to time at various blogged cover art discussions, and state that they 1) hold the author responsible for the cover art, even though they realize the author has little say and 2) if they don’t like a cover, they’ll never buy that author again. Ever.

Those are the kinds of things that make me want to pound my head on my desk.

The “I’ll never buy another Signet book” seems to be in that same camp. I understand readers are trying to send a message to Signet, or punish Signet for the stand Signet took in defending Ms. Edwards. But in my humble opinion, and as an author whose day and night job is writing books, penalizing authors who have had nothing to do with the brouhaha is tragic at best, stupid at worst.

Trust me, I have no idea what my sister and fellow authors at Bantam Spectra are doing right now. I have no idea if their prose is perfect or their research is annotated. I don’t have time. If one of them does something heinous and provably so, and you ask me, I’ll decry their horrible action with all my heart. But I’m not responsible for whatever they do, and to hold me in thrall in such a way is… nuts.

If an author from my publisher wins a huge award for his books, would you conversely buy all my books as well?

I’ve long had a problem with broad-brush tactics: all blondes are dumb, all Polish-Americans like to bowl, all teenagers are lazy, whatever. All Signet authors plagiarize and must be shunned. That would mean shunning Nora Roberts. A victim of plagiarism herself. And a Signet author.

I think it’s good to get impassioned over injustices. I’m all for taking a stand. Those of you who know me personally know I don’t suffer fools quietly and, after ten years of carrying a gun and a badge as a licensed PI, I’m a great believer that wrongs need to be righted, that the guilty should pay.

But as you raise that heavy tin bathtub of oily, soapy wrongs, please take a look at what else you’re tossing out into the gutter. There may be more than a few innocent author babies in there.

Respectfully yours, poolside, at the Home for the Perpetually Confused…

Namaste (I salute the Divine in you), ~Linnea

The Down Home Zombie Blues, an RT 4-1/2 star TOP PICK! Nov. 2007 from RITA award winning author Linnea Sinclair:
http://www.linneasinclair.com/DHZBCOVER.htm

“Linnea Sinclair’s recipe for success—undeniable passion, clever conversations and perilous situations, combine to produce another sensory delight with The Down Home Zombie Blues.” –SingleTitles.com

Casting Director

I don’t plot, I don’t plan, and just thinking the word “synopsis” is enough to give me hives.  But one thing I do need to know before I start writing is what my characters look like.  So with my Casting Director’s hat securely in place, I start thumbing through my resources.

Glossy entertainment magazines are a bounty for writers, like me, who need visuals.   The articles in these publications are useless to me because, frankly, I couldn’t care less where Angelina Jolie sends her kid to school, nor do I care what Spice Girl Beckham is wearing today.  Good Lord, I can barely keep up with things in my own life, never mind the lives of perfect strangers.  Anyway, I buy these publications because I want the pictures.  Big, glossy, beautiful pictures.

Page by page, I go through them, and cut out as many faces as I can.  Most of the time, they’re faces of beautiful people (both male and female), but I’m also looking for interesting faces, homely faces, and those faces that show specific expressions or personalities.  While I can’t deny I often want my heroes and heroines to be attractive, it’s more than that.  It’s a “look”; a frown, a smirk, or any one of a million other expressions that helps define who my characters are.  If that look happens to be attached to Johnny Depp’s face, more the better.  J

I keep all the faces pinned to a huge bulletin board in my “office”.   When I start a new book, I study that board to see if the perfect face or look is there.  It’s not just the main characters I’m looking for, but secondary characters, too.  If there are animals in the story - I find those, too.  If I’m lucky enough to find the perfect look, I pull it down and pin it to my work space.  If it’s not there, I drop another small fortune on glossies and keep hunting until I find the perfect face.  Sometimes it’s easy.  Sometimes. . . .OY!!

Simple or not, when I find the perfect look to go with my character, it’s like I can make anything work.  Of course, I’d still like all those looks to be attached to Johnny Depp’s face, but I can’t have everything, can I?

Banned Book Week runs from September 29th through October 6^th. Over the next couple of days on my personal blog (http://monicaburns.blogspot.com/), I’ll be posting brief blurbs about books I’ve read over the years that have been banned or burned in places throughout the world. On Thursday, I’ll talk about actual book burnings. And stay tuned through out the week as there will be a surprise coming on Friday.
1984
by George Orwell

This book about Big Brother and its political themes was banned in the USSR and challenged in Florida based on what challengers considered pro-communist and sexual themes throughout the book.

For the book synopsis and purchase information, click here.

Monica

Monica Burns - http://www.monicaburns.com | http://www.myspace.com/monicaburns
Mirage, Samhain, 10/07 | Dangerous, Samhain 03/08
Come Enjoy the Ahh…Sensation