Rant: You Stole What?

There's a lot of talk about book piracy online--pretty sure I've written about it before--but that's not what today's post is about. It's about a different kind of theft and where exactly the line in the sand is drawn.

Sit back, kiddos, because I have a lot to say...

Sort of.

(Really I'm just filling white space so the images line up :P


A couple weeks ago, I saw a blog post regarding cover art "theft." My gut instinct was that it was someone who didn't understand the cover industry's reliance on stock images and how often they are used and re-used. Because of that, I almost didn't click the link. Then I wondered if it was a situation where a photoshoot had been done for a specific book and the cover ended up on some other book. This is a big deal. Rare, I'd think, but a big deal. So I clicked the link. (I would love to provide you a link to the original post, but for the life of me, I can't find it. The Ashes trilogy by Ilsa Bick and Sketchy by Olivia Samms were the books in question.)

Screams of copyright infringement were shouted from fans. The author had the wisdom to set the record straight. This isn't a copyright fail. Both covers have the title cut out running down the center of the cover with the author name below. That's it. The end.

Pretty & a great read!

It would be like saying the cover art for Clockwork Mafia (which you will all get to see soon, I promise) is copying the cover art for Incarnate by Jodi Meadows just because both heroines are wearing butterfly masks. Sorry, but both heroines wear butterfly masks in both books, hers just came out first :P And in all fairness, beyond that fact, the covers look nothing alike. There will inevitably be similarities in cover art because publishers across the board are looking for and discovering what helps get books off the shelf. Yes, there is something to be said for being first, but especially in a genre like YA, people will soon forget that detail.

Sorry, can't share yet :P

So...no, not theft. Not to me and not to any legal team I've ever heard of.

But that brings us back to writing. If that isn't theft of cover art, why do so many authors have issue with books like 50 Shades of Grey? Because like it or lump it, it's different. Here's why...

50 took an existing series, existing characters, and a general idea of the plot (including pregnancy as I understand) and just changed the set-up. Instead of a vampire, we got a dim-Dom. Originally, even the character names were the same.

And that's the sticky part for most authors. Had 50 just come out of nowhere and felt like this whole weird, kinky version of Twilight, there's a decent chance that no one would have balked much. We would have done the whole "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" dance and left it at that. But the author didn't do that. Instead, she wrote fan fiction, posted it on the internet as fan fiction, and then changed the names (and allegedly not much more) and published it. She used the fan base of the original work to promote her story.

And to make matters more distasteful, the publisher of 50 seems to have been going after anyone and everyone looking to capitalize on its success...right down to people who run sex toy parties (like Tupperware parties, only hotter).

There's a wide space between inspiration and that. Where's the line? I don't know, but in the realm of cover art, it certainly isn't cut-out titles running down the middle of a cover.

Mini-Rant: There Is No Ultimate Goal

Really this isn't a rant, it's more of a reality check. I've been published for two and a half years now (or really close to it--I think I'm off by 3 days), and I've learned a few things along the way.

Prior to selling, my goal was to "get an agent." It was a noble goal to be sure, but in the interim, I've seen more than one author-friend languish while their agent either stuck them in never-ending revision-trenches or even actively tried to sell their books. An agent is not the magical fairy who will get you published. They are just one step on the path to a New York contract, and not a sure one at that. If you notice, I still don't have an agent. I'm no longer worried about it because I took a different path, one I'm very okay with.

Then I thought, if I just sell something, it'll all be okay! Truth is, it's "okay" to be an aspiring author. It's okay to toil away on manuscripts that don't sell. It's all O-fucking-kay because signing with a publisher doesn't mean your book will fly off the shelves. Reviews don't necessarily make that happen either, no matter how good they are. What does selling change? You are now a published (or almost-published) author. This is a big deal and cause for celebration, but you're still going to have to toil away at that next manuscript.

Bigger publishers, better deals, hitting lists, making bank... They are all good goals. But at the end of the day, you still have to write a great next book. Especially in the digital age, the idea of a book a year (or less often) doesn't work. The drive to get the agent or book deal or whatever? You still need it after, in fact, you might need it more.

The reality is, there's no sweet spot for most authors where they can just sit back and enjoy the fruits of their labor. There has to be a push to keep going in order to move forward.

The real trick? The real sweet spot? It's learning to balance that need for progress with the joy of writing. I've said it before and I'll say it over and over again: if you aren't writing because you love it--because it's a passion--you shouldn't do it. But if you can love it even when it's ugly and hard and exhausting...then you'll be able to weather all the storms that come with it.

Back Away from My Kink

(I need to preface this post with a warning. If you are a member of my family, you probably don't want to read this. Stop now, go read something else. Maybe come back next week. Agents/editors, there will be a degree of TMI in this post. I'm sorry. Uh... that goes for everyone else too. If you are easily offended or don't want to know anything more about my sex life than that I have one, please step away from the blog. Thank you.

Also, there is cursing involved.)

Still here? Cool.

There's a lot of talk going around about BDSM right now. As happens periodically, a book (sometimes it's a movie) has come out that drags the lifestyle into the mainstream and people start talking about it. This is a good thing. It is an opportunity for learning and understanding. (For a prime example of this, check out Wicked Lil Pixie's place. She's been interviewing people in the lifestyle for a better understanding--without falling prey to what the news media does and looking for the extreme of the extreme.)

Unfortunately, it is also an opportunity for people to rant about things they don't bother learning about and that they don't understand. Yesterday, I followed a fellow author's link to her blog. It initially looked as though it was going to be a rant against 50 Shades of Grey. (Now, here's the thing--I haven't read the book. I read the first few pages and couldn't get past the writing to bother. Other people love the book. More power to them as far as I'm concerned.) It wasn't about that though. It was a rant against BDSM.

On the plus side, the author admitted that she doesn't understand it. But she then went on to say that as far as she was concerned, it was abuse. Period. Maybe she backpedaled after saying that, but I was already seething and quit reading the post shortly thereafter (as it also was incredibly long, so I didn't want to suffer through it for that amount of time). Here's the deal...


Abuse (from Miriam Webster):
1  : a corrupt practice or custom

2

: improper or excessive use or treatment : misuse <drugabuse>

3   : 

obsolete : a deceitful act : deception

4

: language that condemns or vilifies usually unjustly, intemperately, and angrily

5

: physical maltreatment

Dear author of said blog,
I'm guessing, definition #5 was your argument for abuse. The problem with that is if the people involved (consenting adults, mind you) want and enjoy the aspects of BDSM (including spanking, flogging, collaring, or whatever happens to float their own personal boat), it would not--for them--be cruel and inhumane treatment (the definition of maltreatment).

However, your own post definitely fits under #4 in that it condemns people who do enjoy this lifestyle. So, there's your abuse. Congrats, it came from you. Personally, I prefer my floggings to be of a more physical nature from someone who cares about me and does it because I want him to. He doesn't abuse me. You did.

You also vilified a fair number of my friends. They might be people you know. They might not. It doesn't matter. You blindly and willfully got on your soapbox and shouted how wrong they were for liking to take or give up control. How wrong they were for wanting alpha males in their lives. How wrong they were for taking their sex with a side of discipline. And you did so by scoffing at one of the basic tenants of the kink community with your comment (paraphrasing to avoid linking back to your rant) about how you don't care about "live and let live" and not judging others. Oh really? Then it's perfectly okay for me to judge you and your sex life and relationships? Really? There's a saying we follow in the kink community that goes something like "It's not my kink." Personally, there are many things I don't enjoy, but if someone else does, it is their right.

You balked at collaring. That's fine. It's not your thing. Quite frankly, if my husband came home with a collar, I'd be a little taken aback. But here's the difference between your attitude of changing the locks and my kinky marriage--my husband and I would sit the fuck down and talk about why he wanted me to wear it, what it would mean to him, to me, and to our relationship. Guess which one of us would be less likely to head to divorce court.

You see, the world of kink isn't about abuse. It's about what feels good. If something doesn't feel good or right for you, you don't do it. You might try it on for size, but if you don't like it, you leave that out. And you talk to your partner about it. I've seen people ask questions about "how do I get my spouse to _______?" on kink websites. The most common answer is always something like "You can't make them, but talk to them about it." Kink is big on communication. Communication saves marriages.

And, as far as collaring and submission and servitude go, it's not my thing. I don't think I could ever do a 24/7 lifestyle. But, one of my very dear friends is contracted to a Dom. And she is the happiest now that I have ever known her. I'm not sure if that needs repeating, but here's the thing. Who the fuck are you to judge that? What gives you the right to stand on your soapbox and tell her that her path to happiness--that doesn't actually hurt anyone--is wrong? You're not her mother. You're not her sister. As far as I know, you're not even her friend. You're some author on a high horse who decided you're right and the rest of us are wrong.

Crazy statistic for you. There's a kink website I know (just one out of I don't know how many) that is rapidly approaching a million members. Now, if you consider the number of men and women who are of age and into kink that haven't joined (for whatever reason), that number's a whole lot bigger. Where do you get off telling a million plus people that they are wrong? That what they enjoy either in the bedroom or outside of it is bad (we're talking consenting adults here)?

I get that you are unhappy that those types of books--the ones with the alpha males and the BDSM and the kink--are selling. Hell, I write beta heroes rather often. A lot of people like the change, but a lot of others don't like them because those characters aren't "man enough." They dislike my heroine because she doesn't follow the "rules of romance." Whatever. They're the characters that are in the story and they belong there. And I like them. But I also like my alpha heroes. I also like my kinky characters. As an author, I get to put whatever I like into my books. Whatever fits. I'm in control there, but I don't get to control what other people want to read.

And neither do you.

You get to choose what's right for you. In your bedroom, your life, and your stories. But here's a heads up: my kink, my friends' kinks, BDSM books, alpha heroes... none of that affects you unless you want it to. Don't like it? Then don't do it. Don't participate. Don't write it. Don't read it. No one (unless you have an editor pushing for it--who you're allowed to say no to) is forcing you down that path.

So stop abusing those of us who do choose to travel it with your words and your anger and your hate.

Beware the kinky. A lot of us will bite back.

Have a lovely vanilla day,
Seleste

Drinking and Thinking...about Books

Last night we went out to dinner and I actually ordered a drink. Now, as much as I enjoy my adult beverages, I don't often order drinks when we're out for dinner. They tend to be over-priced...blah blah blah. But I'd finished a project yesterday and wanted to get something to celebrate. In the spirit of celebration, I perused the menu for something a little different and ordered a mojito--a drink that I enjoy but don't have very often.

For me, picking something like that is sort of like going into a bookstore and grabbing a book from a genre that I don't normally read but I've liked before. It makes the stories I do read there more special somehow. For instance, I read a lot of YA, but very little contemporary YA. The exception to that is Hannah Moskowitz. Love her work. I don't read much homosexual erotica either (yes, jumping from YA to erotica...it's what I do), but I decided to give it a chance and found that in certain ways I like it better than a lot of straight erotica (but odds are it'll still be a less common purchase). My mainstays in reading are what I normally write--speculative. Give me some weres and vamps or spaceships or clockworks or even elves and gnomes and I'm a happy girl (as long as it's well-written and a fun story). But in those other genres... I'm a lot more picky.

A friend once told me there's nothing like a really good mojito. He's right, but there's also nothing like a really bad one. And this went beyond bad. It was horrible. It tasted like really syrupy peppermint schnapps on the rocks--a big old glass of it. Nothing against peppermint schnapps, I mean, it's tasty in hot chocolate, but it's definitely not a mojito. I sent the drink back, but the peppermint taste was so strong that not even my cajun shrimp could cover it.

So, imagine buying a not-my-genre book and sitting down to read it and ending up with a similar experience. Since it's not a standard read for me, the book that leaves the horrid taste in my mouth that no amount of Kelley Armstrong and Richelle Mead with a Mark Henry chaser will kill, risks ruining the entire genre for me. That shit will make me pick my ass up and desert an entire section of the bookstore.

Now, one good thing is I've had a decent mojito. Hell, I've had a damn good mojito. I know they're out there, so other than making sure I never order one at that particular restaurant again, I'm not going to avoid mojitos at all cost, after all, I know they can be yummy. To be fair though, odds are I won't risk ordering one blindly. It'll take having had one at the place before (mmmm....Pickle Barrel...) or having a friend tell me the place makes good ones. Otherwise, I'm going to stick to what I normally drink.

The same is true with books. If I pick up a YA contemporary that turns my stomach (or melts my brain), I'm still going to buy the next Hannah Moskowitz book. A gay erotic romance with no character development or discernable plot? Meh. I know there are good ones out there, but I'll base that reading on recommendations from now on. This is, from my discussions with others, a pretty standard way of thinking. Beyond judging a book by its cover, readers often judge a genre based on the first book they read in that genre.

So every writer--traditional, digital, indie, I-don't-care-what-the-newest-label-is--needs to keep that in mind. That means the editing, plot, characterizations need to be the best you can make them. Your book could be the first one a reader picks up in that genre. It will be the book by which all others are judged. What kind of taste do you want to leave in the reader's mouth?

Have there been any books that you've read that would have turned you off to a genre if you didn't already know there were better books out there?

Seeing Red...and Blue...and Green...

While I was away at the beach, edits came in on a recent story. It's a short, so I figured it was no big deal and I'd be able to tackle them pretty quickly. Now, to give you some perspective, when I'm really on, I can edit a short in a day or two. Then I opened the file.

Holy highlights, Batman!

There was...a lot. And I knew without a doubt I needed more than a couple days of sneaking away from family time to get it done. Most editors who have worked with me (and talked to me while I was editing) know that I can tackle big issues pretty handily. Editor points out a problem, I slap my hand against my forehead, wonder how I could have been so stupid as to not see the problem, and I get to work on fixing it. It's the little things that give me fits. (I'm sure Gina remembers well when I was working on edits in Italy and had one sentence that I couldn't get right. She told me to skip it. I refused, and the answer came to me while trying to sleep on the flight home.) And almost everything I needed to fix in this story was a little thing.

My intense love for edits (yes, I'm weird) quickly turned into a lot of loud groaning about not wanting to do it. You see, I had this illusion that the more stories I had published, the easier edits would get because I'd have been learning to fix all those stupid things I did wrong. The fact is I appear to replace one stupid thing with something new. My "that" problem? Tackled. Gone. Over. (Believe me, it took a long time.) Now I have things that can't be solved with a simple "delete".

But you know what? I'm seeing the tail end of this round of edits now--I'll finish them today--and as much as I hate to say it, I think it was a good experience for me. First, it made me realize there will always be something in need of fixing. That's a really freeing thought. I'm going to screw up, so I just need to worry about writing. Second, I found that even some of the little things need to be fought for. A suggested change of wording to something that your character would never use., a turn of phrase that your betas all loved, intentional use of passive structure--all of those things can be important. The point of edits is to figure out when they're most important, because that's when you dig your heels in (which is hard to do when you haven't made a bunch of other suggested changes--makes you seem like a diva :P).

Now that I've struggled through all the itty-bitty detailed changes, I can say I still love doing edits. I'm hoping when I do my read-through before hitting send later today, I'll be able to smile and say the changes made the story stronger. Because that's the point of all the moaning, groaning, hand-wringing, cursing, and throwing of things--to make it better.

In the meantime, I'll repaint the target on my office wall for the next round of throwing thi...er edits.

The Romance Is Over

Or at least the Mr. Romance competition.

Word came out last Wednesday that the people behind the Romantic Times convention have pulled the plug on the competition. I'm not going to re-hash their reasons (you can read them here --> http://readersentertainment.com/2011/no-more-mr-romance/ ). It's no secret I'm not happy about this, but I don't think it's for the reason most people who know me (or know of me) think. Okay, that might be a bit of the reason, but it's not the whole reason.

Here's the thing...I love the Romantic Times Convention. I love the scope of it and the parties and meeting authors and, yes, meeting the models. It's all part of this big package to me that screams in orgasmic joy. The powers-that-be at RT are saying that there will still be models there, and I'm sure some of them will be, but I'm going to hazard a guess that for the most part it will be the people who have been there before: CJ Hollenbeck, Jimmy Thomas, Mark Johnson... and maybe a few of the more recent contestants. But odds are there won't be new blood every year. And I don't like that...for a lot of reasons.

We'll start with the obvious one that most people will think I mean--there won't be the opportunity to meet new models. Yes, I like meeting and partying with (and actually talking to) men. Sure, I like talking to men I already know, but meeting new ones is fun. I'll miss that. And if my regular dance partners don't go? Um...the dances are going to be a lot less fun. Sorry to all my girlfriends. Dancing with you is fun, but I like dancing with guys.

Now onto (some of) the other reasons.

First is the opportunity the Mr. Romance competition provided to up and coming models. Many of the guys who competed didn't have connections in the romance industry, and for some, Mr. Romance was their first glance into that world. There are quite a few male models who would love to get into cover modeling but don't have the connections. Mr. Romance was a foot in the door--one that has just been cut off. Considering more than one of the competitors this year alone signed with agents and stock photo companies because of the competition, that means less opportunities for models and fewer options for authors. I don't know about any other author, but I like the increased possibility of having models that fit what my characters actually look like.

But that's not even the biggest issue.

That one is RT itself. As I said, I love this con and Mr. Romance was one thing that made it stand out from all the others. Without it, what makes it special? What makes it different than...RomCom or RWA Nationals or Authors After Dark or (for those of us who write genre romance) DragonCon or World Con or World Fantasy? Every author and reader has to make choices on where their promotional dollar goes, and cons are expensive. As far as registration and promotion goes, RT might be the most expensive. To be fair, someone's going to be most expensive, and it might as well be them. But at a certain point, if RT loses what makes it unique, what is going to encourage authors and readers to spend the extra to attend?

I want to have faith that the powers-that-be have something planned to make RT stand out since they're doing away with the Mr. Romance competition, but I don't know them well enough to say that for certain. The best I can do is hope that something awesome will take its place, because I'd hate to see RT become just another con.

Me-yow...

Cougar.

Love the cat, and to be honest, I don't hate it as a slang term either.

A couple places I frequent on the interwebs have been discussing cougars of late. Why the sudden surge of interest? I'm not sure. Maybe it's cyclical and I've just missed the cycles until now LOL. Really though, it's led me to do a lot of thinking. The first time it popped on my radar was with regard to romance books, and specifically erotic romance. Are cougars hot or overdone? How much of an age difference until it moves from sexy to squicky? Etc. etc. etc. And then, the terminology came into question. If you're not in your 40s, you aren't a cougar. (In your 30s, you're apparently a puma. Not sure what this means for women in their 50s or older.) Then someone said that if you weren't a woman who actively hunted for younger men, you weren't a cougar either. (Okay, so in a way, this makes sense, but then is there a different term for women who just happen to sometimes date or end up falling for a younger guy?)

All of this led me to a couple questions of my own.

First, there's a name for women who do this, but what about men? I mean, sure some of them get the dirty old man title, but in general do they have a name? Because if they do, I can't think of it.

Which leads me to wonder why women have one, and why we're always such sticklers for fitting people into niches. Because it isn't just the cougar thing and different people's ideas about that. Here are some other things you'll regularly hear from women about other women (and from men too, but...)

- "You're not curvy, you're fat."

- "She's too pretty to be smart."

- "That chick is too old to wear that."

- "Someone give that girl a cookie, she must be anorexic."

I will admit, I'm guilty of this as well, but when we talk about feminism and women supporting women, we need to start being realistic. Women are hard on each other to a crazy degree.

A few weeks ago, a woman started bitching about #BoobieWed on Twitter. Now, this is a campaign where people switch their avatars (if they choose) to a picture of boobs or cleavage and remind people to do their self-exams. It is for breast cancer awareness. Does it raise money? No. But it does get the message out that self-checks are important. My sister found her cancer through a self-exam and has been a survivor for ten years now. But this woman was adamant that it was about sex.

Who.

Gives.

A.

Rat's.

Ass?

If some jerk wants to look at my boobs on Wednesdays because he or she likes boobs--whatever. That doesn't matter to me. What does is the one chick who says seeing my cleavage reminded her to do a self-exam. Flashing my cleavage (which I do a lot anyway) is a price I'm totally willing to pay if it might save a life.

And who is that chick to judge me for it?

So, here's my question to all the cougars, pumas, kitties, whatever furry animal you associate yourself with (or even if you don't)--why do we do this to each other? Why all the judgments and rudeness?

Self-Esteem, Bullies, and Glee

I know there have been complaints that Glee hasn't been as good this season as last, but I'm not sure that's true. I will admit, overall I'm not as excited about the music as I was last year, but the stories (for the most part) are better. Sure, they are still over-the-top and include stuff that would never fly in a real school, but I like that they are dealing with Kurt and Santana's sexuality and how it relates to their lives at school, drinking, and this week's bullying episode. Within the craziness penned, there is always a heavy thread of truth.

This week, they did a great job of showing the importance of self-acceptance, including among the adults. Or should I say adult? Because really, Will's acceptance of his cleft chin was something of a joke. But Emma admitting her OCD was well done. I wish they'd have gone further among the adults though for the simple reason that no matter how okay with ourselves we might be, everyone I know has something that they don't like about themselves (or at the very least question). I think they kind of missed a teaching opportunity with that.

But even more so, the lack of any Sue Sylvester story paralleling the Lauren Zizes/Quinn Fabray bullying story was a mistake. I know that Sue sub-plots tend to take over (if for no reason other than Jane Lynch steals every scene she's in), but if ever there was an episode that needed her, this was it. Whether we like it or not, bullying doesn't stop in high school. It doesn't even stop in college.

Sad fact of life: bullying never stops.

One example? The Judy Mays (Mrs. Buranich) mess. The woman, who has taught high school English for twenty-five years, is being persecuted by a group of parents because she *gasp* writes erotic romance. According to a quick Amazon search, she's been publishing for seven years, but it seems now it's an issue. It's not. A group of bullies just wants to make it into one. That's a nice blatant example, and it's caused a chunk of the writing industry to stand up and get behind her (in less than 24 hours the "Support Judy Mays (Mrs. Buranich)" Facebook page has garnered nearly 4500 "likes").

There are other, less obvious things than that. Another author had someone call her out on one of her youtube videos as being narcissistic. Um...really? Based on youtube? Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure most people who post themselves on youtube either think well of themselves or fake it for the camera. The author in question posted on her blog about her right to be whoever the hell she wants to be. She shouldn't have to do that. She's a human being and doesn't have to fit into anyone's mold of "right" but her own.

But she isn't the only one who's dealt with stuff like this. There are certain people out there who have at times chosen me as their target. Thankfully, I know better. I put up with bullies throughout school. These people have nothing on Brian from third grade, or the girls from fifth, or... Back then, I took the bullying really badly. Now? I kind of find the whole thing funny. Do I still react? Sure. I'm human. But in the end I just laugh because really the only thing those people are proving is that they can't get past school-yard mentality.

In the meantime, I'm thinking about making my own Gleek-tastic t-shirt...just as soon as I'm not busy writing.

Book Sex Versus Real Sex

Advance warning that I'm going to talk about sex in this post. Should have been evident by the title, but in case you didn't get it...there will be sex. And at points there may be TMI involved. Feel free to read this paragraph, cover your eyes and go running for the hills (ie hit your back button or close the window or whatever). I promise not to be offended.

If you stick around, I hope you won't be offended.

.

.

.

.

.

Good, now that we've got that cleared up we can get down to business. Here's the thing. I've decided I need to write a contemporary romantic comedy.

I can see some of my friends staring at the screen and blinking really slowly before they scroll up to make sure they're at the right place. Yeah, it's still me, and I know both contemporary and rom com are totally outside my comfort zone for writing. Hear me out though. The sex I write in my spec fic? It isn't real. I'm not sure I've ever had sex like that. You know, the kind that goes perfectly right. No awkward embraces, every touch sets something on fire (and not in a bad way), everyone has a rock-my-world orgasm.

Yeah. Not that those things don't happen, but I can't say I've ever had them all happen at the same time. Where everything was perfect.

Real sex just isn't like that. Real sex involves things like leg cramps and dryness and too much saliva and one person being done way before the other one. Occasionally, real sex even involves accidentally kicking your partner in the head*, leaving you both laughing so much it's hard to get back to what you were trying to do in the first place. Real, honest to goodness sex is often funny. Someone tries to say something sexy and it comes out sounding ridiculous, or worse, they belch in the middle of it.

But that doesn't make for a sexy love scene.

So I've decided, just once, I want to write a story about real people and real sex.

You know...just to see if I can.

The real question is this: would you read it?

.

.

.

*No spouses were harmed in the making of this blog post**

.

.

.

**At least not permanently.

.

.

.

Addendum at the request of my husband: Just to clarify, I have actually had wonderful, mind-blowing sex. In fact, I was having some recently...until my mother-in-law knocked on the door. Yep. That's real sex.

Censor This

Next week is the ALA's annual Banned Books Week, where we celebrate (or is it mourn) the books that have been deemed a risk to children or society at large. Yep, because books cause ideas, and ideas are dangerous.

Like Animal Farm which might cause people to rise up against the government. Or Lord of the Rings which might, I don't know, make us all crave precious shiny things.

I'm sorry. I tend to get a little irritated by the idea of censorship. It strikes a nerve inside me that screams until my head wants to explode. And Banned Book Week is just the start of it.

Earlier this week, a guest spot with Katy Perry on Sesame Street was pulled because some people thought Katy showed too much cleavage. Yep, too much cleavage on a show watched primarily by children barely out of the breast-feeding stage. I get the concern. What makes it funnier to me is I show that much cleavage on a daily basis (granted, I have much bigger boobs than Katy Perry, but that's not the point). Kids see cleavage all the time, and if Sesame Street really had an issue with her outfit, it should have been dealt with prior to filming. Once it's done, it's done. I've watched the video (you can still see it here), and there's nothing risque about it. They are just boobs, people, get over it.

And then there was the big kerfluffle over Adam Lambert's performance on the AMAs last year.

Okay, was it the best thing to ever go on national TV? Maybe not, but for me, that's mainly because at least in this recording, his voice isn't as good as it normally is. So he kissed a guy. So, there were some simulated sex acts. For the most part, it's been done before. Only this time? It was a gay guy doing it. The horror. The travesty. But, in the aftermath, interviews and performances were cancelled.

Quite frankly, it's sad and pathetic, and pisses me off. Censorship doesn't help anyone. It doesn't protect them.

The only upside to any of it is that challenges tend to drive sales. Hell, I'm debating buying a Katy Perry album over the Sesame Street thing, and my five year old LOVES Adam Lambert's music.

And I am excited beyond belief at the fact that my son is now old enough that I can start handing him challenged books.

My children will be free thinkers and they will not be shackled by the whims of a few people who think they know what's best for us all.

It's banned book week. What are you reading?

In Defense of Sex

One of my fellow authors has run into a bit of frustration recently. She chose to use a pen name because she knew her family wouldn't approve of the type of books she writes. Then a family member found her stuff anyway.

O.M.G. If I thought my writing wouldn't go over well with my family, nothing could have prepared me for the type of vitriol she's faced. Rather than congratulating her on her success, her family has been vocally unsupportive. It disgusts me.

The latest round went something like this:

"It takes no talent to write a bunch of sex in a book. Anybody can do that. It takes real talent to write a book without sex."

.

Idiot say what?

Now, if I'd heard this randomly, I would have just had a good laugh about people who don't know any better and moved on. But the author who had to deal with this is a friend, and I am pissed. Without a direction to point my ire though, we're just going to spend today discussing the comments. (And I'm going to do my best to stay civil about it considering the people who read and respond to this blog are unlikely to deserve my anger.)

Let's start with the last statement: "It takes real talent to write a book without sex." I've read a lot of books in my time. Many have sex, many more have sexual tension, and many have no hint of sex at all. IT FUCKING TOOK TALENT TO WRITE ANY OF THEM.

Sorry for (virtually) shouting, I hope you understand why that needs to be screamed from rooftops. The physical act of writing is easy. People learn how to put pen or pencil to paper in elementary school. Writing stories is not easy. It takes talent and hard work, especially if you're talking about something good enough for an agent or editor to say "Yes, I want this."

Now, within the realm of everything that gets published, there are stories that people don't like. Some have sex, some don't. But the same book I can't stand someone else will love. There are best sellers that I could barely make it through because I thought the writing was atrocious or the characters ridiculous. Obviously a lot of other people disagree. Those books? Some have sex, some don't.

So let's look at the first part of what she said: "It takes no talent to write a bunch of sex in a book."

I like writing sex. It's fun for me. Then again, I like writing fight scenes too. I like action more than I like musing. But neither sex nor action scenes are easy for me to write. And a poorly written one can destroy an entire book for me.

You see, sex scenes aren't just about mechanics. Putting tab A into slot B isn't enough no matter how vividly you describe it. You're still just putting a tab into a slot. A good sex scene involves choreography, much like a fight scene. It needs to have more action than just the insertion. But even that isn't enough. Great action is only going to get you so far. For a sex scene to really shine, it also needs emotion. People have thoughts and feelings when they're having sex, often more heightened than at other times. If you don't include that aspect, your sex scene will fall short of what it could be.

Plus, sex scenes aren't just about the act, they're about the characters and the story. I'll use the opening of "Of Course I Try" as an example. Yes, Max and Jocelyn are getting busy. And I could have just written about where his hands and mouth were. *yawn* That would have been sex with no point. The purpose of that particular scene is for the reader to understand that:

-       Max is an incredible lover who drives Jocelyn crazy.

-       Jocelyn wants to leave Max

-       When she's with him, Jocelyn can't think straight. It isn't just the sex that does this--it's him. Which in turn, gives hints as to how the first two points play into the story.

.

That is a lot of character information and plot shoved into one emotional roller coaster of a scene. Forgive me for patting myself on the back, but I think it took talent to squeeze all of that into just a few hundred words. And I've read work by other authors that did much more with a single sex scene. They've got mad skills that I can only hope I have someday.

Then there's her last bit: "Anybody can do that." Honestly, my response to stuff like this is always the same: "Then get out there and do it." Dismissing someone else's skill or talent doesn't take much effort. Proving you are just as good? That means putting yourself out there and risking that the world will prove you to be an idiot and a jerk.

Most people can put pen to paper and spew out sentences. That doesn't mean they can all write.