Assorted pimpage

I have an interesting question I want to pose to y’all later, but first, some assorted link pimpage that’s engaged my attention:

  • Doug is running a sex scene contest, Bulwer-Lytton style. I’m sneak-writing my entry at work. God, I hope the old hag who sits behind me doesn’t decide to sneak up and check out what I’m typing.

    Ah, what the hell—it’ll make her life more exciting.

  • Brenda Coulter argues that we should be very, very nice when reviewing books because romance novelists are sensitive and writing a book is harrrrrrrrd. Booksquare replies, and Monica Jackson enters the fray as well. They all have points I agree and disagree with.

    Y’all know where I stand on this issue, right? I mean, if the 666 engraved on the back of my skull and my oft-declared love of pain didn’t give you a clue already….

  • Is bacon dropping from the sky? Because holy fucking shit, Monica Jackson and LLB are having a civil conversation. Where’s that sal volatile?

    I still hold out hope for a reconciliation between Monica and LLB/AAR. *wipes tear from eye*

  • AND! Thanks to my fabulous friend Katie, I found out about Virgin: The Untouched History, coming in 2006, which dedicates TWO CHAPTERS TO HYMENS. Katie has read it and told me it’s grrreat, and I always believe Katie, and you should too because Katie? Is fabulous. I just can’t wait for this book to come out, but in the meanwhile, I’m checking out Hanne Blank’s erotica anthologies.

    So, anyone have a list of authors to whom I could gift The Untouched History? *evil glee*

Categorized:

The Link-O-Lator

Comments are Closed

  1. 1

    Ooooohhh. Not good on blog etiquette, so where do I make my comment of the reviews issue? Hope here is good, ‘cos here it stays.

    Y’know, I’m just a reader. I don’t have any particular ambition to write anything in the near or distant future other than a really dull dissertation. I also don’t have unlimited funds. And I’m sensitive. In fact, I’m so bloody sensitive that bad writing drives me into a frenzy of rage, particularly when I’ve spent £6.99 on some anodyne derivative drivel that I can’t even pass on to anyone else because it’s so dismal I’m embarrassed to admit I own it.

    So what’s wrong with an honest yet snark-tastic review? If it’s funny enough it might make me consider a book for the “So bad it’s good” shopping list. Or bring the book to life well enough that I get a sense although that the reviewer might not have liked it, I would. After all, just because a reviewer has a rabid and unnatural hatred of frontier lovin’ does not mean that I will immediately discard the tenets of a lifetime and ritually burn big buckskin chunks of my library. Also, I find myself incapable of remembering the title and author of a book when it’s one of many drowing in a sea of sycophantic burble.

    For those of you with an eye on the bottom dollar, think on this: due to past hideous and traumatic experience, on principle I will no longer buy books whose covers proudly boast glowing reviews by certain indiscriminately adoring reviewers. I mean, how many “shining gems in the firmament of romance” can one person encounter in a lifetime? I’m similarly wary of author quotes, actually.

    Yes, there are bad reviews written by people who dislike and despise the genre in its entirety. But you can’t counteract their effect by going to the other extreme.

    And frankly, the idea of romance writers all forming some kind of conclave of love, sisterhood and mutual support is idyllic until it encounters the real world. Romance as a genre is mocked and looked down on outside its protective rosy marble walls for a host of reasons, and they aren’t all invalid. There are bad books, there are all-to-many mediocre books, and there are also good books in all genres. If romance wants the same respect as other genres, it has to adhere to similar critical standards. And have some sympathy for the poor readers. Would this mean we’re only allowed to read romance if we promise not to read anything else in case we judge too harshly?

  2. 2
    fiveandfour says:

    Oh man, I feel scooped!  I was going to recommend the Virgin book, but was lazy and didn’t want to take the time to get the links looked up.  I’ve been reading Hanne Blank’s LJ blog for awhile now and she’s posted frequently about the process of research and the information she’s found, etc.  The other day she posted online a chapter that’s been cut from the upcoming book that will be there for a week or two. http://www.hanneblank.com/pdf/ (click “Consider the Eunuch”).

    I’m also eagerly awaiting this one.  I think it will be fodder for a lot of interesting discussion here at SBTB once it comes out.

  3. 3
    sherryfair says:

    On the subject of reviews. Well … some informal reviews I’ve listened to during the course of a single day, for things that I and the other party in the conversation do not manufacture ourselves:

    Guy at work: “Had trouble with my car again driving in this morning. Don’t buy Fords.” (Speaker has nothing to do with automobile design or repair.)

    Woman at work: “I saw that new movie last night, it was just okay. I’d wait and rent it, if I were you.” (Speaker is not a director, producer, actress, “best boy” or “gaffer,” whatever those are)

    Another guy at work: “Yeah, I just came up from the cafeteria. It’s Caesar salad day. They don’t make those very well here. Oversalted, if you ask me. Today’s the day for an offsite lunch.” (Speaker is not a restaurauteur. And I am sure I spelled that word wrong.)

    Boastful next-door neighbor who frequently cooks outdoors: “Best investment I’ve ever made was this [name brand which I forget] grill.” (Speaker is not an appliance designer, nor is he George Foreman.)

    Web site posting board on site dedicated to Romance: Various posters discussing merits and shortcomings of newly published romance novel. (Don’t know the posters’ qualifications at all, since the board is anonymous, but they are articulate, and sometimes I’ve agreed with their opinions, and they’ve steered me toward some excellent books in the past.)

    I just don’t see why the last item on this list should be exempted from being evaluated, assessed and reviewed, whether formally or informally, and judged on quality standards. It’s human nature to do this with all kinds of things. And it should be. It’s our money and time we’re talking about here.

  4. 4
    fiveandfour says:

    OK, now that I’ve gotten over the pain of being scooped, I wanted to comment on the topic of reviews of romances.

    It seems to me that I hear about authors publicly whining about negative reviews in this genre more than for all other genres put together.  I recall that it made a big splash when Anne Rice lashed out at people for negatively talking about one of her books, and I also recall that most authors that commented on Anne’s actions at the time made comments along the lines of “it’s not seemly and I wish she would just take it on the chin like a professional and keep her mouth shut”.

    I’m wondering why authors in this genre either a) have such a hard time accepting negative reviews on their work and/or b) feel so frequently compelled to talk about their bad reviews (and how “unfair” they were) publicly.

  5. 5
    white raven says:

    I don’t believe a sugar-coated review does the author any favors.  If a reviewer finds problems with the work, they should state what they are.  I don’t believe a review bashing the author is of any worth, but good, honest critique, even if it’s harsh and difficult to swallow can be a treasure if the author recognizes its worth and does something with it. 

    My first published short story received rave reviews on several review sites.  I’m critical enough of my own work to know I was only seeing one side, so I sent a copy to the SBs for review.  They tore me a new one and gave me a C- along with some excellent information and advice I’ve used countless times in subsequent projects.  If it serves to help me write better and increase sales for later works, so much the better. 

    As a reader – and I speak only for myself here – no review, glowing or harsh, ever swayed me on what book to buy and read.  However, I have stopped spending money on authors whose later works I found poorly written, no matter how many positive reviews they got.

    So, an honest review is worth its weight in gold in my opinion and should be sought after by an author, despite the risk of a kick to the ego.

  6. 6
    Candy says:

    Sherryfair: excellent point about how one need not have technical expertise to know that something works or doesn’t work. If the fridge ain’t running, the fridge ain’t running—doesn’t matter if it’s a broken compressor, a valve on the fritz, a blown fuse, whatever.

    With art, the question of what works and what doesn’t is a lot trickier, of course, because a non-functional refrigerator is pretty evident, but what constitutes “good” or “bad” when it comes to books, movies, music, etc. are a whole lot more subjective. But regardless, one of the lamest cop-outs is the whole “You can’t possibly know how hard it is to make something so you probably aren’t equipped to critique it” argument. It’s not just incredibly lame, it’s also fallacious. And when stretched to its logical conclusion, it’s completely ridiculous. “You’re not allowed to have an opinion on abortion/gay marriage/Nazism unless you’ve had an abortion/been gay married/experienced directly the effects of the Nazi Party.”

    That’s not to say that there aren’t reviews that are awful hack jobs, but there are just as many awful fawning reviews out there, too. And agreed that attacks on the author are Not Cool. I can see how attacks on one’s work can feel like attacks on one’s self—I know I’d feel hurt if I made a cake and everyone said “Wow, that cake tastes like ASS.” But better that people let me know about the assiness than lying through their teeth about how much they like it and me making more and more ass cakes.

    Huh huh. I said ass cakes. Right, my point is completely lost now. The rest of you, carry on.

  7. 7
    Doug Hoffman says:

    Just wanted to say thank you. Nothing funny or snarky to say right now . . . head full of helium,  or that’s how it feels.

  8. 8
    Arethusa says:

    Frankly I’d like to know why writing about two people falling in love is automatically becomes “emotinally wrenching”. I thought it only reached that level when the writer was good?

  9. 9
    Candy says:

    Well, in bad books it’s still wrenching all right…

  10. 10
    Tonda says:

    *SNICKER* Like most writers, I was a reader LONG before it ever occurred to me to put pen to paper (fingers to keyboard?).

    I used to write shit-tons of reviews on Amazon, and sometimes other reviewers would slam me as a “jealous” wana-be writer, since only such a person would bother to comment that the muddy POV hindered the read, or that the dialogue was stilted. “Normal” people, they insisted, just don’t care about that kind of stuff.

    God forbid a romance reader and reviewer have achieved a level of education beyond the 6th grade! And heaven help us if she uses said education to comment upon the books she reads. Get that snooty smart bitch outta here!

    And don’t get me started on what would happen if you pointed out that something in the book was not just historically implausible, but impossible (Regency era nobleman “adopting” his bastard as his heir, anyone? How about a kilt in 13th century Scotland? Can I interest you in Medieval potato soup?).

    It used to make me so mad.

    Now, since I’m in RWA, I find that while I still encounter plenty of shitty books, I don’t post bad reviews cause I’m too terrified that Amazon will have another fuck up and my real name will end up attached to them for all to see (and then I’ll be seated next to that writer at some event . . .).

    It’s chicken-shit on my part, but self-preservation can sometimes be the better part of valor.

  11. 11
    Eddie Adair says:

    LOVE that Hanne Blank! I got to meet her at a talk she gave about four years ago at Kent State. Not only is she a heck of a writer, but she has this habit of compiling really good anthologies. I’m not one who generally seeks out straight-up erotica, but Hanne leaves no stone unturned. My favorites include Zaftig: Well-Rounded Erotica and, I kid you not, Best Transgender Erotica. Unless I’m completely full of it and have no memory, each of those books has at least one piece by Hanne herself. It’s worth your while to check out some of her stuff.

    //End shameless gushing. Also, love your site.

  12. 12
    Candy says:

    Tonda: I have an internal editor who never shuts up, and the editor has been with since I was about 11 or 12 years old. No lie. Even when I didn’t have the vocabulary to describe things like muddled point of view, tense changes, awkward sentence constructions (such as passive tense), info dumping and the like, I’d know when bits of a book hit me wrong and I’d re-write pieces of it in my head.

    A really, really enjoyable book makes my internal editor shut up, or at least mutes her never-ending squawkings to a manageable volume.

    But I guess I have no more wiggle room when people level the “ur just a jelus hater who wish’s she wuz a real writer” accusation since I’m writing fiction now. Ah well.

    And Eddie: The transgender erotica anthology is one of the two I’m really interested in. I’m fascinated by people who cross gender lines (man, I REALLY need to finish up my “in defense of girly men” rant), notions of what’s considered masculine or feminine, taboos associated with certain gender transgressions, etc.

  13. 13
    Candy says:

    I just posted my first entry on Doug’s contest, and I gotta tell you: I just threw up a little in my mouth. Reading Kate’s and Demented Michelle’s contributions didn’t help.

    This promises to be a lot of fun. *rubs hands with glee*

  14. 14
    Monica says:

    Candy said:I know I’d feel hurt if I made a cake and everyone said “Wow, that cake tastes like ASS.

    All I have to say per critical romance reviews and the issue of asscake is that some people LOVE to munch on ass!

  15. 15
    Candy says:

    Heh, true.

    One woman’s ass cake is another woman’s sublime confection, and all that.

    GODDAMN I love that phrase. Ass cake. I’m going to see if I can make Smart Bitches the top Google result for that, too.

    It’s good to have goals.

  16. 16

    I am tired of people saying we all have to play nice when we’re reviewing ‘cause it’s romance and we don’t want to hurt someone’s feelings.

    I’m tired of it as a reader, I’m tired of it as a writer, and I’m tired of it as a reviewer (BooksForum, ForumsAmerica).  I believe romance readers have high standards and want good writing, a certain amount of logic, and accuracy.  And I feel very strongly about that last point.  If I find an egregious historical error in a book, like the medieval heroine who wore velvet and collected gold specie when she was doing her midnight “Robin Hood” forays among the peasants, I’m going to mention it. If a Regency era writer can’t get basic forms of address right (an unmarried heroine isn’t Lady Dimwhistle, nor are all the other unmarried ladies in the novel “Lady Surname”), I’m going to point it out. 

    It isn’t nitpicking.  It’s one of my obligations as a reviewer.  If the writer is so outstanding she can make me ignore the errors, well and good, I’ll say that too.

    Mark me down as another writer who would rather have an honest review than a puff piece!

  17. 17
    Robin says:

    Okay, this is my third try (first two were eaten by computer after error messages), so hopefully it will make sense.

    While I comprehend Coulter’s argument, I can’t rationally entertain it for more than a nanosecond.  Even though she admits that readers can evaluate Romance novels (more so in the comments after her post), the main thesis of her piece seems to be that of protecting the extra-sensitive Romance author.  The purpose of such protection I can only imagine to be the continued creation of “emotionally wrenching” prose.

    But even if I take seriously her contention that like-experienced writers make the best—and therefore only truy legitimate??—Romance critics, the argument is a red herring, because the industry is not even constructed to privilege such a practice.  Manuscripts are purchased from authors, sold as books to consumers, and distributed to individuals and publications for review, for the express purpose of creating and expanding an audience.  I mean, what Romance author writes outside of the idea of a readership?  And who is to constiute that readership?  If I take seriously Coulter’s assertion that other Romance authors refrain from critique, then I must also assume that there is real criticism there, and that therefore the intended audience is made up of those who are NOT insiders.  Because if fellow authors make the best CRITICS, is that where authors are aiming their work?  And are all those gushing fan letters then considered less legitimate judgments of a work’s value?

    Now, if the problem is that readers don’t know enough to be critical (whereas other authors are too self-interested to be openly critical), where is the foundation for such an argument?  For if Romance is meant to touch readers with its “emotionally wrenching” content (in a good way, of course), who is in a better position to judge the success of such an enterprise but the reader?  I cannot imagine arguing against the idea that any creative writer feels strongly about what they are putting down on paper, else they would not bother.  But judging the effectiveness of such a process is not a function of the author’s sensitivity, but of their craftsmanship.  I know some really sensitive people who write truly torturous prose. 

    Now if the argument is simply that some people can be rude or harsh in the criticism, that’s true.  But by the same token, readers can also make some of the most powerful, eloquent, and persuasive advocates for a book, and IMO you can’t discourage one type of response without eliminating the other.  And I know of no Romance authors who want their readers t cease recommending their books, no matter what language they use.

    Even if I approach this issue from the perspective of the Romance author’s perceived sensitivity, I immediately think of all the Plaths, the Woolfs, the Twains, the Faulkners, the Joyces, the Hunter S. Thompsons, etc., etc., etc.  I mean, where is the perception of the artist as a sensitive, tortured, fragile, sometimes alcoholic or manic-depressive soul more pervasive than in literature of literary fiction?  And where else is criticism more integral to the practices of reading and writing?

    If I were to simply agree with Coulter and say, yes, the only truly legitimate critics of Romance novels are fellow Romance novelists, then I confront a whole bunch of new questions.  Like, do only certain authors count—those who the author in question respects, for example?  How does this rule apply to editors, many of whom are not writers themselves, but who are fabulously talented as editors nonetheless?  What’s the competitive interest on the part of other Romance authors? 

    I will certainly admit that there’s a huge range of possible forms that critique can take, some of which will be more inviting to an author.  But how do we know what combination is combustible with an author’s imagination, or what combination proves caustic to the sensitive writer’s soul?  As I commented in a recent AAR discussion of Lisa Valdez’s Passion, as a novelist, I would rather have my gender questioned than my prose described as flat or weak.  But this is certainly not the case for all authors.  So do we outlaw criticism entirely?  That would serve no one, least of all the author. Should we keep criticism within the realm of private discourse?  How would that change the way readers engage with Romance, especially considering the notion of a women’s COMMUNITY that still occupies the ideological center of the industry? 

    I think what really frustrates me about Coulter’s argument is that it appears to me to be another degredation of Romance as a genre without self-reflection and substance, disguised as an elevation of the genre via nurturing the sensitive soul of the Romance author.  But no matter how you dress it up, IMO this is not about who’s most capable of or entitled to critique Romance; it’s about who’s least able to take criticism.

  18. 18
    Darla says:

    I find two things wrong with the argument that readers shouldn’t write bad reviews of romance novels because it’s hard to write a book and authors are sensitive.

    1.  It reminds me of the school where my daughter went to first grade:  any effort at all was rewarded.  She’d get the same smilie face on her paper if she tried really hard as she would if she just scribbled.  It sounds all warm & fuzzy until you realize it’s teaching her not to try harder.  Self-motivation is a lovely concept, but in practice, most of us need a standard to strive for.  I’m not comparing authors with 6-year-olds, but isn’t it more rewarding to get a good review that you know you’ve earned than getting a good review just for finishing the book?

    2.  The argument supposes that all romance novels are substantially identical, all requiring the same amount of effort, all deserving of the same amount of praise.  Isn’t that one of the biggest criticisms of the genre from people who don’t read it?  Isn’t that one of the things that really make romance readers and writers scream? 

    I lied.  I had one other problem, though it’s more of an observation:  only romance authors are sensitive??  Artistic people in general are sensitive.  How else could they write/sculpt/compose/paint/sing/etc. about emotions enough to affect other people?

  19. 19
    sherryfair says:

    Thinking more about this reviewing discussion …

    It’s too late to try to conspire to preserve a ladylike silence within the genre. The Internet has long since opened up discussions of genre books on blogs, on public message boards, on e-mail lists, in Amazon reviews, etc. No way can all that fervor and passion be stuffed back inside a bottle and reined in with a code of omerta.

    Everyone online’s still working out how to play well with others in these various forums. But I know what I listen to, when I’m reading “book chat” and thinking about getting my hands on a book. Whether it’s delivered with snark or whether it’s an essayistic paragraph with a logical flow of reasoning, I’m listening for a certain sincerity, something that doesn’t sound like mere publicist’s puffery and oh-she’s-my-best-friend.

    Because I’m not just talking about money here. I was reading an essay by an Irish poet recently who stated: “When you’re buying a book, you’re also buying the time in which to read it.” There is so much to read out there. I just don’t want to waste my time.

  20. 20
    Eddie Adair says:

    Hey, Candy,

    Not to deflect from the prevailing angle(s) of this thread, but I’m glad to hear you’re interested in the gender transgression angle. Hanne Blank’s anthology really opens eyes because the stories in the book are not the predominant themes one might consider when thinking of the couplings of transgendered folks. There are no fetishistic tales of forced feminization and very few stories validating a person’s identity through a heterosexual pairing. Instead, we see trans* people who transcend their own gender lines, blurring the binaries within gender roles, sexual orientation, and perception overall. Among other things, the stories illustrate that when a person’s gender changes, the potential exists for a change in what that person—and that person’s partners—expect from people of particular genders and from the genders themselves. Yes, there is a message in there that the anatomy does not make the man or woman, but it goes way beyond that.

    Have I ranted enough? Bottom line, read the anthology. And on the line below that, the footnote if you will, I look forward to more discussions in defense of girly men.

  21. 21

    Although the initial premise of this article is promising, Candy Tan’s transparent effort to use it as a vehicle to shoehorn “ass cake” into the website is ultimately futile and distracting. Perhaps the initial abundance of well-rounded man titty leaves no room for the otherwise promising ass cake to develop into anything meaningful, but even so, the man titty’s motivation is fuzzy and confused.

    The ass cake is dropped suddenly and fully-formed into the website, without any of the layering that makes a truly great and memorable ass cake. It does not grow or change in the way a compelling ass cake does. Instead, the ass cake is a one-dimensional entity that no amount of the writer’s purple prose can breathe life into. Furthermore, the stilted and random hopping between ass cake and man titty is distracting and confusing and reveals the man titty to be as inane as scented cardboard.

    CT would have been better off avoiding the temptation of ass cake and keeping her focus on the man titty, rather than distracting her readers with tangental ass cake. Her ass cake lacks substance and depth, whereas her man titty is generally firmer and better developed. Although at first her work is viable and effective, I just didn’t believe either the ass cake or the man titty by the end.

  22. 22
    Eddie Adair says:

    But you don’t understand! Writing is HARRRRRD! She worked long hours to perfect that ass cake!

  23. 23
    Lisa #2 says:

    man titty ass cake man titty ass cake man titty ass cake man titty ass cake man titty ass cake man titty ass cake man titty ass cake man titty ass cake man titty ass cake man titty ass cake man titty ass cake man titty ass cake man titty ass cake man titty ass cake

    ha!  you might lead the charge on cake man and titty ass as well…

  24. 24
    Candy says:

    EvilAuntiePeril: If I were a sultan, would you be part of my harem? You can have all the honeyed dates you can eat, AND you can call yourself anyting you damn well please, Fatima or Satina be damned.

  25. 25

    Candy, habibti, I would be delighted to join your harem. This has nothing to do with my secret plan to gain access to your sumptuous desert palace in order to steal back the map to a hidden underground temple which holds the cure for a mysterious curse that is slowly turning my idiotic but handsome brother into a three-toed sloth. I merely am extremely fond of dates. I may even be the estranged only daughter of the date farmer with whom your father had a long-standing feud over a prized palm. But my (freshly-glossed) lips are sealed.

    Peril of Arabia

  26. 26
    Lennie says:

    If you don’t write it you can’t criticize because you don’t understand?  Bullcrap.

    To continue with the cake metaphor… I’m not a good cook.  And more than that, I hate the act of cooking and will get out of doing it if I possibly can.  But boy, do I love to eat.  Healthy food, fatty food, fast food, gourmet food, processed food, food that I just pulled off a bush.  I <3 eating food.  I just prefer to consume food that someone else prepared, and one of the several reasons for that is that usually means yummier food.

    Not being able to make orange and poppyseed cake doesn’t mean that I can’t tell the kind from the cafe downstairs is five kinds of soggy, inedible ass.  I appreciate that someone probably put time and effort into making it.  I wish that they had put said time and effort into something other than making a bad cake that was such a waste of break-time and money that I went back to work hungry and cranky.  Cake should not make the eater hungry and cranky.  If it does, it is ass cake.

    And given that someone is trying to *sell* that awful cake, I have no compunctions about telling everyone I work with and the cafe staff how bad it is.  Maybe then the cafe will start making better cake.  If the baker wanted the cake to only be received with love and appreciation for the act of baking, not the product, they should have kept it and worshipped it themselves rather than tried to sell it to hungry public servants.

    I think romance writers are probably interesting, hard-working, fabulous professionals who put as much effort into their work as every other kind of writer.  So they’re not going to get any more leeway from me than any of the other kinds of pro writer.  In my own forums of criticism, my family and friends, I’m going to give a bad romance just as much of a hosing as a bad fantasy book or the movie adaption of Howl’s Moving Castle.  (I understand that a lot of people spent enormous amounts of time and money to produce a nonsensical plot with no real villain by halfway through, which meant that the only sense of resolution I got at the end was finally getting to pee.)

  27. 27

    Do you know that Brenda just commented on her blog entry that everyone put words in her mouth and that she didn’t say any of the things we’re discussing?

    Ironic. :blank:

  28. 28

    Angelle—I just went to her site it sure sounded like she said we have to be nice when we’re reviewing romance novels ‘cause we’re the college opera co. as opposed to the Met.  And romance writers are more sensitive than other writers ‘cause of the stuff we write.

    Ridiculous. 

    I’ve been attending SF conventions for 30 years and I can assure you, SF writers are every bit as capable of hysterics over bad reviews as romance writers. 

    But that’s not the point.  The point is, if I want to be respected as a writer in any genre, including romance, I have to put 110% effort into my writing to make sure it’s entertaining, historically accurate, grammatically correct and keeps the reader turning pages.  And if I’m not doing those things, I expect a qualified reviewer to say so. 

    I am so tired of people apologizing for the quality of romance novels because it only harms those of us who are working at making the best work possible. “Well, she tried really, really hard” only means to me that published author’s book should never have seen the light of day, and the odds are some better book was overlooked in the process of that dreck getting published.

    Worried about bad reviews?  Can’t stand the heat?  Get your hands away from the keyboard and go find some other creative outlet!

  29. 29

    OK, so I don’t always speak in emphatic italics, but sometimes I forget to close the .  Sorry about that.  I wish the SB’s would give us a self-editing option, though I imagine the snickering caused by bad posts has its own value.

  30. 30

    And if we could do self editing I could fix my latest post so I don’t needlessly repeat myself ‘cause I was too lazy to read what I wrote a few days back and realize I said “I’m so tired of this!” at least twice.

    I am enfeebled by overly sensitive romance writers.  Where’s my fainting couch?

Comments are closed.

↑ Back to Top