February, huh?

When did that happen?

I'm at Tales from the Crit today, blogging about the Redeemed and Unredeemed Alpha Jerks we hate to love.

(X-posted from SelahMarch.com)

HARD HARVEST, part of the "Three Kinds of Wicked" series.

Futuristic, Ménage à trois, Parnormal & Occult

Purchase link.

In twenty-second century America, war, disease and pollution have wiped out three-quarters of Earth’s population and left most women sterile. Scientists are battling the specter of human extinction. Now they’ve devised a DNA test and built a database to help each of the remaining fertile females find her perfect genetic counterpart, thereby ensuring healthy, hardy offspring.

For Midwestern farm girl Hannah Jenkins, this means accepting a stranger as a potential mate. Unfortunately, the handsome Dr. David Cabot isn’t everything she’d expected. Distant and humorless, he spends all his time in the makeshift laboratory he’s set up in the family barn. He and Hannah use more energy sniping at each other than communicating their wants and needs. After a few months of passionless monthly encounters with no pregnancy to show for it, Hannah is certain David will abandon her at the end of their trial marriage.

Then a stranger saves Hannah from robbery at gunpoint, and Hannah hires him to work as a farmhand. The mysterious Trey intrigues both Hannah and David, but can he show them how to make love without making war?

And what a week it was, huh?

Don't know about anybody else, but I'm ready to get the @#$& off the Romancelandia Intrawebs and drown my bitter, bitter tears in a vat o' gravy. And be THANKFUL, already.

In that spirit, I've crafted a paean to my crit partner -- the fabulously brilliant and ever-stylish Barbara Caridad Ferrer -- over on Tales from the Crit.

As has been noted pretty much everywhere on the publishing blogosphere, Harlequin has caved in the face of general censure and sanctions from the RWA, SFWA and MWA.

Author and all-around nifty guy John Scalzi has one of the best takes on the issues at hand, including a fantastically snarky read on Harlequin's "poor, poor pitiful me" letter implying the RWA is not only MEAN and NOT NICE for sticking up for its members, but also behind the times for not recognizing the amazing potential of vanity publishing to make tons of money (for Harlequin/TorstarASI and virtually no one else).

Questions remain. Will Harlequin further distance itself from this vanity press hot mess by removing all references to it from the eHarlequin site? Will they forbear from including solicitations for the vanity operation in rejection letters? Will they scrub the Horizons site clean of all "be a Harlequin author!" propaganda? Will any of this be enough to restore their standing with the various professional organizations they've managed to antagonize, not to mention the scores of authors -- the legendary Nora Roberts among them -- whom they've disappointed and disgusted?

And will the RWA -- specifically those members who are also Harl authors -- pay a price for their tough stance on this issue?

Tune in next week/month/year to find out, I guess. Same batshit crazy time, same batshit crazy channel.


(X-posted to SelahMarch.com)

Today I'm posting over at Tales from the Crit on the topic of juggling relationship dynamics when writing a ménage. Please feel free to come tell me I'm full of... applesauce.

What? I'm trying to clean up my fucking language.

A quickie:

My latest novella, Hard Harvest, part of the "Three Kinds of Wicked" series at Red Sage, will be released on January 1!

Also, I've joined a group blog, Tales from the Crit, and my first post went up today. Barring catastrophe, I'll be posting every Tuesday.

They seem like a lovely, talented, well-behaved group of writers there. Let's see how long it takes to drag them down to my level.

I offer the excuse that both my dogs have some foul virus that causes them to go 'splodey all over the kitchen floor if I don't take them out every hour on the hour. The vet says all we can do is push fluids and wait. Yay. Three squirt bottles of disinfectant and eight rolls of paper towels later, my hands look like they belong to an eighty-year-old woman.

Anyway...LOOK!

No, really, LOOK!! My crit partner, the brilliant and ever-stylish Rita-winning Barbara Caridad Ferrer, has SOLD!

Wait till you read this book. You'll laugh... you'll cry... you'll cry some more... you'll run out and rent "Carmen"... you'll cry SOME MORE...

Own a Kindle? Or a Nook? Or some other nifty device that allows you to hook up with a few other nifty devices share ebooks? Good on you. I'm all for sharing. I truly do believe it builds a community around reading and books.

When I call e-pirates thieves? I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about sites like Asatalk and Demonoid that upload ebooks to file-sharing sites by the thousands. That's not sharing a book with a few friends. That's not "building community." That's ripping off authors, and making it harder for us to get compensated for our work. Reasonable people can agree on this topic, yes? One would hope so.

But then I stumble across readers making comments like, "Why should I care if authors make any money on their writing? It's not my problem. I don't care if their books are being pirated. I don't care if Amazon rips them off. I don't want to hear about it."

And I begin to wonder about this whole "community building" thing. Especially when I've seen some of these same readers (in the comments of the same blog, too) say, "Where are all the new and interesting books? Why isn't there anything good to read? I'm so bored. Everything sucks."

Take those two statements together, and you've got something that smells an awful like entitlement. And I start to feel as if authors are being asked to do all the heavy lifting in this "community building" enterprise.

Here's the thing: After you pay for my book, I don't believe you owe me anything. Not a fan letter. Not a good review on a blog or elsewhere. Not a recommendation. Nada. As far as I'm concerned, our transaction is complete. Which is not to say I don't love to hear from readers in all the ways I've listed. I just don't expect it. I don't feel ENTITLED to it, in other words.

But if you're going to start bandying about the idea of building a community of readers and writers, then there has to be give and take on both sides. If I can get behind Kindle users sharing a book with five or six other buddies, surely readers can get behind denouncing the true pirates.

As far as I'm concerned, if you don't care whether we are compensated for our work, you are not a member of any community I'd ever want to join.

(X-posted to SelahMarch.com - Romance of Dubious Virtue)

Elisa Rolle reviews Year of the Cat in her usual charming way.

"There is a bit of Cinderfella, a bit of The Beauty and the Beast, and yes, also a bit of the Puss in Boots, all mixed together in a resulting tale that is a winning formula. Often I read historical fantasy tale, but most of the time they have not originality, they are only a way to tell a story of man love in frilly garments without the burden to do an historical accurate research. in Year of the Cat, Selah March is not trying to masquerade an historical tale with the fantasy freedom, she wants to tell you a fairy tale, a naughty fairy tale, and she reaches her purpose."

While you're there, check out the first phase of the Rainbow Awards for LGBT fiction and non-fiction.

(x-posted to SelahMarch.com)

Weary of the "Lamdba Lit versus Breeders" controversy? Willing to read one final post on the subject?

Make it this one: http://wedschilde.livejournal.com/1312665.html

In the interest of fairness, I'm linking to a post at JesseWave Reviews that attempts to give a differing perspective on the whole Lambda mess. Here it is: http://www.reviewsbyjessewave.com/?p=8146

The authors of the post are eloquent in their defense of Lambda's decision to change its award guidelines. A lot of what they say makes sense (not all, but I'm not of a mind to dissect the entire post). I still think the LLF's decision was ultimately divisive and short-sighted. (And yes, I see where they called out the reference to "lynching." Yes, it's an inflammatory word. I meant it to be. If you're looking for an apology for its use, look elsewhere.)

I feel strongly about this issue. I was amazed to discover there are people who believe I have no right to my strong feelings -- or maybe it's that I have no right to express them, even on my own blog. That I'm "heterosexist" and possibly even "homophobic" for expressing them, and certainly no friend to the gay community.

Here's the thing: My opinion isn't much more than an echo of the opinions of a lot of other people, many of whom are gay, including two past Lammy winners and the guy who founded the award. My opinion is virtually identical to theirs, but they're not getting identical abuse (that I've seen).

I can only conclude that I'm being told to sit down and shut up -- because of who I sleep with -- by people who've been forced to sit down and shut up for millenia -- because of who they sleep with.

Now, I'm a big fan of irony. But this time, it's a little bitter for my tastes. It's discouraging to discover such a nasty thread of "if you're not with us, you're against us" underneath the interactions of people I consider my peers.

I'll say it one more time: It's their award, and they can do anything they want with it, but I think the decision to change the guidelines was divisive, short-sighted, and will ultimately devalue the award. The fact that I disagree with one small group of gay folks about a literary award does not make me homophobic or heterosexist, nor does it mean I "don't get it."

(Thanks to Teddy Pig for the links.)

This morning, Lambda Lit Award founder Deacon Maccubbin commented on the ongoing Lammy kerfluffle.

"Just to keep the historical record clear, when I founded the Lambda Literary Awards in 1988, they were specifically intended to honor “the writers, editors and publishers of gay and lesbian literature”. There was no litmus test of the sexual or affectional orientation of those writers, editors and publishers. It was only necessary that a nominated book be of interest to gays and lesbians (and, later, to bisexuals and transgenders as additional categories were added). That was true for the first five years of the Lammy Awards. I believe it was true even after we turned the awards program over to the new non-profit Lambda Literary Foundation; I don’t know at what point the criteria might have changed, but I think it would be wise to return to the original vision."

Thanks to my always brilliant and fabulously stylish crit partner, Barb Ferrer, for this link to Jim C. Hines' livejournal, and his hilarious, Seuss-esque bit of verse, "Slush I Read."

In memory of the late, great Kate Duffy, here's a taste and a link to the full poem:

I read slush.
Slush I read.

That slush I read.
That slush I read!
I do not like that slush I read.

I do not like them Mary Sue.
Why do these vamps all worship you?

I do not want your D & D.
I do not like your elf PC.
I can not stand your purple prose.
I want to punch you in the nose!

Updated to add a link to this amazing post by former Lambda Award winner Lee Thomas: http://leethomas.livejournal.com/157333.html

I'm especially enamored of this bit:

"I think this is a terrible move on the part of the LLF. Narrowing the field does nothing to improve the award's credibility and it's something of a slap in the face to gay writers as it suggests we can't compete with the straight folks.

Particularly disturbing to me is this passage:

'We also took into consideration the despair of our own writers when a heterosexual writer, who has written a fine book about us, wins a Lambda Award, when one or more of our own LGBT writers may have as a Finalist a book that may be the only chance in a career at a Lambda Literary Award.'

Okay, I despair over not having my work taken seriously, so give me one of them Pulitzers or maybe a National Book Award. Whatever. I'm not picky. Being a gay writer should not entitle you to an award, any award, particularly when that award was once considered a literary honor, not a giftie for sexual orientation."

Teddy Pig says this: http://www.teddypig.com/2009/09/shame-on-me-shame-on-you/

And this: http://www.teddypig.com/2009/09/lambda-literary-foundation-we-cant-hack-a-level-playing-field-so/

And this! http://www.teddypig.com/2009/09/because-someone-asked/

Victor J. Banis says this: http://www.mlrpressauthors.com/2009/09/the-little-lost-lambdas-some-thoughts-by-victor-j-banis/

Erastes says this: http://erastes.livejournal.com/449814.html

Emmyjag says this: http://emmyjag.livejournal.com/146174.html

On the good news front, I received an email from noted reviewer Elisa Rolle about her plan to create the "Rainbow Awards" for excellence in LGBT fiction and non-fiction. (Link to informational post: http://elisa-rolle.livejournal.com/799266.html .)

The Lambda Literary Foundation has changed the guidelines for the Lambda Literary Award to reflect the group’s apparent dislike of breeders writing the gay buttsecks. 

Reactions to this range from outrage to meh, with a few “those straight girls should just come up with their own award for the gay buttsecks writing.” 

Yeah, that’ll go over like a lead-filled condom. Straight women creating an award for writing gay fiction that gay people aren’t allowed to enter.  

THEY WOULD COME FOR US WITH TORCHES AND PITCHFORKS. 

And they’d be right.

(x-posted to SelahMarch.com)