Do you want to news? Newsing is EASY. Anyone can news! You could journalism, but this is hard. Newsing is better!
Newsweek is best at newsing. Here is how they do news.
STEP ONE: Newsy
Hear about newsy story. NEWSY story is SEXY. Something is CONTROVERSY. Something is TWO SIDES. If story is ALL these things, you have very newsy story!
EXAMPLE: Inspirational romance novel about Nazi and Jewess in love, but actual Jewish people upset about this. CONTROVERSY. SEXY. TWO SIDES. So much news!
STEP TWO: People talking
Find people to talk about newsy story. REMEMBER: two sides is NEWSY. Also, SEXY and CONTROVERSY. Find TWO people, on two sides, who have CONTROVERSY.
EXAMPLE: Interview Jewish romance community members about how they are upset, give author of controversy book statement, but close with random angry misogynist unrelated to book but who looks better in article for SEXY CONTROVERSY TWO SIDES. NEWSY. VERY NEWSY.
STEP THREE: Nothing
Do not research things. Do not fact check title of organizations or details of awards. Just go with what anyone says if it sounds good in story. Do NOT leave out CONTROVERSY SEXY TWO SIDES!
EXAMPLE: If unrelated man compares Nazis and feminists GOOD JOB. Do not correct this. In fact include this. Write all this man says because will be very NEWSY and bring many clicks!
Newsing is new way of news. Only dumb people journalism. This is hard and brings no clicks. Newsing newsy stories is wave of future!
Thank you, Newsweek, for newsing so hard today! Thank you for no research or insight and only sensationalizing painful subjects and bringing in random strangers for SEXY CONTROVERSY and lots of unnecessary trauma to all parties just so you can limp along through clickbait.
It’s only eleven days until Lonely Hearts releases, and a lot is happening to celebrate!
The Lonely Hearts blog tour starts soon, and you’ll want to make sure you stop by each blog for inside information, contests, reviews, and more! Keep track of everything happening and watch for new blogs at this link.
Do you like posting quote meme images and badges on your social media accounts? Want something to make your online review fancy? Check out the quotes, character images, and more at this link.
Come join the Facebook party! It officially starts August 11 at 3pm CST, but you’ll notice there have been a lot of advance prizes already…and there’ll be more. A boatload of authors and all kinds of great prizes await! Join the event today.
Rafflecopter Grand Prize Pack
There’s a great Rafflecopter starting tomorrow, loaded with prizes!
A paper back of Lonely Hearts, a BluRay of Howl’s Moving Castle, a set of Black Butler playing cards, and a darling figure of Howl and Sophie which you might not know much about now, but you certainly will once you read the book. Enter today, and every day!
Not sure why some of those items are in the prize pack? Read on.
Can’t wait for release day? Want to be completely in the know when you read the book? Nestle in and enjoy an advance course in pop-culture references you’ll find in the book. You don’t have to know about these things to enjoy Lonely Hearts, but if you love inside information, you’ve just hit the motherlode.
Want to hear songs referenced in the story or set the mood using the music I used to write the novel? Plug in your headphones and listen away.
Don’t do Spotify? Love a good visual? Here are some YouTube videos and samples of some of the biggest songs from the book. Especially RuPaul!
Howl’s Moving Castle
Haven’t seen this movie? Get on that! It’s a great film, and it’s Baz and Elijah’s favorite too.
Less referenced, but still awesome and well worth your time. In a lot of ways, this is the darker and more subliminal background for Baz and Elijah.
You can watch ALL the anime online, and on several other streaming services—and if you do watch even a little, a certain sexy role-play is going to get a WHOLE lot hotter.
Audiobook coming soon (performed by Iggy Toma)
Nowhere Ranch 99¢ eBook Sale, Nowhere Ranch Audio, Lonely Hearts Party & Tour, Short Health Update, RITAs on YouTube
This is going to be a real hodgepodge of a post, so let’s get right to it. First, bizness.
Nowhere Ranch is available in audiobook.
Are you a blogger? Check out this newsletter to get a review copy.
Are you a regular Joe, Jane, or Jae and want to win a copy? Then head on over to this Rafflecopter contest.
BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE.
Nowhere Ranch is on sale on Amazon for 99¢ for a limited time.
To celebrate the audiobook’s release, I’m putting Nowhere Ranch on sale for $0.99. All Amazon platforms, all countries. (It will be a different price depending on your currency, but it will be on sale!) Been putting off buying the new edition because you had the old one? Wanted to buy it for a friend? Just haven’t picked it up yet? Now’s your chance.
Tell your friends and neighbors! In fact, that’s part of the contest above.
Here’s the book blurb and a link to the excerpt.
We’re having a party!
On August 11, I’m having a Lonely Hearts release day party on Facebook. Lots of prizes, lots of guest authors. We’ve already started having a few contests. Come on over and join the fun!
Hate Facebook? There will be a blog tour with plenty of prizes too. Watch this space for more information!
Heidi’s health stuff
This is a quickie because everything is still up in the air. The short version is I went to Mayo, it was amazing, and now we’re in the “try this” phase. I go back in early August for an allergist appointment, a pain clinic appointment, and a follow up with my internal medicine doctor.
She thinks this is all an allergy or a virus. She has me back on gluten so they can check celiac, and while at first eating all the wheat I’ve missed was great, it consistently makes my throat sore, and my body ache, and me miserable. They’ve sent me vitamin D pills, and all sorts of other things, some of them too awkward to mention in a blog post. The bottom line is I have no news except that we’re trying stuff, which is good enough for me.
I’ll be signing books, and the RITAs ceremony will be on YouTube
I’ll be in New York July 21-26, for the Romance Writers of America convention. You can come see me Wednesday night, July 22, from 5:30-7:30 in the Westside Ballroom of the New York Marriott Marquis. I’ll have Carry the Ocean and Fever Pitch for sale. You can’t bring in outside books, but if you catch me in the hallway after with something special, I’ll sign it then. Maybe come tell me, though, so I know to wait for you!
The RITAs ceremony, where I’m up for an award with three other gay romance authors and the best and brightest of the romance world, will be on Saturday night, tickets only. BUT! You can watch from the comfort of your home or smartphone! Go to this YouTube channel at 8PM EST. My award will come much later, probably very close to 10PM EST.
This is the end of my news! Have a great day, and good luck with the contest!
Turning the blog over to Damon Suede, a fabulous gay romance author and one of my best friends, on this glorious, fabulous, wonderful day.
I cried most of the morning, happily, but with a keen sense of history.
Heidi asked me to blog about what I’m thinking about today’s SCOTUS “Obergefell v. Hodges” ruling and so I did…though I suspect the insanity falls thick in what follows.
My mom was one of Mary Bonauto’s biggest fangirls.
Actually, my mother predicted today’s events 30 years ago. I was 14 and living in disgusting Texas trying not to lose my shit on a daily basis. Those were the dumbo-bimbo-Rambo years: acidwash and MTV and Twinkie defenses for all. Ronald Reagan was deep into his Alzheimer jellybeans and dismantling the American dream for the suits and shills. Conspicious consumption and trickle-down toxicity. Fags were sick, greed was good, and the country went over the cliff.
Now, my mother was a breed apart. A trial lawyer and a rabid political activist my whole childhood, she fought for her rights and for people too afraid or ignorant to fight for their own. Even in the gross bible-belt surrounded by oil money and bigots happy to crow about the faggot they’d driven over on Montrose, my mom held out hope.
“Gay marriage will happen. Your generation has to do that.”
My mom was on a tear. In the mid80s, Texas was starting to feel the crush of early HIV crisis, GRID had been renamed AIDS and the gigantic LGBT population of Houston was getting Gay Rights and ERA movements from the mid-70s and now she was trying to pass the torch to her loudmouth son, which sounded like pie-in-sky bullshit to adolescent me.
“We did Stonewall. Pride. Here and queer. We got their attention.” She eyed me skeptically and wagged a finger. “Y’all have to pick up where we stopped.”
“Fuck that,” I thought. Mainly I wanted to listen to Depeche Mode and make out with my football player boyfriend without getting beaten to death with a two by four. Pride parades seemed lame and AIDS had turned sex into Russian roulette.
At that exact moment, I was 14 and annoyed because Edwin Meese and Jerry Falwell held sway over the American imagination. I outright hated these rightwing fuck-knuckles, literally hated, in the way only a pubescent gay culture warrior could. Talk about gay mafia! At that age I wanted to kill bigots with rainbow machetes. My hatred for these credulous morons was a hurricane and an earthquake. I got angry because there was so much literal, active rage directed at us, at me. At that age, I dreamed of raining blood and fire down on those hypocritical fundies the way they prayed it would rain down on me. Confrontation didn’t scare me at ALL. I practically craved vicious confrontation because I felt so embattled down in the anus of right-wing Uh-Mer’ka. I ended up getting a degree in religion just so I could disembowel them in public debates
See, at 14 I had spent three years carrying coffins for as most of my mom’s male friends died off in the plague years. I was the only able-bodied male tall enough to wear a black suit and haul corpses every weekend while Reagan tap-danced on our sanity. I was PISSED at the world. The vindication of Stonewall and the Gay Lib movement had dissolved into a hateful magma of know-noting posturing and televised sermons from pompous bloviators who would resign in shame and scandal by the end of the decade: Falwell, Roberts, Swaggart, Bakker. Swindlers for Jesus™ every fucking one of them and may they each rot in the hell they wished on others. Not for nothing: Jesus’ favorite insult in the New Testament was “HYPOCRITE.”
Well, Dorothy, we aren’t in Reagan’s America anymore.
Today, the 26th of June 2015, the Supreme Court of these (purportedly) United States acknowledged that LGBT people actually ARE people and that thinking we’re icky doesn’t give you permission to treat us like a syphilitic can of spam. Who knew?
For the past 2 years, the trendy-but-flabby argument on the Right has become defense from “religious persecution” as if getting permission to marry means I’m bombing churches in Arkansas. LGBT people are shamed, assaulted, and murdered with depressing frequency, which somehow makes us oppressors. Kiddos, that’s some batshit Stalinist logic, there. Actual adults equating concentration camps and cake orders with a straight face. Prima facie stupidity, obviously, designed to stoke panic and con the gullible.
Then again they aren’t making an argument, they’re just filling up media space with words so they can raise money from people who will pay them to confirm prejudices in public. Ground cover for imbeciles. More than anything the fundamentalists are a business, and they make money hustling rubes by appealing to their fear, vanity, and illusions.
Right-wingers often wail about the gay agenda. “Special rights,” they moan. “Godless perversion,” they insist. “Persecuted Christians,” they claim.
The gay agenda is: we’re people.
That’s it. Full stop.
For most of modern history LGBT folks were an easy punchline: a secret “other” that existed everywhere, hidden and omnipresent as a Red Scare communist. Ooga-booga, the queers are gonna get ya. We hid in closets like every boogeyman every invented. “The volleyball coach is a dyke who’s after our daughters.” Or “That fag’s gonna infect the swimming pool with AIDS and disco.“ For large swaths of America huddled in their shed with an oil lamp and a 12-gauge, the convenient, pervy homo other gave them a hated target they could agree on.
Now gang, if anyone wants to believe that their imaginary Sky-daddy doesn’t want them to do things, they’re welcome, and LGBT folks are ALSO welcome to live like human beings with or without magical friends of our own. The conservative argument is hilarious if you think about it, because a mishmash of persecuted minorities founded this country for the express purpose of believing as they wished even when they disagreed with their neighbors. For the record, the colonies (and eventually the states) existed to prevent the formation of a fundamentalist hegemony like the one they’d fled.
Pity the poor fundamentalists too illiterate or willful to even glance at history. Well, you can pity them if you feel inclined. My well’s dry on that score. Far as I’m concerned, they can suck all the dicks.
Of course this historical reality and the Constitution that created this country turns any “religious liberty” arguments into corn chowder. Freedom to practice your religion is NOT freedom to memorialize and promulgate your religion through government policy.
And the fundamentalist Right can suck on that and swallow.
Today, I feel almost sorry for them: bigots across America just lost the perfect punching bag. Worse, they just learned that every time they swing at it, they’re going to lose more. It’s their own fault. They should have seen this day coming, but then, foresight and insight aren’t among their strengths.
Sad truth: the uptight righties know all this already, but gosh-darn-it they’re running out of ways to say that the homos gross them out. Fundies certainly don’t seem to give two shits about divorce or shellfish or mixed fibers or adultery or teen pregnancy or any of the other Leviticus “abominations.” Heaven knows they have no problem making excuses for hypocrisy like greed, graft, incest, abuse or any of the other systemic horrors their community defends and ignores with grim kneejerk determination.
Bless their hearts. May they get better than they deserve, every one of them. What they deserve is nothing I want to contemplate.
I’m convinced this screeching about LGBT people and all minorities is right-wing projection because the actual, trackable numbers make these goobers look like hell in a nighty. Check out the statistics for suicide, addiction, and rape in conservative communities. Look at teen pregnancy where abstinence is the only option, or spousal assault in patriarchal homes, or the rampant sexual abuse in religious communities. Hell…just last month, after merrily bashing LGBT folks for a couple decades, the disgusting Duggars just convinced most of Fox Nation to do a creepy apologia for INCEST, y’all. Without irony. INCEST!
Bigots point at minorities as perverts and criminals as a frantic distraction from their own gnarly eye-planks. Hypocrisy on a scale unfathomed. Here endeth the lesson.
What we are witnessing is the death throes of a delusion. Fundamentalism is fucked. If our country’s founders believed in equality, then intolerance and oppression have no place here.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident…”
Today was a hinge in history, not just for LGBT people but for America as an ideal. The current SCOTUS, one of the most conservative and corporate of any in our history actually drew a huge line in the sand for equality that is consonant with everything the Founders that sparked that engendered those beliefs and sent them across the Atlantic in the first place.
It bears repeating: our country’s founding fathers were not only not primarily Christians, they weren’t particularly religious… because like the intelligentsia of EVERY era, organized religion invariably rubs thinkers the wrong way. What person with education critical faculties swallows dogma without chewing? For those of you paying attention to history, the Protestant Reformation required doubt to occur which means these hateful fundies could stand to read a book every once in a while.
True faith requires doubt, ergo no fundamentalist can truly believe in anything.
For the Tea Party to pretend a cultural inheritance and ignore that basic truth has always baffled and enraged me. America’s long slow climb up the hill of their ideals keeps lifting us towards liberty and enlightenment era tolerance. Fundamentalism exists in direct contradiction to every principle that sends people to a new continent to set up communities that tolerate difference.
The hellacious conundrum facing all the bigots and nitwits is that America was founded as an Enlightenment Era experiment in humanism, prudence, and social justice. How can they claim to be inheritors of the founding principles of our great nation is they cannot accept the most basic principles of its founding. My mother used to go toe to toe with these people, against all odds, trying to start conversations.
Anyways, that’s a much larger (and) sadder conversation to be had about stupidity and its role in the politics of our country. I’ll say this much: whatever your beliefs, however you fall on the political spectrum, if you aren’t voting and participating in our democracy shame on you.
On this beautiful, optimistic, historic day, what I want to get at is the sheer scale and scope of what this SCOTUS ruling means to America. I want to express what my mother was trying to make me see at 14.
As of right now, this moment, no American children live in a state where LGBT people can be denied marriage. No LGBT folks can be kept away from a loved one’s sickbed or can be turned out of a house by a hateful family. A hundred years of waffling about lover, mate, partner, significant other… and all the other veils and blinds have fallen away. We don’t need code words for our relationships because they do not NEED to be coded.
That may seem like nothing, but to a nervous teen surviving on “It Gets Better” reassurances while counting the days till their getaway, this ruling is a beacon in darkness. What would this have meant to Matthew Shepard or Sakia Gunn or Ali Forney or Matt Epling? The Supreme Court just announced that these kids were people and they were allowed to love someone.
“You are a person. You have rights.” Shocking, right?
What’s sobering to me is that today’s SCOTUS ruling is being rightfully hailed as a huge step forward for the entire country, not just LGBT folks but all marginalized populations. Today’s triumph only underscores how much further Uh-Murika has to go as a civilization. What infuriates me is how the religious right keeps trying to cast basic human dignity as a privilege. What inspires me is the gifted women and men who slaved and scrabbled to get us to this point…one decision, one ruling, one squabble at a time.
Here’s what today’s decision made me realize:
Today, literally thousands of gifted people who have been battling for our basic right to marriage equality need a new job. These brave, tireless folks have been righteous warriors fighting gobshites and numbskulls for DECADES. They have gone to law schools and election offices voice the ineluctable arguments that the inestimable Mary Bonauto used to decimate Alito and Scalia today.
Well, as of this morning, those marriage equality soldiers are out of a job. Blissful pink slips all round! These are smart, strong, savvy communicators who know how to get shit done and they have tasted bigoted blood…and they’re ready to rumble. Entire organizations will retrench and refocus on other critical LGBT fronts: workplace and housing discrimination, public facility access, coercive therapies, adoption and child services, abuse and violence, suicide prevention, homelessness. We are nowhere near done saving the world from idiots and thieves.
And there’s the glorious silver lining in today’s rainbow…every one of those OTHER issues just got a huge influx of brainpower and passion and talent ready to make real changes happen for people everywhere, LGBT and otherwise. We’re gonna make things better even for the motherfuckers that want us burned alive. We’re going to beat them by saving them from themselves.
At the same time, legions of far-right crackpots will have to find new ways to demonize and marginalize us for a dwindling klan that is literally dying off and taking their prejudices with them. We have MANY other battles ahead, and that will be transformative not just for LGBT people but for any American who believes the world gets better when we help and trust each other.
Do unto others, or else.
My mom died in 2008, but she lived long enough to see marriage equality happen the Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, then Massachusetts, Iowa, Washington, California, (although she passed before the Prop 8 idiocy thankfully). I’m happy to say she lived in hope and died knowing that she’d been right. I’m ecstatic to have been wrong. I can only plead adolescence and Texas.
Today has been a breathless, exhilarating, world-changing day. Like Windsor v. United States, today’s ruling will expedite future efforts to guarantee quality and hope for all Americans. We have many roads to walk and after decades of trench warfare a whole army of skilled, canny LGBT activists have been released from one long-ass tour of duty.
All these years later, the entire LGBT community has been invited to sit at a table my mom started setting 30 years ago… and I have to tell you, it’s delicious.
Damon Suede grew up out-n-proud deep in the anus of right-wing America, and escaped as soon as it was legal. Having lived all over, he’s earned his crust as a model, a messenger, a promoter, a programmer, a sculptor, a singer, a stripper, a bookkeeper, a bartender, a techie, a teacher, a director… but writing has ever been his bread and butter.
Though new to romance fiction, Damon has been a full-time writer for print, stage, and screen for two decades. He has won some awards, but counts his blessings more often: his amazing friends, his demented family, his beautiful husband, his loyal fans, and his silly, stern, seductive Muse who keeps whispering in his ear, year after year. Get in touch with him at DamonSuede.com.
Dance With Me is, according to Goodreads and my sales receipts, one of my most popular books. It got started as a story germ after I went to the gym for my physical therapy and couldn’t hear myself think over an aerobics class. I wrote it as I wrangled my own health and sobbed my way through writing the fictional Ed Maurer’s pain goals. Through this book, I’ve met a lot of readers who say it means a lot to them because they struggle with chronic pain too. Several of them have become close friends, one of them so close I’m adding her to the dedication page in the second edition.
The first edition of Dance With Me is still for sale for another month, and then it will go away for a brief period before returning, probably in September. Initially I’d wanted to do an immediate turnaround, but ironically enough the same health issues plaguing me when I first drafted it are bearing down on me now once more, with increasing intensity. I can’t get the edits and processing done in time for a late July turnaround. But rest assured the second edition is well underway.
As I did with Nowhere Ranch, Dance With Me‘s second edition will be self-published. I want to do another direct-sale autographed print copy sale, but it might have to be dependent on my health. There will be audio, and it will be done by Iggy Toma.
People always ask me if there will be new content, or if they should buy the new version. As always, this is entirely up to you. If you’re into writing craft, buying the new one and viewing the versions side-by-side might be interesting, as I’m largely tightening prose and reducing overwriting. This means the story is the same, and if you loved the first one, you’ll love the second one and either notice no difference or only feel vaguely like it’s smoother and better written.
I will, though, be tacking on a little coda at the end of the story. I haven’t yet decided if I want to do a scene from the wedding, write a short, or something else entirely. (Laurie and Ed’s first Christmas?) I’ll tell you right now, though, whatever I add I will post for free on my website. I’ll hide it a bit so people don’t accidentally spoil themselves, but I’ll share it with you, especially on my newsletter. That’s where you can go also to make sure you don’t miss the book’s release and any other pertinent information.
None of that is ready right now, alas. What is, however, is the new cover. It’s by Kanaxa, and of course, it’s utterly gorgeous.
Please do click on that and make it hella high-res. Please do also go to her website and hire her to do a cover of your own. And as for that aforementioned editing? You want Sasha Knight. I gush about her all the time, but let’s break it down. I’m going to pay two grand to re-edit a book you already love just the way it is because I want so much to work on this with Sasha and make it even better, even stronger, its dance even more elegant and wonderful. If that doesn’t convince you she’s the best editor ever, I don’t know what else I can tell you.
But if you’re a reader who has no need to hire anyone, feel free to gush about this beautiful cover in the comments, because Kanaxa will see them! :)
Today we’ll unpack an article from The Mary Sue. “Tropes of Love: Gender Roles in Romance.” Sounds like a wonderful topic. We need more discussion of romance, and gender roles, and tropes are the best! Let’s go.
“I’ve always felt a strange fascination with romance novels. There’s no genre that the general public will associate with bad books faster than romance, with their bawdy covers and superficial plotlines. Of course, that’s an enormous generalization.”
Yes. That’s quite a generalization. It’s also disrespectful, it’s perpetuating an insulting stereotype, and it’s demeaning. Wow. Awkward start. But do go on.
In truth, romance has its good and bad books just like any other genre. Some are brilliant and some will make you feel ill. But there is something special to be said about bad romance novels: they illustrate gender roles better than any other form of media. It’s the books where the authors aren’t trying to do anything special that really show the ideas about gender that are most engrained into our society.
More awkward–some are bad, some are good, and what’s the point exactly?–but setting this aside, you make an excellent point about gender roles in romances. We talk about this all the time! We’re always pushing the envelope. We write a lot about sexual liberation, though we aren’t pedantic about it. We write gay men and women, often in leading roles. There are more and more transgender romances, and bisexual. We’re all about agency.
I mean, I could write a whole article about this, but I love that I don’t have to! I can’t wait to see all the documentation about what roles in what books spoke to you. I know about thirty off the top of my head. Some are great because they’re still speaking to old tropes, but they’re revolutionary because of the way they lead us to new ways of thinking about women and their role in culture.
Though to be honest, a lot of the time romances are an escape. An oasis where people can’t make wild generalizations about who women are. We aren’t put on pedestals or slut-shamed or mocked for what we want to embrace and pursue. But I’m so psyched to see The Mary Sue take this on. I mean, a blog about women in culture? I know you really stepped in shit in the intro, but maybe you’re going to be ironic with that twenty-five year-old cover you slapped at the top with no context. LET’S GO. What’s your research? Your examples? What insights are you going to give us? How are you going to champion women and what millions of voracious male and female readers often marginalized and dismissed in popular culture want to read?
Men Have Power, Women have Spunk
Many romance novels draw their appeal from playing with power dynamics. It can make the starting premise more interesting when one person unexpectedly has power over another. Maybe it’s an unconventional boss, a new social or business rival, or just that one person who can somehow get under the stoic loner’s skin. One common setting with inherent power dynamics is in any books set in the past, often regency or Victorian England. There the women may have pretty dresses, but their social status is always limited and secondary to men.
Um…so, I don’t know if you noticed, but you don’t have any examples here. The first paragraph in this section is really thin, and snide, and then there’s no source. Literally nothing. Also, the whole bit makes no sense. You’re pointing out men are usually in positions of power. I’m not sure if you noticed, but this is the way the world is. Are you trying to say we should write the world differently? Okay. Except, we do sometimes. Try Alisha Rai’s A Gentleman in the Street. This one also gives you some diversity. See the list below (Appendix A) for more recommendations of women in positions of power in romance.
But the biggest problem here is that, to be blunt, you’re not very smart about how to show power. The real way to subvert those in power is to let them look like they’re in power and then quietly undo them. Women have been doing this for millennia. In The Female Brain by Louann Brizendine, the oft-taught “human” fight-or-flight response is rebuffed as a male-only option from a primeval perspective. Men certainly had this luxury, but women rarely did. Our female ancestors were often impregnated when young, sometimes against their will. They then had children, and if they survived all this, they were older and less hale of body. They could never run, and even if they had the physical strength to fight, they usually had children to protect, who were not strong.
Women survived this reality by bonding with one another. Uniting with each other. They endured capture, rape, and indignity by learning how to subvert their male dominators. This led to the stereotype that women are wily and dangerous, especially when sexual. In “civilized” society, we were taught to be the weaker gender, to eschew sex except for getting children. While men could have sex with other women (those tossed aside socially), “good” women could not. This doesn’t even begin to speak to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender persons in a historical context, though sadly that one is easy. They had to be silent, or they would often be dead. They were viewed as deviants and dangerous to the culture. Threats to the rigid sexual code.
In the Victorian era, and Regency, and Georgian, and Edwardian, men were the dukes lords and viscounts. You complain about novels including this as if somehow we should do something about it. It’s true, we could all write alternate history where the men were subservient, and maybe someday we will. What you don’t understand is that this isn’t something that serves the zeitgeist right now. There’s not a lot of power in pretending female subversion never happened. What is immensely powerful is seeing that dynamic kept the same but showing stories which could have been.
Tessa Dare’s Romancing the Duke has a man as a duke (which is, again, historically accurate) and even gives him the power to further reduce the heroine’s minimal and hard-won independence. She has, in fact, spent her life struggling valiantly against men, some who love her, eroding her power and agency. The duke does not give her agency. In fact, what he does is surrender to her strength and fortitude, seeing her as an example of how to reclaim his own power. Dare is eloquent in her portrayal, but to be honest the duke is far weaker than the heroine. She is the star of the story. She succeeds against all odds and finds not only love but happily ever after. She has full agency and power in a time when in reality women rarely had any.
This is but one example. Please see Appendix B below for more examples of historical romances where women achieve agency and power despite patriarchal, historically accurate dynamics.
So the first section of your article was disappointing. Let’s proceed to “Men Are Stupid About Emotions, Women Are Stupid About Everything Else.” I’ll admit I’m nervous about your phrasing, but let’s give it a try.
Because of the commonly unbalanced power dynamics in romance novels, Female Hero obviously has to bring something else to the table to give the illusion of equality to her relationship with Male Hero. Once they’re close enough that she doesn’t have to be snarky anymore, she can start showing off how emotionally sensitive she is. Perhaps then, just maybe, she’ll be able to heal Male Hero’s hidden pain.
Okay, once again, you have no sources. Zero. You give a few quirky examples but no titles, no tangible research except little jokes frankly coming off as awkward flatulence. So, again, you’re a very bad journalist and a pretty mediocre writer. But you’ve written this, and you’re making a mess, so let’s go on.
You mock the idea that men have pain and that romances address male vulnerability. Once again, you illustrate dynamics between men and women which have not only occurred for ages and ages, but are more and more being seen as harmful influences on our society—and you want romance novels to magically make this go away.
I said this before, but clearly we need to hammer this in with a big stick: what you’re doing here is perpetuating the old and very damaging device of making women in charge of cultural change. This is the pedestal women are always put on. We are asked to be the angels of light who lead humanity (read: men) out of their darkness and chaos. We are divided between sluts and saints, mothers and whores. We are, in fact, asked to cure men all the time. We must dress nicely, behave nicely, and have every aspect of us meet a pre-set image.
Romance novels prioritize emotions in a way most other fiction does not. It also prioritizes men—the males who are ejected from the patriarchal vision of man and who are still in a horribly large chunk of the world and the US as deviants. I write primarily gay male romances, though I’m also often talking about women and always about gender roles, gender stereotypes, cultural expectations, and above all, male vulnerability. Gay romance, lesbian romance, transgender romance, and bisexual romance push the conversation beyond male-female binaries and into examinations of what our patriarchal culture asks of all of us. These stories also provide agency and visibility for a population who has traditionally been excluded from mainstream romance culture and is now fully integrated and seen as equal to its peers. We have won awards, placed on bestseller lists, and more importantly, affected readers.
There are of course scores of romances, LGBT and straight, which positively represent male vulnerability. Please explore them in Appendix C.
It’s at this point I’d like to stop reading and discussing this article, but because part of the point of this essay is to remind people we should always do our homework, all of it, I’ll continue.
Men Are Sex Psychics, Women are Unconscious Dick-Exploders.
A lot of people like to say that romance novels are porn for women. I’d disagree. We have actual porn for that. But there’s no denying that there are some very basic gender-based fantasies that romance novels seem to try to fulfill. Many women have mixed feelings about sex. We might want to enjoy it, but we’re also constantly faced with messages about how bad it is to be a slut. And, of course, ‘slut’ is a word with such a broad definition that a woman who even thinks about sex can be in danger of being labeled with it.
Yes! This is true. See everything I’ve said above. But after this paragraph, you are back to unsubstantiated generalizations and mockery. You are a tired old horse who cannot understand that romances present the world as it is and subvert it quietly while also giving women a good time.
Yes, in many books the men are well-sexed. If you’ve read romance lately, you’d notice the women are too. In older romances (which seem to be the only ones you’ve read, though who knows because again, you have no sources cited) women tended to be more virginal. This represented where our culture was at the time. Had you done research, you’d know most authors wanted more experienced heroines bue were quite often told by their publishers they weren’t allowed to present this. This, happily, has changed.
But in these books of thirty, even twenty years ago, women were still struggling with sexual agency in a very basic and baseline way, and the narrative which worked for them was the illusion of innocence removed without them having to descend into being a slut. This was the age where everything Madonna did or said was scandalous, but those same antics are yawn-worthy today. This was when women were only just reaching for real political power, and we still didn’t have very much. This was when an intern enjoyed a dalliance with the most powerful man in the world, and her life was ruined while the man barely had to dust off his shoulders.
Today, women in romances come in various shapes and sizes, various experiences in sex, various needs and wants. There are romance novels with men as virgins. There are romance novels where the woman is the aggressor. There are romance novels where women dominate men sexually as well as socially. There are so many flavors I cannot afford to give each one an appendix. But in Appendix D, you will find examples of all these mentioned above, and more.
In the last section of your article, I’m sorry, I must simply say you are ignorant, impossible, and insulting.
Men Are Terrifying and Women Have No Idea What A Healthy Relationship Looks Like
By far the worst part about bad romance novels is what they think is romantic. In these stories the couple-to-be usually starts off with some sort of conflict between them so that there’s tension to overcome before they get together. The trouble with these conflicts is that they lead to the men doing terrifying things to the women. I’ve seen the women in these books get kidnapped, held hostage, be psychologically manipulated, forced away from friends and family and even their whole culture, forced out of career opportunities, forced into sudden engagements, manipulated into sex, accused of attempted murder, and set on fire, all by the men they are destined to fall in love with. Most of the time the men never even apologize for these actions and it’s passed off as more silly shenanigans. By the end of the book Male Hero and Female Hero are still happily in love, joking about the odd circumstances that brought them together. You know, all that quirky abuse.
Goodness, I haven’t had to clarify this much since I taught seventh grade. ONCE AGAIN, you are reading thirty-year-old novels. I imagine there are still a few of these types of romances published today, but let’s lay things on the table. Oh yes, the 70s and 80s romances were full of rape and kidnapping. But AGAIN, this was reflective of the culture regarding females as a whole. Women were not able as a large community to have permission to seize sexual power and pleasure themselves. It had to be thrust upon them. Rape and abduction and even abuse was the only way we were culturally allowed to enjoy sex outside of quiet, married monogamy.
Even these novels, however, showed power. There are countless articles and discussions about both historical and contemporary romances novels using these tropes to show sexual and gender agency. (See Appendix E.) Because what you’re failing to note is even in the bad romances, as you so grossly put it, women win the day. They overcome rape and kidnapping and even abusive men. They enjoy the starring role and achieve power and happily ever after.
You’re also ignoring The Lord Won’t Mind and scores of other LGBT romances published decades ago, largely distributed underground within the LGBT community. But at this point I would hardly expect you to know or care about anything with depth or relevance. I’m convinced you wrote this article after waltzing by three grocery store paperback carousels in 1992, then leaned on stereotype and casual mashups to make an article.
You do not understand romances. At all. Romance novels are not flat, suburban dreck women use as drugs to stunt their brains. Romance novels are about hope. Whatever the era, no matter the cover, romances give hope to women and men (yes, men!) who do not feel they can have agency in our culture. They give power to people who cannot fight or flee. They give power to people hungry for community, an umbrella under which to escape a cruel culture. One which sends out ridiculous, presumptive, insulting tripe like this one.
Is this really our “porn for women”, our romantic fantasy fulfillment? I think it’s actually a regurgitation of some of the basest forms of sexism sugar-coated with the guise of romance.
Romance is neither.
Romancelandia is an incredibly strong community. We have and will continue to endure censure, derision, and dismissal. We will also continue to make billions of dollars. We make millions upon millions of readers blissfully happy. We give hope to women and men riding out dark times. We give voice to those popular and literary culture don’t deem worthy of notice—bad people, perhaps, Mary Sue?—and we don’t simply give them a starring role. We give them happiness. We give them hope. We give them power.
There is nothing wrong romance novels as a general concept. People deserve to read stories they enjoy, but also stories that make them grow. We deserve to read love stories without feeling guilty about reading something “trashy”. But what we deserve most of all is to have a romance genre that actually respects women.
We do respect women. And men too. But ah, Alex Townsend and The Mary Sue, you don’t. You have, clearly, a limited vision of who men and women can be. You don’t respect us enough to do research or think for a single second how insulting and reductive this article is. How incorrect. How outdated. How damaging not only to authors but to the readers.
Romance is, has ever been, and will remain for all time the only way publishing financially can continue to exist. We are the bankroll of ever other genre who loves to call us trash, who refuses to examine our strengths but only spins out stereotypes and misrepresentation. We are the ones who can never outlive clinch covers even though they have been dead for decades—even though they are not to be derided but to be studied as what kind of mountain women must overcome to be seen as full sexual beings with cultural agency.
We do allow growth. I have heaps and piles of emails, letters, and anecdotes of meeting readers who said my works and that of other romances have moved them, made them think, and helped them through hard times. Are you one of those awkward souls who thinks we can only grow through reading the literary fiction genre, prioritizing unhappy endings and erudite heroes? Or is this more sloppiness and insensitivity?
But yes, I know. You said you were only talking about “bad romance,” as if you were Lady Gaga. You were sloppy and ridiculous, but you did give that clumsy caveat. Fine. Shall we judge science fiction and fantasy by your ugly and horrifying debacle with your puppy problem? Shall we pick up three pieces of dreck in other genres and call them insipid? Shall we judge science fiction and fantasy for your horribly sexist portrayals of women on many covers and in many books? Shall we judge literary fiction by its pedantic and insulting assholes?
Shall we judge The Mary Sue for printing an article with zero research, insulting speech, and rude treatment of women and men who read romance? Shall we assume then The Mary Sue is no better than every other publication, small or large, who sees novels about women and power and sex and love and hope as things to be mocked, a genre and its legions of readers not worthy of respect?
I suppose we shall.
The following is a compendium of romance as supplied by a quick request on Twitter. Better research would supply more, but since Alex Townsend and The Mary Sue saw fit to do zero, please cast stones in their direction first. As it’s quite long and this article is already lengthy, I’ve placed the appendices after the cut.
Updates, Book Rec, Giveaway, & a Lonely Hearts Excerpt Because Apparently You’re All Searching This Blog For It
I came here to post a quick update and book rec because I get tired of seeing the last post is a recipe, and I really worried all these new followers are thinking I’m going to talk about food all the time. Truth: I don’t talk about any one thing all the time. Everything seems to cycle around eventually, but food is a side dish, not an entree.
Except when I went to the dashboard, it says everyone is coming to this blog to find a Lonely Hearts teaser? Which, okay. Sure. It’s actually at my website, but I’ll give you another little bit at the end of this post. So if you don’t want that, quit right after the book rec.
Well, my update sucks more than a bit. My health was on this gradual slump, despite my efforts to improve my diet (which honestly wasn’t horrible, but any port in a storm) and add exercise, and then this last week it frankly went utterly to shit. I’m in a very foul mood about it, and the fact that this week pretty much everyone and everything everywhere said, “Hey, could you–?” frankly I’m turning off the internet a lot. And not answering the phone. I’ve decided when you’re sick, you get to tell people to fuck off it you want, no explanation needed.
We are, though, exploring Green Chef. It’s a bit pricey, and I’m on the fence, but the food is good and Dan really enjoys how he can make this fancy dinner with all the stuff bought and prepped. We’ll probably do it at least twice a month for a bit.
I’m trying to finish Clockwork Heart, which is very much due and should have been easy to fix, but see the last paragraph. To motivate myself I’m having this weekly contest on my FB Fan Page, which you can play in again starting on either Sunday or Monday, whenever I get the week three post up.
I’m getting asked, like DAILY, if any other books are going to be in audio. For sure Nowhere Ranch is because I have it in production. It’s also going to be in French and Italian later this year. Dance With Me will get the same treatment once I have the rights back. And yes, that will be self-published too, coming out probably the same time as Lonely Hearts in August. Maybe a bit sooner. It all depends. As usual, watch this space and my newsletter for details. I’ll very likely have a pre-sale on Gumroad again and offer the paperbacks. It will be significantly cheaper on Gumroad for a few weeks, but once it goes up on third party, it’ll probably be $5.50, because it’s such a huge pain to change prices there, and last time I wasted a week fighting with Amazon. So, done with that nonsense.
Anyway, all my Samhain books are in the catalog to be produced in audio, and I’m told that should probably be happening? Everything there is licensed through Insatiable Press, so if you want to talk to the people in charge, that’s who. I’ve started forwarding and tagging everyone in charge when I get your emails/tweets/DMs, but feel free to go to the horses’ mouths, either Samhain or Insatiable. All I can do is tell my agent and the people at Samhain how much you’re all asking for more audio. And yes, I tell them you want Iggy only. I do too. I don’t get to pick that for the Samhain stuff, but for the self-pub, he’s for sure.
Another big question is “Are you going to write Paul’s story in the Christmas books?” Yes. I did, and it’s at the line editor. I’ve seen the cover, and it’s great. As soon as it’s approved, I’ll post it. The book will be out this Christmas, with preorders up probably sometime in June.
I think that’s about it. Oh, and I’m not going to be at RT. I thought I’d been pretty public about staying home this year except for RWA, but there seems to be a lot of surprise still. Nope, no RT, no GRL, no nothing except for RWA. Well, okay, and a one day thing August 15 in Chicago, but that’s honestly it.
Right, one last thing. I will probably do another virtual signing for Dance With Me paperbacks like I did with Nowhere Ranch. I can maybe work out something for other books, but I don’t resell books through other publishers because it’s a HUUUUGE pain in my ass. So what I might do is have a period of time where you can mail them to my post office box with a SASE or we’ll do the paypal thing for international, unless you can suss out an SASE. But that’s not for sure and definitely not yet.
I picked this book up the other day, and it’s utterly charming. Sweet, sexy, and makes you feel all gushy inside. It’s just a baby bit like my A Private Gentleman in the pairing (higher/lower class)but with 80% less angst. Which is lovely. If you like that swoopy sweet feeling, with a little bit of tension and some oh no but not much, this is what you want. Hard to find in historical, because usually the whole threat of death and all is a real downer. Not here. This is a delight, and you should read it. Also, set in Paris. PARIS. Come on. Buy it already.
LONELY HEARTS EXCERPT
So, there’s already one of these. It’s here. But I’ll give you another one. Unless you can’t stand being teased. If you don’t like that, you need to stop reading right now. If you go past the cover image and the jump, it’s too late, and you have only yourself to blame.
It’s been awhile since I posted a recipe.
We’ve been trying to eat healthier for a zillion reasons around here, and to help that Dan and I are both using MyNetDiary to track our exercise and food habits. Essentially it counts your calories and nutrients for you, lets you know what you’re missing and what you’re overdoing on. There’s an allowance for exercise, so yesterday when I did a lot of walking it urged me to eat a little more, even though I was over for my food limit, because my exercise had altered that and put me below the recommended threshold.
The following recipe is one I whipped up for Dan, because he loves buffalo chicken a lot, but of course as it’s usually prepared, it’s no good for you. We used actual chicken, but to go vegan/vegetarian one could use tempeh cut into cubes, or some other fake chicken product, or skip it entirely and add walnuts or something else. Quinoa would be a little different texture, but it’d be a complete protein.
The dressing is vegan because we both do better without dairy, but also making it vegan significantly cut the calories and fat. I made a pile of dressing, and the recipe where I got it from urged people to adjust the ingredients to taste. They also used a firm tofu crumbled, whereas I wanted a smooth texture so I used soft and blended the hell out of it.
This recipe is very easily gluten free, but to do that you need to make sure your tofu is GF. Here’s a handy list to help you there. If you can’t use soy at all, I’m not sure what you’d use to replicate–some kind of nut butter or something with body that won’t change the taste overmuch. You could see if it works without it entirely too, as it might. Just add more Nayonaise.
This salad would also go well in a mason jar salad, and indeed, this is the recipe from where this meal got started. I think too this might be paleo? It’s paleo-ish at the very least, and could easily be modified to be more so, I’m sure.
2 cups chopped romaine
1 cup chopped baby spinach
1 cup chopped baby arugula
1 shredded carrot
1/4 c chopped red onion
1 stick chopped celery
2 chopped roma tomatoes
1 TBSP black chia seeds
8-10 ounces grilled/baked chicken breast, prepared OR chopped tempeh
2 TBSP vegetable broth, or 1 TBSP oil
2-4 TBSP Cholula or other favorite hot sauce
Vegan Blue Cheese Dressing
1/2-full block silk tofu (to taste)
1-2 cups Nayonaise or other vegan mayonaise
3 TBSP nutritional yeast
1/4 (or more) tahini butter
2-5 TBSP apple cider vinegar
2 TBSP lemon juice
1-2 TBSP Cholula
Prepare dressing by putting all ingredients in blender or Vitamix; combine until desired consistency reached. For chunkier dressing, mix by hand and use firm tofu and add tofu last. Set aside.
Chop chicken/tempeh into squares and stir fry them hot with broth or oil. Add hot sauce to taste. You can really coat it if that’s what does it for you. Let simmer/stay warm as you prepare the rest of the salad.
Chop greens to desired size. I liked making them pretty fine as it mixed more easily and went onto my fork with more grace. Add vegetables, chia, and chicken.
Drizzle dressing onto salad to taste. Be warned, a little goes a long way. I used probably 4 TBSP and it was definitely too much. But if you love a little salad with your dressing, this is tons better for you than real blue cheese, so cheat a little.
This recipe serves two with a cup and some change of dressing left over. As prepared, we’re guessing this salad is about 563 calories, give or take portions and dressing. 270 calories are from fat, 30 grams total, but only 1.7 grams of saturated fat and 3.2 of polyunsaturated. That’d be less if you skipped the chicken, obviously. It has 14 grams of fiber, 37g of carbs and 36 grams of protein. Sugars are 14g, but none of that is added sugar, unless I missed an ingredient on something. 584g of sodium too, though I think that’s because the planner used a tahini with it, and I did not. Considering how many greens and veg you get in this, AND protein, it’s all you need for lunch. I ate it well over an hour ago and I’m still very comfortably full and not at all sleepy as I usually am after a meal. This is a nice big salad, and you don’t leave it feeling like you didn’t actually eat, with all that protein.
And because you did so well, you can treat yourself to some stevia or Splenda-sweetened ice cream, or go get yourself a latte with just a little bit of real sugar.
My Twitter stream just blew up in rage over this article, and I have to say, it made me wince pretty hard. I’ve read Lamb’s book, and there’s some good stuff in it, especially about how to approach social media. I have a lot of respect for her zeal in wanting to shepherd new writers. On this issue, though, I’m going to disagree pretty intensely with her post which says it’s everyone’s personal choice but is mostly a lot of cheeky-winking-elbow tsk-tsk at some straw men representing the idea of having a pen name. This is something of an interesting reaction on my part, since I do not have a pen name myself.
Here’s the thing about pen names, the simple truth you can take to the bank. Whether you adopt one (or two, or three) or not truly is your choice, and it’s an intensely personal one. Yes, your author name is completely and utterly part of your brand, so whatever name that is should be pretty deliberate. It’s also a huge part of your author identity, the thing you have to cart around in your head. It’s also something you need to live with in your daily life. But the answer of whether or not your personal calculus means you adopt a pseudonym or use your legal shingle is not simple in any way, and it really, truly can’t be boiled down to a few memes.
The Privacy Issue
It’s very true, pen names aren’t quite the privacy shield they used to be. It’s not terribly difficult to unearth someone’s legal name if you’re determined. Yet the reasons for seeking privacy aren’t entirely about escaping death threats and stalkers.
Most writers never quit their day job, which means using their legal name to write fiction (or nonfiction) will result in their writing showing up in online searches their employers absolutely will perform before hiring them or during performance reviews. Not a problem for some genres and topics. HUGE albatross for others.
Women who write sexually explicit material, especially regarding heterosexual couples, sometimes find themselves with passionate, devoted, a little bit too invested male fans…in prison. There is not an epidemic of female authors being harassed by felons, but knowing those fan letters come to a PO Box and not a home address, to a pen name and not a legal name, can be a comforting buffer.
Children and spouses, and possibly other family members can be affected by an author’s use of a legal name.The only times I’ve regretted using my legal name have been in these instances. I write sometimes very sexually graphic LGBT fiction. There have been several instances when my daughter’s friends’ mothers have been politely inquiring about what I do, my child has proudly declared I was a writer, and I held my breath hoping the friendship wouldn’t be terminated because of a Google search. My husband had to undergo a process to work out how to explain what I do at work and how to handle well-meaning coworkers’ requests to read my work. It’s not that he’s not proud of me or that my daughter’s friends have bigoted parents. It’s that if anyone was to have a negative reaction to what I do and judge my family for it, it’s an awkward moment. It’s one that would be easier to filter if I had a pen name. Because writing is my life, not my daughter’s or my husband’s.
I am fortunate in that my in-laws love that I use “their” name to write. They’re proud of what I do and have no compunction addressing anyone who might blink or look askance at their daughter-in-law’s subject mater. Not everyone, however, is that fortunate. Keeping the family peace might be a reason to adopt a pseudonym.
The Identity Issue
Even writing the most benign of topics in the most open, supporting families on topics which help one in the workplace, some authors may choose to adopt a pen name because doing so affords them a separate headspace. Many, many of my friends have pen names, and every single one of them speaks of their author persona by their pen name and as a third person. Jane Author and Jim Scribbler have their own wardrobes and manners of speaking. I’ve even heard some lament that they can’t be Jane Author in real life, and by that comment they mean they’re unable to adopt the same confidence and sense of identity as a layman as they do as an author.
As someone who has found a pleasure in doing drag, I can say I fully understand this power of a separate persona. My alter ego is Calvin Fine, a man who will dance with anyone, flirt with everyone, say and do anything. He will go into men’s restrooms and do photo shoots. He’ll push women and men against pillars and smile rakishly as they melt at the aggression. When I dress him, it really is like putting on a Calvin suit inside my head. Heidi is nothing like Calvin. And yes, there’s a huge comfort in that separation.
Identity doesn’t have to be that intense a reason to adopt a pen name, though. A pen name might be adopted for such a practical reason as being an accountant by day and feeling there is better bang for the identity buck by separating author self from number cruncher. The day job and/or the author gig might be better served by separate identities, on social media or simply in general. I would say identity is probably the biggest reason people adopt pen names.
The Brand Issue
I didn’t choose a pen name for a lot of reasons, but one of the biggest was that I had managed to get myself quite a network under my legal name, and I wanted to make it as easy as possible to utilize that network. I also knew I never wanted to go back to teaching in a classroom, and publishing under my legal name put a nail in that coffin in a manner that suited my professional goals. Never look back, never surrender, etc.
For some people pen names are the practical choice, and not just for professional and personal conflicts. Sometimes pen names are important because the legal name would not help one’s brand. Jennifer Crusie is very open about her legal name being Smith, and as she says, “Do you have any idea how many Smiths are out there?” Having the same legal name as a politician, actor, or other public figure isn’t always a help either.
If I were ever to take a pen name, it would be to write young adult fiction. I’d be pretty frank about the connection between Heidi Cullinan and this second persona, but this young adult pseudonym would have her own website and Twitter handle and the whole works. Why? Because some of my works are so explicit and adult in theme they are absolutely not what I’d want a thirteen-year-old to read, and young adult works can and are read by children even younger than that.
My daughter is thirteen right now. There are books of mine I’d be happy to let her read, and there are ones I would say no. I’m not ashamed of what I write and we’re not shy about sex in our house. But I’m okay with saying thirteen-year-olds don’t need to read books about fisting or rough BDSM play. I’m willing to bet a lot of parents would agree. My goal with these YA books would be to make them accessible to LGBT teens. I’d adopt the pen name so it was clear which books were intended for youth and which were for a little bit later.
Marie Sexton did this same thing, though in the other direction. Her books aren’t sweet–in fact, they’re very sexy–but one series she wrote became quite dark and edgy. It’s a great series. It’s also completely and utterly off the Marie Sexton brand. So she chose A.M. Sexton as her edgy pen name, made it clear they were by her, and also made it clear they were not her usual fare. Many of her fans gave it a try, and many of them liked the books. Did it help that they went in with clear expectations of what they’d find from their favorite author? Many of the readers said, directly or indirectly, yes, very much so.
I know authors who are hugely successful under one pen name and who write other series under other pen names and never publicly connect the dots. Why? Lots of reasons, but the bottom line is it’s because it’s their career and their choice and their bus. It works for them. If it works for you, you can do it too.
If you do take a pen name, be smart about it. Google the hell out of it. Brand the hell out of it. Don’t make it something nobody can remember. Don’t make it something impossible to pronounce or spell. Despite Lamb’s insistence any name will work, most authors are not Janet Evanovich, and spelling their name wrong will absolutely land you in an empty Google sea. (This goes for titles too, but that’s another blog post.) Don’t poach–as in, don’t adopt a name incredibly similar to someone successful in your genre and hope for accidental spill. Don’t go to all the trouble of getting to craft your own name and turn into someone so common you’re lost in the meadow of Jenny Smiths.
Do What Works For You
There is no right or wrong answer to taking a pen name or not. Your life will not be over if you keep your legal name. You aren’t spitting in the wind if you take a pseudonym. Your legal name and pen name might be easily linked, but they might also be easily and comfortably separated. You might feel invigorated and protected by your pen name. You might feel ridiculous over pretending to be someone else.
The bottom line is do what works for you. You wouldn’t let anyone tell you what to write or what not to. Same goes for your name. The only wrong choice is doing something that feels wrong to you but someone made you feel bad about in a book, blog post, or convention bar. Be loud, be proud. Whether you do it naked, in drag, or some point in between is entirely up to you.