Passionate Critters

Jennifer’s blogging at Samhain today.

Click here to read it.

My first erotic romance - a novella - sold to Blade Publishing! THE KANDY SHOPPE will be a debut release for this brand new E-Publisher on June 1st.

Yes, I’m happy dancing in my kitchen, emailing everyone I know and posting to every yahoo group I belong to. I’m tucking my business cards in my purse and in my pockets and handing them out to increase the traffic on my website. My acceptance letter was the biggest boost to my ego I’ve had in a long time and I’m not ashamed to say I teared up. To know someone else loved my story and was excited enough about it to want to put it in print (besides my beloved crit group, of course - who assured me time and time again that “this one was THE ONE that would sell”) - was a feeling I’ll never forget.

Nervous you ask? It’s a brand new publisher? A brand new E-publisher! Are you nuts?

Unless you’ve been under a rock this past year, you know the industry has witnessed the crash and burn of several new e-pubs on the scene, as well as a few that people thought would be around for years to come. Many authors have their books and rights tied up in limboland through no fault of their own. I feel for each and every one of them. Yes, I’m nervous.

I bet the Wright brothers were nervous too when they told everyone they could fly. People that first invested all their money in Xerox, Coke, and Yahoo - all took chances with their futures. Isn’t that what makes life the ride it is? Wouldn’t it be downright boring if everyone only stuck with the tried and true? Someone always has to be first, someone has to the one to blaze the trail.

At the end of the day, I’m a romance writer - a believer in love, faith, destiny and above all - dreams! I’ve dreamed of seeing my name in print and I agree entrusting my novella to a brand new E-Pub is taking a chance with my name and my work. But after some careful thought, I decided that being a debut author and experiencing a “grand opening” had more positives than negatives. I’m proudly taking the leap of faith.

So, before jumping on the doubt wagon (and it’s okay if you do, I understand) why not take a look at my publisher’s site - take a look at the first gorgeous cover to go up - take a minute to read the publisher’s goal and ideals. Then, come by on June 1st for our big grand opening, and though I can’t be specific, there are some GREAT promos planned!

I’m off to continue my happy dancing!

There’s been some interesting talk over at the Romance Divas forum that’s had me thinking. (Always dangerous) But, hey, I love to hear people’s opinions. So I thought I’d bring the topic here:

Sex in romance.

When I pick up a romance novel–particularly a contemporary romance novel–it’s pretty much a given to me that the hero and heroine will have sex at some point in the story. Am I right? Of course I am. Ah, but is it the reason that I read romance? Well, uh, no.

Huh?

Ooops. Sorry. But when I read a romance novel, I read it for the “feeling or rush of falling in love”. Yes, sappy, but that’s me. Queen of Sap. In fact, I’ve been known to re-read the “first meet parts” of books or the parts where the hero first realizes the heroine is getting under his skin but he doesn’t know why yet. I adore that stuff!

I’ve read some very talented authors who’ve written romance novels–we’re not talking sweet or inspirational romances–and kept the sex scenes off screen. And I enjoyed them just as much as the ones who kept the bedroom door open.

But I know everybody has a differing opinion on this. I would love to hear what you have to say on the subject.

So… do you think a sex scene is necessary in a contemporary romance? (Not Sweet or Inspirational romances) I’m talking, you go buy a 100K word contemporary romance book, read it, and find there the sex is off screen.

You…

a) immediately ask for a refund
b) are so disappointed you vow never to read another contemporary book again
c) shrug, but gossip about the book here at any and all writing forums anyway
d) barely noticed because you weren’t looking for the sex scene to begin with

Seriously, folks, if you picked up a traditional contemporary romance novel and there was no sex, would you feel gypped?

The doctor is in. And I’m listening…

Deidre Knight made an interesting comment today in response to Mel’s post:

A few years ago we had one of our authors visit during RWA. She’s a nonfiction author, and had never attended the event because, of course, she’d had no reason. But she wanted to meet up with Pamela while the event was nearby and she spent some time at RWA. THis is a wonderful person, btw–warm, caring, just great to work with. Her comment to Pamela after a day was, “I’ve never been around such a negative group of women in my entire life.”

That’s an incredibly sad portrait of what we become when we join together as women. It should be about sisterhood, empowerment. Instead, it seems that a select few resent any success or happiness that comes for others, convinced that it robs them in some way of success on their own.

Sadly enough, I think Deidre is right. There are people who honestly believe that they’ve been robbed every time someone else gets that coveted promotion, pay raise, publishing contract, etc.

I’m not saying it’s wrong to feel a small pang of envy. Hell, I do too; I’m only human. When Jennifer got the call from Samhain, a tiny part of me was envious — because I wanted it too. But I never thought I was robbed or that she didn’t deserve it or secretly wished that her book would flop. You know why? Because there’s no reason to. I was thrilled for her, and frankly, I want my writing buddies and crit partners to be successful.

I think people who are incapable of being happy for other people’s good fortune are like that because deep inside they are miserable and insecure. They’re incapable of being positive and happy with themselves, so their negative energy and thoughts contaminate all their interactions with others and ultimately drive everyone away, including their Muse.

Since a couple of my fellow scribblers write Regency Historicals, and I live a stonethrow outside London, I thought I’ll see what I can glean about the period (1788 – 1830)… and share here.

First of all… The parks. The place to see, and be seen.

You had Hyde Park, Kensington Gardens (It’s not Kensington Park, but Gardens), Green Park, St. James’s Park.

I’ll start with what I can find out about Kensington Gardens.

Kensington Gardens is large, about 1.1 km square (275 acres). Most of it is in the Borough of Westminster, though a corner lies in the Boroughs of Kensington and Chelsea. (Later it became famous in Peter Pan, but that’s 1906)

The Garden used to be attached to Kensington Palace, and is generally perceived to be part of Hyde Park - which it is not.
BTW the Fairies that allegedly live in Kensington Gardens were first described in Thomas Tickell’s “Kensington Gardens” poem in 1722. So this is something the Regency people would know about.
The gardens were open on Saturdays to anyone who was ‘respectably dressed’. The main path, the Broad Walk, became as fashionable as the Mall in St James’s Park had been during the reign of King Charles II and there was a ditch seperating Kensington Gardens from Hyde Park. (Not a fence!)
This is what someone wrote about it in 1825:

“The public promenades are St. James’s Park, Hyde Park, and Kensington Gardens, which communicate with each other. I am sometimes tempted to prefer these parks to the gardens of the Luxembourg and the Tuileries, which, however, cannot give you any idea of them. St. James’s Park, Hyde Park, and Kensington Gardens are to me the Tuileries, the Champs Élysees, and the Jardin des Plantes united. On Sundays the crowd of carriages which repair thither, and the gentlemen of fashion who exhibit their horsemanship with admirable dexterity in the ride, remind me of Long Champs; but hackney coaches are not allowed to enter here to destroy the fine spectacle which so many elegant carriages afford. Sheep graze tranquilly in Hyde Park, where it is also pleasing to see the deer bounding about. At Kensington Gardens you are obliged to leave your horse or carriage standing at the gate. Walking through its shady alleys I observed with pleasure that the fashionable ladies pay, in regard to dress, a just tribute to our fair countrywomen. Judging from the costumes of the ladies, you might sometimes fancy yourself walking under the chestnut trees of the Tuileries.”
More information - WAY more than I could ever hope to convey here (or would want to) and the rest of the above - can be found here along with a ton of other reference material both on the period, and the area.

Jane Austen remarked on Kensington Gardens as well. She mentions walks in Kensington Gardens, and that it was as well to keep your eyes open for thieves and wounded duellists, as Hyde Park was a favourite place for duels, illegal though they were. More peacefully, you could see deer and a railed enclosure on summer evenings with as many as 300 carriages full of ‘fine ladies and gentlemen. They came and drove slowly round in order to see and be seen.’

Dust was laid by sprinkler carts. The gentry did not appear on Sundays, because the populace invaded the park on their only day off. The very size of the park made it ideal for mass occasions such as army reviews.

Kensington Gardens is famous for it’s Round Pond.

Today at the end of the Serpentine you have the Italian Gardens, but this was added during the Victorian Era, so be watchful what you describe. The park has been added to and changed a lot over the years. Technically, the Serpentine Lake is in Hyde Park, not Kensington Gardens, but it’s pretty borderline.

Queen Victoria used to ride her donkey there, as a kid, regularly. So it wouldn’t be unusual to encounter her as a two or three year old. (It was a donkey - not a pony.)

Anyway… I’ll be off now.