Here's A Story Of A Lovely Lady

Let Miss Wendy tell you a story.

My children's librarian attended a workshop this morning, which meant yours truly got to man the helm for preschool storytime. We have storytime every Wednesday morning, and this is probably the 3rd time I've done it. It's a nice change of pace, and the kids tend to be really cute - but man am I glad I'm not a children's librarian. It's the same reason my younger sister decided against teaching Kindergarten.

Neither of us can be "up" and "perky" all the time. I barely managed it today, given that I've had an on-again-off-again headache for the last 24 hours. But I infused myself with caffeine and made it happen. We had some new kids show up today, and hopefully I didn't traumatize them to the point that they'll never come back.

Cute stories that resulted from Wendy's foray into storytime:

1. A young lady who told me afterwards that she "didn't like dinosaurs" (today's theme was dinosaurs)
2. A young lady who wanted to give me a hug before she and her Mom left. Awwww....
3. And a young man who burst into tears when I asked him his name (I had to make him a name tag and yes, I did ask nice!)

I also always introduce myself to the kids as Miss Wendy "The Manager" and explain to them that it's my job to boss everyone else around. They tend to get a big kick out of that, as do there parents. Even though it's not my managerial style to boss anyone around....

Sidenote: Blogger has been having snits the last couple of days. It's been a bitch for me to get my posts to go through for some reason. So if you have trouble posting comments etc. I also have a guestbook.

Your Honor, I Object!

There's an interesting discussion going on over at Romancing The Blog about sex, religion and RWA's RITA award. It's been a hot button topic discussed on a variety of romance related blogs over the last several weeks, and the comments are continuing to fly.

I personally find the whole thing very amusing in a hypocritical sort of way.

The authors are now turning on themselves. They're now accusing each other of what they've been accusing reviewers of for years. That is, the question of objectivity.

I've seen countless authors suggest that reviewers shouldn't review books they know they'll dislike. So hardline traditional Regency fans shouldn't review wallpaper historicals, inspirational fans shouldn't review the latest Emma Holly book and so on.

Bullshit.

Yeah, you heard me.

Let's go with an ancedote shall we? I started reviewing back in 1999. To this day I still remember the e-mail conversation I had with TRR's editor. She essentially wanted to know what I "liked to read." Being relatively new to the romance genre, I told her I would read anything - "except paranormals."

Anyone want to guess how long that lasted? Not very long. Either she forgot this e-mail exchange or she ignored it (who knows), but I soon got a couple of paranormals. Light fantasy fare really. And shock of all shocks, I enjoyed some of them. I also hated some of them - but that goes with any sub genre. You win some, you lose some.

TRR has also kept me honest over the years and proven the fact that I (at times) can be an idiot. The best example of this was when I reviewed Light My Fire by Jane Graves last year. When I got that book in the mail I was pissed. No other way to put it really. I had reviewed an earlier effort by Graves and loathed it. I mean, I hated that book. To this day I hate that book. So you can imagine that I wasn't real excited about reviewing another one of this author's books.

Turns out I was full of shit. I loved Light My Fire. In fact, it was one of my favorite books of last year. And I can say that honestly. Even though I despised that other book, I could still objectively review another book by the same author. Pretty sweet huh?

So why can't everybody do this? I'm not sure. I certainly don't think I'm special. Maybe it's because I'm a librarian and have the occupational hazard of reading anything not tied down? Somehow that doesn't seem right. Am I special because I can literally go from reading erotica to reading a sweet traditional romance? Am I special because I can enjoy both types of stories and judge them on their own merits? I'd like to think not. Hell, if I can do it - why can't other people? And if they can't do this - they shouldn't be judging or reviewing anything.

I think the larger issue of this discussion is how flawed the RITA awards are. Honestly. Only authors who submit their work and pay the entrance fee are entered. Then those entries are judged by other RWA members. Why not get readers in on it? Why not open up the entries? Frankly, I pay so little attention to the RITAs these days because some very good books never make it to the ballot. Or the book that wins whatever category (in my opinion) weren't nearly as good as the book by Author X that didn't make the final cut. All subjective and opinionated on my part, but there you have it.

And as for sex discussion - oh lighten up already people. If you don't like it, don't read it. Personally, I think Americans are way too uptight about sex as is. It's fun folks! And if sex isn't fun for you - pssst, you're not doing it right. That's the great thing about well done romantica and erotica novels. Sex is about a lot more than just love. Hey, love is great - don't get me wrong. But sex can also be happy, sad, angry, funny, sweet, destructive, and passionately all-consuming. Good sex encompasses a little bit of all of that and more.

And again, if it doesn't.....psst, you're not doing it right.

And that concludes our soapbox rant for today.

The Best Books You Aren't Reading

After a week of neglecting my reading, I finally wrapped up Petty Treason by Madeleine E. Robins. Just as her last book, Point Of Honour, Robins manages to inject some new blood to the Regency London setting - a setting I'm admittedly not wild about.

My reasons are not loving the Regency are twofold:

1. I've just never cared for that time period in British history. Yes, yes it's all a rich tableau and I'm just too ignorant to grasp it all - blah blah blah.
   
2. It tends to be portrayed by romance novelists (with exceptions of course) as a "light and fluffy" time period.

The Regency era was not "light and fluffy" by any stretch of the imagination. For one thing, there was Napolean. For another, as Robins quotes in her book, "...the history of George III and his children is filled with the sort of family dysfunction that could keep a panel of psychiatrists busy for years."

And ain't that the truth. But the fact remains, that this sort of thing gets glossed over in a lot of romance novels set during the period (yes, yes I know there are exceptions!)

That's why I enjoy Robins' Sarah Tolerance mysteries so much. Miss Tolerance is a Fallen woman, having made the "mistake" of falling in love with her brother's fencing instructor. Robins doesn't sugarcoat this. The way Sarah is treated by society at large, and the fact that the only relation still speaking to her is a madam - well it's either become a whore or find another line of work. So Sarah becomes an "agent of inquiry" - a Regency-era private detective if you will. And since she is nothing but discreet, she has many clients among the priveleged.

This book finds Sarah looking for the murderer of a French emigre. The fellow was murdered in his own bed, while his house was locked up for the night. The widow's brother hires Sarah in order to protect his sister. Naturally she's prime suspect #1 - and given the Frenchman's sadist predilctions it's not a huge leap to say wifey offed him. Except that she's a tiny little thing, and seems incapable of making a decision about what wine to serve - let alone having the wherewithal to bash her husband's brains in.

Robins has a way of exploring London's seamier side that I find fascinating. When was the last time you read about S&M brothels, the conditions of London's streetwalking whores, and overflowing privies in a romance novel? I also adored how Robins addresses the defination of a "Rake." That male creature so often romantized in romance novels. Here's a taste:

"But there are some gentlemen who find that giving rein to their desires only leads to the increase of those desires; and a man who lives for pleasure, and for the pleasure of being more debauched, more drunken, more spendthrift, more heedless, than his peers, is called a Rake."

Thank you very much.

I cannot recommend this series more. I hope Robins is selling oodles of books, that Forge will keep publishing them, and most importantly that she doesn't tire of writing about Sarah. Besides the fascinating look at Regency London so often unseen, Sarah is pretty darn kick-ass. I have a sudden urge to take up fencing....

Happy Book Dance

Is there a better way to ring in a Wednesday than with happy book news?



Oh thank heavens! Cheryl Reavis is still writing! Her last book was published in January 2003. I was beginning to fret that another American historical author had jumped ship/retired. Reavis writes fantastic characters, which is the main reason why I like her books so much. She reminds me of Maggie Osborne in that respect - you really believe in these fictional people by the end of the story. Sure it's only a novella - but maybe we'll see a novel from Reavis soon? She's written some fantastic books for Harlequin Historicals and Silhouette Special Edition over the years. Spring Brides is slated for June 2005.



Shari Shattuck is an actress - at one time playing Ashley Abbot on The Young And The Restless. I loved her actually - this was back in the day when I still watched soaps (working five days a week sort of killed that addiction).

Her first book, Loaded, came out in August 2003 and I really enjoyed it. My wait is finally over, book 2 in the Cally Wilde series is set for June 2005 - Lethal.

My only concern here, is that while Loaded was published as a Pocket paperback - Lethal will be published by Downtown Press. The best things about Loaded were that it had a gritty noir feel to it, and Cally had some rough edges. So I hope this move to a different line (both Pocket and Downtown are Simon And Schuster lines) won't mean that Cally will loose that edge. If she starts grousing about losing 15 pounds, drinking too many cosmopolitans, and getting the latest Jimmy Choos I'll be really, really unhappy.

Insomniac

I have an online bud who reads a lot. The secrets to her success are:

1. Living in New York City - she reads on the subway.
2. She barely watches TV - she reads instead.
   
3. She suffers from insomnia - so she reads instead of sleeps.

There are days I wish I could take a train to work - if only to get more reading done. And while I don't watch a ton of TV, there are days I need it's brain-numbing effect after work.

But insomnia? No thank you. However, my body/mind had other ideas last night.

By my calculations I got about 3 restless hours of sleep. Now some of you might be able to function on that. Heck, my mother and sisters can function on that. I, however, can not. I'm a need-8-hours-to-function sort of girl. And even then I need to get my caffeine in me.

So at about 2AM I just gave up. No need to disturb the boyfriend with my tossing and turning. So I read a few more chapters of Petty Treason by Madeleine Robins and watched a rerun of Law & Order I had on TiVo. Then I took a 30 minute cat nap on the couch.

I'm ready to crawl into a hole and die.

And Gosh Darn It - People Like Me!

Today started out fairly crappy. I got an angry letter from a library patron. A library patron who suggested I don't know how to do my job.

OK.

I'll fully admit I'm a bitch. But when I'm at work, it's a different story. I'm Librarian Wendy. Bitchy Wendy stays locked in the trunk of my car while I'm in the office. And despite the various hassles of this job (the bureaucratic nonsense, supervising a staff, and having no money to provide services my patrons want/need), I think I'm pretty damn good at it.

Instead I get an angry letter from a patron who doesn't even frequent my library - just uses the book drop. And she doesn't call me or have her regular library call me with her problems/concerns. Nope. Just sends a 2 page letter detailing how my library isn't doing it's job.

So I took an extra long lunch break today. I went to Barnes and Noble. I got my Arby's fix. Now all I need is that bottle of Corona waiting for me at home and my mellowing process is complete.

And Party Every Day

The older I get (I'll be leaving behind my 20s this summer) the more I want straight-ahead rock and roll. I want "Helter Skelter." I want "Long Cool Woman In A Black Dress." I want "Honky Tonk Woman."

Oh sure, I love pop music. The problem is I enjoy intelligent pop music - and that's about as hard to find as a California girl with natural, um, assets.

One of the first radio stations I discovered upon moving to the west coast was a fairly decent classic rock station. I could get my Queen, Steve Miller, The Doors, Janis Joplin, Rolling Stones and early U2 fix.

Not anymore.

Sometime yesterday they switched formats - and I'm still trying to figure out what they're trying to be. They're tag line is "Playing What We Want." And they certainly are. I'm not sure how happy I am about it either. So far a sample listening has netted songs by:

• Prince
• Rick Springfield
• Huey Lewis
• Aerosmith (crappy power ballad Aerosmith - not kick ass "Same Old Song And Dance" Aerosmith)
• War ("Low Rider")
  
• Steve Miller
• New Order (this one threw me - 1980s synth pop?!)
  
• Sweet ("Ballroom Blitz")
  
• Joshua Tree era U2
• Bryan Adams (shudder)
• Duran Duran
• Def Leppard
• 1970s Elton John
  

OK, what the hell is this about?! Dammit - I need my Lynyrd Skynyrd!

In their favor, so far there's been no annoying dj chatter. I hate morning radio. Just shut the fudge up and play some music already. Give me the weather. Give me the traffic. Then get the hell off the radio. We'll see if this trend continues though.

P.S. - Happy 35th Anniversary Mom and Dad! 35 years and Dad hasn't totally lost his mind....yet.