Tag Archives: romance

Donald Trump is the Wrong Genre

There is a section of the Passover seder that has been circling around in my head called “Dayenu” or (read right to left) דַּיֵּנוּ‎. It translates to, “It would have been enough.” Part song, part call-and-response, a reader lists the miracles and wonders God enacted during the exodus from Egypt. After each item listed, the responders say, “Dayenu” to acknowledge that He had already provided, and they would have been grateful even if He had stopped there.

For example, “If He had taken us from Egypt, but not parted the Red Sea… Dayenu.”

It would have been enough.

I have a different version of Dayenu in my head for Donald Trump, a man I hope never to write about ever again after this.

What can I say about this orange-lacquered sack of fart vapor that hasn’t been said already? The man’s brain is a half-eaten pudding cup that has been left out in the sun for a week. And the most complimentary thing I can say about him is that, at one point, it’s possible his brain was a half-eaten pudding cup that hadn’t yet been left out in the sun.

But he never had a full pudding cup! I’m sure of that!

I’m confident he cannot now, nor could he ever, name the three branches of the U.S. government. I think, if someone wanted to, they could tell him the president is the “Execution Branch” of the government, and he would believe it. He’d probably like it! This just hit me as I was typing, and I feel such… resignation. He’d like the sound of being the “Executioner.” I’m certain of it.

I don’t know how to speak Hebrew, so I don’t know if “It should have been enough” can be translated accurately into one word. But that’s what it is.

In my head, it goes like this:

When he bragged about using his status as a celebrity to sexually assault women…

It should have been enough.

When he mocked a disabled reporter…

It should have been enough.

When he watched hundreds of thousands of Americans die from a highly contagious virus while spouting misinformation, inciting violence against Asians and Asian-Americans, and failing to provide necessary medical supplies and aid to doctors, nurses, and hospitals…

It should have been enough.

When he incited a riot on Capitol Hill…

It should have been enough.

When he was charged and convicted with 34 counts of felony document falsification…

It should have been enough.

When he claimed immigrants were eating people’s cats and dogs, once again blithely stirring up hatred and violence towards a vulnerable population…

It should have been enough.

When he watched a man sieg heil on stage two times at his inauguration, and did nothing…

It should have been enough.

When he began trafficking people to a torture prison in El Salvador, and did not stop when he was ordered to by the courts…

It should have been enough.

When he refused court orders to bring an innocent man back to his family…

It should have been enough.

When he, a man who has made full use of due process of the law time and time again, claimed there wasn’t time to give people due process…

It should have been enough.

When he was told that stores would soon have empty shelves due to tariffs, and responded by saying American children would have to make do with “two dolls instead of thirty”…

It should have been enough.

I could go on. And on. And on. That’s the problem, isn’t it? For all I’ve listed here, there are five hundred things I didn’t list. Children in cages at the border? Saying Kamala Harris “suddenly” became Black? Canada as the 51st state? Thinking “transgenic” mice were transgender??

I would be the proverbial monkey at the typewriter, banging on the keys to infinity, never able to stop because there would always be more. Except I’d never get around to accidentally producing Shakespeare’s plays because I’d be too busy listing crimes and atrocities.

Not to mention stupidities. Donald Trump regularly commits stupidities.

Any one of the things listed above should have been enough. It should have been more than goddamn enough!

This all came about because of a very real question I felt the need to ask my editor a few weeks ago. Before we got into the meat of our um… meeting… homophones are weird… I had to ask her for her opinion on including or excluding politics in the novel. Because Trump’s presidency, his existence, does not work for the Romance genre. And, if I’m being honest, it doesn’t work for reality.

If you met someone who woke up from a ten-year coma today, and listed every major point of Trump’s political career from start to finish, I bet you wouldn’t actually get to finish. I bet they’d stop you pretty quickly. You wouldn’t even be able to get to D.O.G.E. But if you did, that’s where they’d stop you for sure.

“Enough!” they’d yell. “You’re making this up. It doesn’t even sound like good fiction. It sounds like a poor attempt at parody.”

“You’re right, learned ex-coma-patient,” you would respond. “It does sound like the worst kind of parody. Now let’s get you back to bed. I probably should’ve taken your vitals before trying to catch you up on what you missed.” (You are a medical professional in this scenario.)

I mean… can you imagine what would happen if I acknowledged our current reality in the fiction I constructed? It occurred to me that the moment a character brings up Donald Trump, that would be the moment when the book becomes exclusively about Donald Trump. How could they ever talk about anything else?

So I got permission from my editor to not bring up politics. Not anchor the book in any given time period. Not mention who is president. Just not. Full stop.

Because our current president belongs in parody. In farce. In heavy-handed satire.

Like… imagine if you were watching Wall-E, and, instead of the late Fred Willard as the live-action president, you saw Donald Trump. Would you even blink? It feels like he fits there, doesn’t it? It’s so terrifying and sad and ludicrous. It’s… terrsadicrous.

I just needed to get that off my chest. I am so excited to be published and to continue going through this process, but I also feel deeply, tragically, lost. I needed to get the sadness out of me. Now I intend to focus, as much as I can, on the happy. It feels wrong to do that, I’ll admit. I feel a kind of survivor’s guilt maybe? I am (relatively) safe. I am (relatively) secure. So many others aren’t. At time of writing, Kilmar Abrego Garcia still isn’t home with his family. How dare I celebrate at a time like this? But I must. I simply must. It won’t stop me from hurting for all the people who are not safe and secure, but I feel I will truly lose my mind if I can’t also allow myself happiness.

It should have been enough, and enough, and enough. A thousand times over, it should have been enough.

Here’s an art I did of the orange fartsicle:

Leave a comment

Filed under Humor, Politics, writing

The Subtle Art of Subtlety

Hello! It’s been a while, but I’m still here. I’m bursting with the need to talk about one of my favorite romance authors. And then maybe next post I’ll talk about another one of my fave romance authors who isn’t that good at writing. Weird, right? It’s the truth that you can learn a lot about what not to do from other people’s mistakes. But first I want to talk about Julie Garwood. As a published romance writer (see how I subtly plugged myself there), I have realized that it’s time to de-stigmatize romance novels. They get so much crap, and for a long time, I was right there slinging arrows with the rest of society. But the fact of the matter is… romance novels are entertainment. People make fun of Rom-Com movies in a similar way, and it’s like… why? People seek emotional catharsis from their entertainment, and many genres provide that without worrying about winning Oscars or whatever. Look at the Fast and Furious series. You think people are watching that for the scintillating dialogue and believable drama? No. They’re watching it to see Vin Diesel do a flying headbutt or to see someone drive a car out the window of one skyscraper and into the window of another. Entertainment doesn’t always have to be believable. It doesn’t even have to be well-written. But you know what? Julie Garwood is a good writer. AND she writes romance! To prove this, I’m going to point out two scenes from my favorite series of romance novels. The first is from Killjoy (2002). This romantic thriller asks you to suspend your disbelief as you follow two characters on a death-defying journey through the mountains as they evade a hired killer. This story belongs to the enemies-to-lovers sub-genre, so towards the beginning of the book, the narration is all about how the leads are frustrated with each other. This includes the following snippet:

…she had vowed that, if he survived, she’d kill him, just for the sheer joy of it.

The title of the book is hidden in that sentence! Isn’t that so cool? “She’d kill him, just for the sheer joy of it.” You think Julie Garwood did that by accident? Heck no. She was having some fun with this. And I appreciate that. But that’s not the kind of subtlety I want to talk about today. No, I want to talk about relationship development and showing-not-telling. So now we’re going to look at Sizzle (2009). In this book, FBI agent Sam is grilling grad student Lyra for details about her life. Someone is trying to kill her, so he’s trying to form a list of suspects. He asks about past relationships, and she says she ended her last serious relationship some time ago. He presses her for her reasons for the breakup, and the narration reveals what she truly thought about her ex.

Not to be bored to death, she thought but didn’t say. In all the time she had known John, she had never heard him laugh really hard, the kind of laugh that brought tears to your eyes and took your breath away.

That quote is from chapter twelve. Then, during a car ride in chapter twenty-six, you get this brief line:

He [Sam] burst into laughter that made tears come to his eyes.

A dozen words. A dozen (and change) chapters later. And right there, you know these two are meant for each other. Because Sam does exactly what Lyra’s ex never did: He laughs so hard that tears come to his eyes. But here’s the thing about subtlety… it’s tempting to counteract a subtle moment with a not-so-subtle lampshade. Garwood doesn’t hang a lampshade on this moment, and I respect that. She doesn’t add narration about Lyra noticing the laughter or feeling a certain way. She just moves on. This accomplishes a few things.

1. Garwood isn’t insulting her readers’ intelligence. If she’d hung a lampshade on it, it would have sent one or two messages. “You aren’t perceptive enough to pick up on this” and/or “Look how clever I am!” Neither of these messages is good.

2. It shows that the two characters are meant for each other. No telling required. The narration doesn’t need to do that heavy lifting because the characters’ actions speak for themselves.

3. It makes nerdy readers (like me) feel proud of themselves for noticing it. Yeah, I’m not afraid to admit that I felt like I’d earned a medal or a cookie for picking up on this. I should be afraid to admit it, and you should definitely feel free to make fun of me relentlessly. But the truth is out there.

As I said above, you can learn a lot from what authors do wrong, but you can also learn plenty from what authors do right. Julie Garwood writes sexy novels, but she doesn’t sacrifice anything in doing so. Her characters are well-rounded, the conflict is compelling, and the relationships feel real. I am a huge fan, and I can’t wait for her next book.

Other places to find me:

Leave a comment

Filed under books, Humor, writing

Title That Indicates I’m Going to be Talking About Romance Novels Again

I’ve been doing some research into romance novels.  This research has stemmed from a renewed attempt to figure out the genre, and how I can produce a work that fits the parameters of same.  In the interest of said research, I read one and a half new romance novels, bringing my total romance novel consumption to about twenty and a half, probably.  Maybe more.  I never stopped to count how many Sherrilyn Kenyon novels I’d read, because I wanted to maintain whatever shred of self respect I had left.

Anyway, at this point I believe I’ve come to some conclusions about a typical romance novel.  “Typical” in this case means “a straight man and a straight woman fall in love despite some obstacle or another.  And there are probably werewolves involved.”  I made notes in my phone.  Before we continue I am issuing a warning that there will be no graphic imagery but there will be sexual content in the writing that follows.  If the idea of this upsets you, stop reading.  I will forgive you!

Okay, here are the notes:

1. Each character must act like they’ve never before seen a member of the opposite sex that they were attracted to.

Match Made in Heaven

2. There must be a constant inner monologue from both characters’ perspectives about how attractive they find each other.  Remember to really beat that into the reader’s head.  I have to wonder what one person is doing while the other is weighing out all the pros and cons of having sex with them.  All I can think of is a scenario that goes something like this:

Offer-of-Sex

3. Women must be saved from their emotions.

4. Men must curse their emotions (in that said emotions lead to relationships, which men either fear or believe they don’t deserve due to their dark and brooding past).

5. (This is exactly how I typed it into my phone last night) A man waiting for consent before doing a sex is super gentlemanly and attractive.  If he both asks for consent and is ridiculously hot, then it is ok to have sex with him within 24 hours of meeting him.  A lasting, loving relationship is sure to ensue.

Note on #5: I have read two novels so far that treat consent like a novel concept.  The first did it horribly wrong, where the male lead – the love interest! – was undeniably assaulting the female lead, but she decided it was okay because, hey, at least he’s hot and deep down inside she really did want this, didn’t she?  I was appalled.  The second got a pass because the female lead had been raised in an emotionally abusive environment with people who constantly belittled her, so she was truly learning that consent was a thing she could expect and ask for.  Still I mean… let’s just get past this, okay?  I think it’d be a great help if romance novels just took consent as a given, and didn’t tout it as some sort of proof of the man’s character.  “He didn’t rape me, so he must be a gentleman!” just doesn’t work.

6. Men are always upset (at least once per book) by the unfortunate combination of their stiff and/or tight jeans and their erections.  It’s super uncomfortable for them, and the reader definitely needs to know that.  It is crucial to the plot.  The sexy, sexy plot.

Manhood

7. No butt stuff.  Butt stuff is neither romantic nor a symbol of twue wuv.  Only oral and vaginal sex are loving forms of sexual expression.  Reading the previous statements may very well have made you uncomfortable, and therein lies the root of the problem.  Sex with a stigma attached to it is not sexy.  Therefore it is not mentioned, hinted at, or overtly used in any way.

8. Every eleven words, at least one character thinks about how much they want to have sex/pictures the love interest naked/is actively having sex with that love interest.

9. A real man knows it’s his duty to bring a woman to orgasm before he has his own climax.  That’s just common courtesy.  Conversely, the woman does not owe the man pleasure.  His orgasm is not brought on by her actions, but is rather his reward for seeing to her needs first.  And because she’s hot.  He gets to orgasm because she is very attractive, as his inner monologue should have pointed out several times already.

So there you have it.  The results of my study.  If you were thinking about writing a steamy romance of your own, now’s your chance.  You have a handy little guide right here.

I’ll be writing soon about my second rewrite of Grotesque!  Ta!

Leave a comment

Filed under art, books, Humor, writing