What Is Literature?

Literature

Definition:

(1) writings in prose or verse

(2) written works, especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit

Origin - late Middle English (in the sense ‘knowledge of books’): via French from Latin litteratura, from littera (see letter).

For some reason, the difference between literature considered worthwhile and literature not considered worthwhile has been making the social media rounds over the last couple of days.

First, the magazine Bon Appétit made the mistake of posting this tweet on Twitter:

Nothing like insulting all us romance writers and readers who cook. And really, Bon Appétit? Slut shaming? After how many millions of people read Fifty Shades of Gray openly and publicly with the ORIGINAL COVER!

Bon Appétit has since changed the post:

Say it with yet again, ladies and gentlemen: THE INTERNET IS FOREVER!

Hybrid writer Bob Mayer then blogged about an NYT opinion piece that debated whether elitism or populism is more harmful to the arts. After reading the piece, I have to agree with Bob. The initial premise is like asking which smells worse: dog farts or cat farts.

And yesterday morning, Kris Rusch talked about the same issue in her weekly business blog. Ms. Rusch compared the indie revolution with the post-WWII increase in paperback publishers. The question she proposed: was there such a thing as a "good" book or a "bad" book?

To answer Ms. Rusch's  question: no, I don't think there's any such thing as a "good" or "bad" book. Oh, sure, there may be a difference between technically good or bad writing.

For example, look at how Yoda talks in the Star Wars. Standard English generally follows the subject-verb-object rule. Yet, Yoda's speech pattern generally uses object-subject-verb order.

Truly wonderful, the mind of a child is.

Now if everyone in Star Wars spoke like Yoda, the writer can be properly castigated for abusing the English language, i.e. bad writing. However, Yoda's speech pattern emphasizes his alien-ness. This isn't a guy who thinks like the rest of us, so it's actually an example of good writing. The writer breaks the rules on purpose to create a specific effect in the consumer.

But when someone breaks down stories, or in this case books, into "good" and "bad" categories, it comes from their desire for power and control.

The actually reasons for desiring this control vary. The Bon Appétit issue stems from "good" girls cook for their men, whereas "bad" girls read smutty books, i.e. the desire to control female sexuality.

Trad publishers have lost a great deal of control in the industry. They are losing a ton of money for three reasons:

1) some writers who were trad published no longer submit manuscripts to them and are making money by going indie,
2) some writers have never submitted to them, and
3) some writers submitting to them haven't reached the technical proficiency need yet.

As a result, trad publishers claim that indie books aren't quality because they haven't been properly vetted.

Since the same corporations that own the big trad publishers also own the newspapers and magazines that do a lot of reviewing, things like the opinion piece in the NYT get published in order to shame readers into reading the "good" books, i.e. the same books our co-workers are publishing.

And then there's the moral police, screaming "Think of the children!"

My feeling is if you really want kids to read, give them something that interests them. I learned to read thanks to Dr. Seuss and Stan Lee. How many of moral police would be screaming about what a bad example the Cat in the Hat would be?

However, I would counter that Spider-man's "With great power comes great responsibility" would trump any bad cat influence I suffered.

Deep down though, the people who want to control what you read really want to control how you think.

Don't let them!

(And I'd be the first one to tell you to read Fifty Shades of Gray as many times as you want. ☺ )

Practicing Self-Love in Front of the World

I was on a roll writing last night. Going to bed very late means getting up very late. But while I'm riding the wave to finish the last three Bloodlines books, blogging may be sporadic the next couple of months. That's not to say I'll be totally quiet...

Who do you write for?

It's a simple question, right? Or is it?

"I wrote my first novel because I wanted to read it." - Toni Morrison, author of Beloved

I totally understand where Ms. Morrison is coming from.

Most writers can answer the first question of writing, which is "Why do you write?"

And regardless of the answer, it raises a second question I find most writers, old and new, don't ask themselves. "Who are you writing for?"

Some writers will answer, "For the readers."

Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing. But do they really understand what the readers want?

I see and hear so many writers, particularly the new ones, jump on a particular bandwagon because the subject matter/genre are what sells at the moment. Then they are shocked when their "perfect" story for a subject matter/genre doesn't sell.

I've read some of these stories. There's no passion. No spark. Nothing to set them apart from the crowd. In fact, there's times where the contempt for the subject matter shines.

Want some examples of the badness?

Let me start by saying I love Meg Cabot's writing. Absolutely love her! And I love vampire romances, which is why a friend gave me Meg's book Insatiable for Christmas of 2010. Two of my favorite things should be better than those two-pound Reese's cups Hershey puts out for holidays, right?

Ah, no. If you want to read the Amazon reviews, many readers thought the same thing I did. The characterization was piss-poor, and the heroine's constant derogatory comments about the genre did not sit well. Now, maybe Meg was trying to do a witty parody that fell flat on its face. However, I suspect a gun was held to her head by her publisher and/or her agent who told her to jump on the vampire train or else.

Want another example? Fifty Shades of Gray gives a perverted view of the BDSM lifestyle by indicating something is wrong for a person to enjoy it. BDSM has its own rules, none which were in play in this book. The heroine "saves" the hero from his "bad" choices through her "love" at the end of the series. E.L. James didn't bother to do any research, and there's a tangible contempt for anyone who likes BDSM.

But, Suzan, I hear you say, both of the books you mentioned ended up on the New York Times Best Seller List!

Yes, they did. Insatiable based on Meg's reputation. FSoG because of it's basis as Twilight fanfic and the novelty of a taboo subject.

Now, without going to Amazon.com or any other website or bookshelf, name a follow-up to either of those two books in the same genre that did just as well or better. I'll be extra generous; if you can name one book published after 2010 in the comments, I'll revise part of my opinion and give you full credit.

But the part where these books were painful to read because these two authors didn't enjoy writing them? I definitely stand by that opinion.

And I have to wonder if this is where part of the tortured writer mythos is coming from. You must drag yourself to your desk everyday, crafting a story you neither respect or find desirable to read if someone else wrote it, and only when you write the perfect story, the perfect paragraph, the perfect line, on a subject you hate will you find fulfillment.

I'm a proponent of write what you love. If I'm not having fun, it shows. In fact, I rewrote "Diplomacy in the Dark" after my beta reader pointed out, "This wasn't as good as 'Justice'."

I didn't expect them to point out craft flaws, but I did ask some pointed questions. The response came down to, "It felt like you were going through the motions."

And they were right. The first draft was too much like something George R.R. Martin would write. I was trying too hard to emulate someone else's success. And frankly, I didn't enjoy writing it.

So I started over from scratch. On the second try, I got "Now this reads for like a Justice Anthea story!" from my beta.

And while different people like different characters in the Bloodlines series, the overwhelming favorite is Sam Ridgeway. I have fun writing her, and it definitely shows to the readers.

You see, I wrote Sam for me when I was in a very bad place in my life. Complications from my first pregnancy left me unable to have any more children. My marriage was falling apart. My first business had failed due to economic circumstance truly beyond my control.

What it came down to was I needed something, anything, fun, or the depression would have consumed me. And Sam was fun.

But she was also my lifeline. My inspiration. If she could climb out of the hellhole of her death, I could find a way to deal with my own problems.

So I wrote to entertain myself first. And I continue to write for me. It doesn't mean I don't care about the readers. But if I'm not laughing and crying along with my characters, if I'm not enjoying the story, I know my readers won't either.

My unconscious resentment of writing something I don't like will show in the story.

One of the best piece of writing advice I've received was from Tobias Buckell. At a talk he gave, the subject of his work in the Halo universe came up. He said some writers will produce contracted tie-in stories just for the paycheck. Tobias's criteria was "Will I have fun doing this project?"

I think the fun quotient is important for a writer no matter who signs the paychecks.

NSFW and It's All Angie's Fault

During a conversation, Angie turned the subject of Star Trek: The Original Series to Mark Oshiro of Mark Reads fame. Since I'd never heard of him, Angie recommended his ST:TOS commentary as well as a reading of a John Scalzi short story.

But it was Mark's reading of portions of Fifty Shades of Grey that nearly had me peeing my pants. Seriously, folks, this is definitely NOT SAFE FOR WORK!

ETA on 9/26/25: The original video has been taken down. Here's the new version!

ETA on 6/17/26: Welp, all public versions are gone. Sorry folks!

Writers and Social Media, Redux

There's a myth going around writer circles, egged on by trad editors and agents, that a writer HAS to do every, single type of social media available, and if you don't, then your writing career will fail miserably!

(Say that sentence all in one breath. I'll have an oxygen tank waiting for you.)

No, you don't have to do every single one. (Hold the mask to face and inhale.)

There's no measurable, predictable way to know which social media will work for you specifically. None. What worked for Amanda Hocking or J.A. Konrath or Bella Andre may or may not work you.

Why do I say this?

Because Suzan Harden DID everything and couldn't sell shit for her first year. Alter Ego did NOTHING, she had no plans to do so either, and sales took off in the second month.

Why did Alter Ego's sales take off with no social media? I published her first novella the month before everyone and their grandmother went apeshit for Fifty Shades of Grey. And that first novella happened to be a BDSM romance. So all those ladies needed a fix until Book 2 in the FSoG series came out. It all came to down to luck and timing.

As for the Suzan Harden books? Well, frankly, I burned myself out trying to do a zillion marketing things everyone insisted HAD to be DONE in order to be successful. And they didn't do jackshit for me.

So how do I decide what social media to engage in? I go where I am having fun.

Blogs

1) Alter Ego has a blog, but it acts as a surrogate website with announcements of releases, a mailing list sign-up, catalog of available books, and buy links. She doesn't anything more than that.

2) Suzan has two blogs. One is publishing business and other things she finds cool (i.e. the one you're reading right now). The other is for readers, where she posts short stories and samples from current wips. She also comments on the blogs of other folks actively involved in indie publishing.

Facebook

1) Alter Ego has a very active FB account. She loves talking to readers and other writers!

2) Suzan thinks FB sucks. Her husband insisted on creating a fan page. She tries to post something funny once a day, but often forgets. Even then she gets nasty messages from people she doesn't know (and sometimes from people she does know) who think she sucks. She'd chuck it all if a handful of fans hadn't started visiting the page this year.

Twitter

1) Alter Ego gets on Twitter once in a while, but for the most part has her FB posts going to her Twitter account.

2) Suzan has given up on Twitter because the only folks who follow her are other writers hawking their books and third party vendors trying to sell her their overpriced services for indie writers.


Yep, that's it. That's all I do. This isn't a slam against other social media you might enjoy.

Well, wait. That's not true. I won't do LinkedIn because they have a very bad habit of harvesting e-mails from your address book. (Or they did. I'll retract that last statement if someone can prove to me they've stopped.) I also won't do Pinterest because they made a blatant rights grab in their original terms of service. If that's changed, send me the link. But I refuse to go back to their website because they seriously pissed me off the first time.

The big thing you need to remember to BICHOK, aka Butt In Chair, Hands On Keyboard. (If you don't use a computer, then change the fucking acronym!) The best publicity/marketing is putting out a new story. All the promotion in the world won't help you if you do gain fans, and there's nothing else for them to buy.

Which means I need to get back to work!

Stephen King Admits Reading 50 Shades of Gray

Well, the post title got your attention, didn't it? LOL

Seriously, here's video of King's Q&A with masters students at UMass Lowell before the big program he did at the university last December. And yes, he does discuss Fifty Shades of Gray.

Let's Talk About Sex

With all due respect to Salt-N-Pepa, I'm about to get graphic about sex, writing, and writing about sex. So if reading about various sex acts offends your fee-fee's, then you'll want to click away from this page now.

***

Still here?

As most of my regulars know, I write some paranormal erotica under my name and more extreme stuff under The Alter Ego.

Two weeks ago, another erotica writer, let's call her Lady X, commented that I hold myself back in writing BDSM scenes. It took me several several days to realize what she really meant. I wasn't writing the Cinderella/rape fantasies that are super popular right now, things hitting the bestseller lists like 50 Shades of Gray.

In one way, she's right. I don't write rape fantasies because they don't turn me on. It's the reason I didn't like 50 Shades. Rape fantasy has replaced the "forced seduction" scenario that were so popular in the romance genre twenty/thirty years ago.

I do get why some women like these concepts. When you're working full-time, raising kids, performing your civic/religious duties, etc., you're tired of being totally responsible for everything. If you kick back to relax and have fun, then you feel guilty for enjoying yourself and not accomplishing more. So if the hunk of your dreams forces you to have a good time, then it's not you fault, right?

The problem is I find it disturbing that so many people equate BDSM with rape fantasy. There are some shared elements, but they are two different subjects.

Another factor with Lady X's criticism is I admit that I'm not a good enough writer to put something on paper that makes me ill. And quite frankly, I've seen too many writers I respect forced by their publishers to write something in a genre the writers don't like or are not comfortable with. Their lack of enthusiasm was obvious in their prose, and I dread to be in that position. Thankfully, as an indie writer, I don't have to write rape fantasies if I don't want to.

Please understand I'm not condemning writers or readers who are into fantasy rape scenarios. I know there are subjects I love to write that are turn-offs for other folks. For example, I'm working on a scene where my super-macho cop hero thnks he's about to be pegged by his domme. She messes with him and has another guy ass-fuck my hero. And my hero likes it! I can already visualize my editor cringing because she has an aversion male-male action.

Anyway, what my decision comes down to, I want to be respectful to those folks who practice BDSM, whether it be the lifestyle or the occasional weekend playdate. I truly believe in the SSC ("Safe, Sane, Consensual") philosophy when it comes to BDSM, with a particular emphasis on the "consensual" aspect. I make it clear my characters choose to do certain acts even if fear and/or anxiety get in their way sometimes.

By making sure my female characters are agreeing to certain sex acts like mutliple partners, they are taking control of their sexuality. And frankly, this is the positive example I'd rather leave with my readers.

Why Fifty Shades of Grey Is Truly Frightening

As I said on Friday, I think it's pretty cool that something like Fifty Shades of Grey, that started life on a  fan fic website, has found an audience. Things truly have changed in the publishing universe in a way that's very freeing for writers.

And then I read portions of the book itself.

Before I go farther, I'd like to point out the following:

1) I do not object to edgy content. I write BDSM stories under a pseudonym.
2) I've spent far too many sleepless nights dealing with friends and family members in abusive relationships.

Unfortunately, the story in 50 Shades of Grey crosses the line from S&M edge play into outright torture with Stockholm Syndrome overtones.

My squick factor (as my editor refers to it) hit pretty early in the story. The heroine Ana is scared of Christian, like really terrified. She refers to their scenes as beatings and/or assaults. I think sexologist Dr. Charley Ferrer said it best: "You play with your toys. You don't break them."

Christian says he wants Ana to sign a contract in regards to their BDSM relationship, then he tells her he'll fuck her anyway if she refuses to sign, regardless of what she wants. Sorry, folks, but that's still considered rape in most states.

From the pages I've read, Ana seems obsessed with pleasing Christian so he doesn't lose his temper and hurt her. Excuse me? That's abuse. A decent dom/domme doesn't play out of anger.

Then there's other stuff that strikes me as off the weird-o-meter. Like being twenty-one and never having been to a gynecologist? Or letting the guy pick out your doctor? I can respect still being a virgin at twenty-one, but losing your cherry in a kink-o-fest?

My biggest problem with the actual story is that millions of folks believe Fifty Shades of Grey reflects a BDSM relationship. It doesn't. I'm worried that some of these fans may die because they chose the wrong partner.

50 Shades - The FanFic Hypothesis

When I talked about Why Fifty Shades of Grey Matters last week, it was an innocent commentary on a customer's view of the book.

One of my regular commenters, author Angie Benedetti, mentioned a fascinating post about the id in the writer's mind by Maculategiraffe. Go read it; I'll wait.

***

Did James hit something in the Twilight fans' collective id that made them say, "Oh yeah, I want that!"?

All this made me start digging. Someone had posted a cached copy of the original version of Fifty Shades, called Master of the Universe. (So sorry! I thought I bookmarked it, but now I can't find it.) Anyway, other than the names, descriptions and a few personality quirks of Edward and Bella, James's story had nothing to do with the Twilight universe. I wouldn't consider it even an Alternate Universe.

I'd like to point out I never said E.L. James violated Stephenie Meyer's copyright. It would take very little editing to make Master of the Universe a totally separate animal, which I believe James has done. The only reason it's even mentioned in the same breath as Twilight is because it started life on a Twilight fan fic website.

Here's Stephanie's thoughts on Fifty Shades in her own words:

Get More: Movie Trailers, Movies Blog

I've heard a lot of people ranting about E.L. James's grammar, or lack thereof. So, last Sunday, I flipped through the book while at Barnes & Noble, reading the first chapter, then a few pages here and there. To me, it's not as spectacularly bad as some people make it out to be on the technical front.

I have to agree with Angie's comment. Someone's ability to tell a story overrides grammar pecadillos. I LOVED the Harry Potter series! I don't give a flip what anyone says about J.K. Rowling's craft abilities. She captured my attention. The same with many authors on my keeper shelf.

My problem with a story occurs when the author does something so illogical that it rips me out of my suspension of disbelief. Unfortunately, that's what happened to me while reading the first chapter and a few other excerpts of 50 Shades of Grey. I'll post my thoughts on why my suspension of disbelief collapsed on Monday.

Why Fifty Shades of Grey Matters

I've been reading a lot of crap on the internet directed at E.L. James lately, and frankly, I feel sorry for her. She wrote some fanfic based on the highly successful Twilight series by Stephenie Meyer. A publisher picked it up, had her tweak it a little so as not to get sued, and released the paperback to huge success. Ten million books is nothing to sneeze at.

Two weeks ago, a tiny elderly lady came into the Day Job. She asked me to wrap a few presents for her granddaughter's bridal shower.

My customer had no problem proudly displaying the two lingerie sets, much to her husband's embarrassment. Let's just say they were very interesting purchases from the Frederick's of Hollywood next door to the Day Job.

But it was the third purchase that had my customer blushing. Slowly, she pulls a rectangular object wrapped in a white plastic bag out of her gigantic purse. She looks at me with huge, worried eyes. "Please don't judge me."

I unwrap the object. A trade copy of, you guessed it, Fifty Shades of Grey.

"I read it and loved it." My customer is now whispering. She checks around with furtive glances to make sure no other shoppers are near by. "Do you think she'll like it?"

I smile. "I'm sure she will."

"Have you read it?"

"No, ma'am, but I've heard several people say they enjoy it."

Satisfied, my customer wandered off to look at shower cards while I wrapped her presents.

With all the kvetching about the decline of reading in the U.S., why do folks in the publishing industry get pissed off when a book captures the imagination of the public?

My elderly customer certainly didn't know Fifty Shades had started life as fanfic. And I can't say whether the alleged grammar and editing issues affected her. What I do know is that she found a book she enjoyed and she wanted to share it with people she loved.

Isn't that something all writers should be striving for?