There are certain phrases that become SO common to a genre of writers, that they become not only a cliche, but a cliche that causes the reader to cringe.
In Historicals it's a heroine described as feisty or spunky.
In Mysteries it's the Butler did it(okay not so much anymore...)
In Romance novels it's the phrase "teeth, tongue & lips", I'll admit there is some variation. "lips, teeth and tongue". But always the three.
Can we not come up with better? Can the hero simply use two of them? Or can we, the reader, use logic and figure if tongue and teeth are there, Lips cannot be far away?
Could the three not be done in two sentences or heaven forbid...three?
I'm calling for a bann on the phrase and it's variants.
Let only old men be heroes.
Let the hero GUM her to ecstasy rather than use her as a teething toy!
What's your cringing cliche?
Friday, September 12, 2008
Thursday, August 7, 2008
The Law is a A$$
My law degree comes courtesy of Matlock and Law & Order, so I'll admit I have not specific information on the legal rules as they relate to Texas. But over my lifetime I have gathered some ideas about the law and will share where Mine differ from this particular author.
Naturally, I welcome anyone who wishes to correct my errors in thinking, especially if they prove the author right.
Scenario: Austin Texas. Heroine receives summons, Hero receives summons(they are on opposite sides of case). Later heroine tells boss that she may receive jail time from this particular case. Once in court, it is shown that Heroine is defendent in court case. She is being sued for several million in damages and a ban on reporting on any celebrity events.
So here is my problem. As I see it, this author is trying to juggle three different legal issues, which would be handled by different "courts"/trials.
The hero is originally referred to as the "prosecution's witness"(as in a criminal case) but the court case is not the state vs. heroine but plaintiff vs. defendent(which indicates civil). Plus, at no time during the actual court case is there any indication that criminal charges have been issued or that jail time might be an outcome. Also a person who is the defendent in a criminal trial would be indicted not summoned a week before the trial begins.
So let us disregard the "criminal" aspect of this trial and look at the "civil" aspect.
Heroine is being sued for being a "distraction" that allowed a stalker to get a shot off in a public venue. She was neither aware of the stalker's existance nor did she provide him access. --yes I know anyone can sue for anything...but I think that this should have been addressed that this is a "nuisance" lawsuit.
So let's look at the third portion which is for an injunction against heroine ever covering celebrity events
1) I don't believe that could be part of the civil "damages" suit
2) if it could be part of the damages suit--I believe an injunction would have to be more specific ie: Heroine cannot cover any event where the Plaintiff is(restraining order?).
3) This blanket injunction would deprive the heroine of her ability to earn a living which certainly would be of greater concern for heroine(and her boss) than is ever demonstrated at any point in the story.
So based on the legal aspects alone(disregarding much other silliness) I have to consider this a badly written story. If a layperson such as myself stumbles over the points of "law" in the story, then I can only feel sorry for any legal professional who might have the misfortune to pick up this book.
Naturally, I welcome anyone who wishes to correct my errors in thinking, especially if they prove the author right.
Scenario: Austin Texas. Heroine receives summons, Hero receives summons(they are on opposite sides of case). Later heroine tells boss that she may receive jail time from this particular case. Once in court, it is shown that Heroine is defendent in court case. She is being sued for several million in damages and a ban on reporting on any celebrity events.
So here is my problem. As I see it, this author is trying to juggle three different legal issues, which would be handled by different "courts"/trials.
The hero is originally referred to as the "prosecution's witness"(as in a criminal case) but the court case is not the state vs. heroine but plaintiff vs. defendent(which indicates civil). Plus, at no time during the actual court case is there any indication that criminal charges have been issued or that jail time might be an outcome. Also a person who is the defendent in a criminal trial would be indicted not summoned a week before the trial begins.
So let us disregard the "criminal" aspect of this trial and look at the "civil" aspect.
Heroine is being sued for being a "distraction" that allowed a stalker to get a shot off in a public venue. She was neither aware of the stalker's existance nor did she provide him access. --yes I know anyone can sue for anything...but I think that this should have been addressed that this is a "nuisance" lawsuit.
So let's look at the third portion which is for an injunction against heroine ever covering celebrity events
1) I don't believe that could be part of the civil "damages" suit
2) if it could be part of the damages suit--I believe an injunction would have to be more specific ie: Heroine cannot cover any event where the Plaintiff is(restraining order?).
3) This blanket injunction would deprive the heroine of her ability to earn a living which certainly would be of greater concern for heroine(and her boss) than is ever demonstrated at any point in the story.
So based on the legal aspects alone(disregarding much other silliness) I have to consider this a badly written story. If a layperson such as myself stumbles over the points of "law" in the story, then I can only feel sorry for any legal professional who might have the misfortune to pick up this book.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
character voice
Character voice is incredibly important to a story.
Just finished reading the second in a set of loosely connected books(the heroine of first gets to be on the other end of the phone in this book).
Anyway, this author who has given me many "Keeper" books sometimes gives in to that dreaded character voice problem.
This author loves using phrases such as Holey-kamoley. I don't object to this in principle. However when the hero & heroine both use it, then it ends up making them "sound" alike. This often jars me, especially when the the two are "opposites" in personality and often in geographic origins. So for instance, if the phrase first comes from a person of midwestern background, then I'm surprised to also find it shooting out of the mouth of a southerner.
Even, today, with the abundance of "global" communication, there are regional differences in speech and slang. There is also the gender divide; certain words rarely come out of men's mouths and vice versa.
Other authors have these problems too but don't have quite the gift of writing to make me excuse/pass it by quite the way the above does.
One has all her characters talk at breakneck speed, using the same speech mannerisms and "slang words". This on top of some really bad writing makes me wonder how she has not only been published once, but has over 100 stories out there in print.
Another author loves to use military slang terms taking time to explain their origin. ie: Rugrats--um okay, learning the so-called etymology of this word(if she's correct-I've never double checked her) is fine ONCE but not in each succeeding book as well. Besides the term has been in general use long enough that no explanation is needed. Another example is where she has one character say to the other something like: "Where are our MRE's--Meals ready to eat." As they both are in the military they both know what an MRE is and would NEVER CALL them "Meals ready to eat" to each other.
Speech and slang usage is individualistic and I like to see characters reflect that.
Just finished reading the second in a set of loosely connected books(the heroine of first gets to be on the other end of the phone in this book).
Anyway, this author who has given me many "Keeper" books sometimes gives in to that dreaded character voice problem.
This author loves using phrases such as Holey-kamoley. I don't object to this in principle. However when the hero & heroine both use it, then it ends up making them "sound" alike. This often jars me, especially when the the two are "opposites" in personality and often in geographic origins. So for instance, if the phrase first comes from a person of midwestern background, then I'm surprised to also find it shooting out of the mouth of a southerner.
Even, today, with the abundance of "global" communication, there are regional differences in speech and slang. There is also the gender divide; certain words rarely come out of men's mouths and vice versa.
Other authors have these problems too but don't have quite the gift of writing to make me excuse/pass it by quite the way the above does.
One has all her characters talk at breakneck speed, using the same speech mannerisms and "slang words". This on top of some really bad writing makes me wonder how she has not only been published once, but has over 100 stories out there in print.
Another author loves to use military slang terms taking time to explain their origin. ie: Rugrats--um okay, learning the so-called etymology of this word(if she's correct-I've never double checked her) is fine ONCE but not in each succeeding book as well. Besides the term has been in general use long enough that no explanation is needed. Another example is where she has one character say to the other something like: "Where are our MRE's--Meals ready to eat." As they both are in the military they both know what an MRE is and would NEVER CALL them "Meals ready to eat" to each other.
Speech and slang usage is individualistic and I like to see characters reflect that.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Catholicism lacking?
I've recently read a rash of Steeple Hill and though I cannot claim my range to have been exhaustive, I have not seen one set with a Catholic couple.
Are there some out there? I'd be curious to see how they are written.
Or does Steeple Hill not consider Catholicism "inspirational" enough?
Are there some out there? I'd be curious to see how they are written.
Or does Steeple Hill not consider Catholicism "inspirational" enough?
Friday, August 17, 2007
take off shoes and use toes if you have to
Recent read:
Author stated that hero was 25 and had joined the military 9 years previously.
This would make hero 16 at time of enlistment, perhaps if this had been an historical I might have bought this. But it was a contemporary and later we learn he would have been at least 17, most likely 18.
Why, oh why, is something as simple as basic addition so elusive?
Author stated that hero was 25 and had joined the military 9 years previously.
This would make hero 16 at time of enlistment, perhaps if this had been an historical I might have bought this. But it was a contemporary and later we learn he would have been at least 17, most likely 18.
Why, oh why, is something as simple as basic addition so elusive?
Pet Peeve
As a voracious reader(as well as a writer), I find that I get annoyed when authors makes consistency errors.
These can be timeline, hair/eye colour, age discrepancies, or just silly mis-facts.
Some of the funniest:
Five or more weeks in February.
Twin Dukes of Devonshire in a regency romance.
A heart surgeon who thinks the withdrawal method a reasonable form of birth control.
A lawyer who thinks the burden of proof is beyond a shadow of a doubt.
A piscean born in Oct/Nov.
A gestation period in the range of 11 months for a human child.
Does one feel sorry for the author in these cases or more so for us the reader?
I prefer that an author respect his/her audience enough to maintain consistency within his created world and research far enough into those things that come from the world around us.
This is especially true for historical works. It is not enough to say it is the year 1810, once a writer does that he/she has an obligation to follow the contraints of that era.
These can be timeline, hair/eye colour, age discrepancies, or just silly mis-facts.
Some of the funniest:
Five or more weeks in February.
Twin Dukes of Devonshire in a regency romance.
A heart surgeon who thinks the withdrawal method a reasonable form of birth control.
A lawyer who thinks the burden of proof is beyond a shadow of a doubt.
A piscean born in Oct/Nov.
A gestation period in the range of 11 months for a human child.
Does one feel sorry for the author in these cases or more so for us the reader?
I prefer that an author respect his/her audience enough to maintain consistency within his created world and research far enough into those things that come from the world around us.
This is especially true for historical works. It is not enough to say it is the year 1810, once a writer does that he/she has an obligation to follow the contraints of that era.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)