I've come to realize that I'm probably going to have an existential crisis about once a month. I'm not even certain how much, or how little, of an exaggeration that is. Simply put, every so often, I get that feeling like I missed a step on the road of life. Something is out of sync in my world, unfortunately, I never really get what that 'something' is, or why.
This feeling that there is something I should be doing, or some place I should be, overwhelms to the point that I feel numbed by it. I wish I could say it's nothing, and it will pass. And sometimes, I even convince myself of that, but then, a few weeks, or a few months later, the same feeling erupts all over again.
I think I overcome that feeling when I'm writing, I think I'm in balance when I'm crafting a story, but I don't know if that's really true, or if I'm merely distracting myself.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Monday, May 20, 2013
Anyone Who Doesn't Watch Teen Wolf . . . .
. . . . Seriously needs to.
Now, I know what some people are thinking: Omg, you watch that silly-ass show? You've gotta be kidding me. I thought the same thing, until I caved to the crazy fangirling of a dear friend of mine. As I watched the first few episodes, convinced I would hate it, and it would be this terrible, awful, awkward, cheesy thing, I found myself instead saying, "Oh, crap, this is actually pretty good."
For those still skeptical, here's the Season Three Trailer. Oh, and Dragon Age II players, yes, that is Gideon Emery, the guy who voices Fenris (everyone's favorite broody, kick-ass elf) in the show.
Season One & Two are both available on Netflix and On Demand (and I believe Hulu). Go, watch, now. You have 2 weeks to catch up before the season 3 premiere.
Double-sized season, did I mention? Unlike the first 2 seasons, 3 will be 24 episodes (this may or may not contain that 'half-season break' nonsense other shows seem to be adopting from the shorter seasons of the Cable Network programming, I don't know, but . . . does it matter?)
And, when you're done getting up to speed on the first 24 episodes, you can catch my Teen Wolf fanfiction here.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
COVER REVEAL: Beguiled by Urania Sarri
Somehow, the Powers that Be have declared that my words carry at least a little weight somewhere in the world, and I was asked by the lovely folks at Juniper Grove Book Solutions if I would participate in a Cover Reveal. I may not find doing things for myself easy, but when it comes to helping other authors, I'm more than happy to do what small things I can to get the word out.
I present to you Beguiled by the lovely and talented Urania Sarri (love her name :D).
Giveaway info follows Author Bio
Title:
Beguiled
Author: Urania Sarri
Published: Self Published
Genre: Paranormal,
Time-Travel, Romance
Content Warning: Subtle
Sensuality
~ Synopsis ~
The war between the
present and the future has started. Compelled to cooperate with the
forces of the future in order to gain Christopher back, Emma has
taken on a new mission. The portal that connects the two worlds must
be relocated otherwise there is no hope for humanity. But there are
so many obstacles she has to overcome; Christopher has given up on
their love, her best friend has been kidnapped and the life-changing
truth about her family is revealed. Worst of all, a new, unexpected
menace under the name Frederick, Christopher’s evil double,
threatens their lives.
Will she be able to
secure the future of mankind and claim the love she has fought so
hard for? What if Christopher has decided to sacrifice himself again
in order to save her?
In
Beguiled,
the second book of the Gate
Deadlock series, love
knows no deadlocks.
~ Excerpt ~
When the rain got me, I
was still running along an unfamiliar street that seemed endless on
both directions. Within seconds, the drizzle became a cold downpour
that soaked me to the bone, plastering the thin shirt and jeans onto
my body. My hair was sticking on my face, pricking my eyes like
dozens of needles, but I didn’t stop. Lost in a haze of despair, I
could not comprehend the faint voice in my head that warned me to go
back. I kept running away. Where I was heading, I could not tell
anymore. Everything around me seemed strange and obscure; no houses,
no shelter, only the perennial olive trees and the murky veil of
rain. For the last two years in my life, every day, every minute,
every second had been spinning around one single pivot; that rescue
mission had been the only pivot of my new life. It had defined my
actions, my thoughts, and my whole existence. I had gone a long way,
overcoming any personal limit and fear, transcending time, only
because I was fixed on a purpose. I had left my old life behind.
I had a life once.
Now, my mission was my
life. A mission that had taken me far away from my family, my
friends, my studies and my future. But I did not care anymore. I had
chosen my destiny. It had always been about him. Christopher. He had
turned his back on me and the pivot support had suddenly vanished. I
had nothing to lean on. My whole life was collapsing. I was
collapsing. There was no angel coming to my rescue this time.
A sharp pain in my chest
blocked my breath, forcing me to stop. But I welcomed the pain,
didn’t want it to ease out. Strangely enough, it seemed to be the
right thing to feel. This is how some people have died, right?
Perhaps this could be the end….
“Hey, you’re standing
in the middle of the street!” a voice in my head shouted. “And
that yellow light approaching is about to crash into you in minutes.
Can’t you hear it? You have to move to the side. Don’t just stand
there. It’s a car! It’s definitely a car and the veil of hale
certainly does not help. MOVE!”
Then why wasn’t I
moving? Could I be waiting for the car to put an end to this
excruciating obstacle race I had started?
I closed my eyes and held
my breath as the roaring sound of the car approached.
Urania Sarri
Urania Sarri lives in
Korinthia, Greece with her husband and sons.
She
holds a BA in English Language and Literature and an Msc in Teaching
English to speakers of other languages (TESOL). She specializes in
teaching English to young adults and she totally adores her job.
While doing so, she takes any opportunity to convey to her students
the passion of reading. She is fascinated by paranormal stories and
appreciates good romance whenever she gets her hands on it!
~ Giveaway ~
There is an event wide
giveaway. One winner will receive a free copy of Gate
Deadlock (book one) in the winner’s choice
of Kindle, PDF, or Print format. A second winner will receive a $10
electronic Amazon Gift Card. Giveaway is International.
Friday, May 10, 2013
Charlaine Harris and the Dead Ever After mishap (Please read entry in its entirety before commenting, TY)
I feel the need to start this off by reminding people (as I've stated in previous posts, most notably, the one about 50 Shades of OMG, how can people read this?) that I don't make my statements to pick fights, rile up fans of the book/books in question, or otherwise troll. I say what I say because it's how I feel, and, like anyone else, sometimes I just need to get something off my chest. See, there's two positions in life in which you can say whatever you like- the first, being that you're 'somebody', so you have the confidence and place to say what you like, and hey, maybe someone will listen and take what you have to say to heart. The second, is being a 'nobody,' in which case, you have the freedom to say what you like, 'cause no one is really listening to you.
I have the ability to admit that I am the latter. A nobody, at the moment. So I can say what I like. I know you're probably thinking I'm about to turn into growling, snarling, Super Bitch, given this lead-in, but I'm really not, I just like to establish my standing before diving into things.
Now, on with my nonsense!
To begin, I need to point out that I have not (and will not) read the final book in the Sookie Stackhouse series (or, as the original series title holds, The Southern Vampire Mysteries). I stopped at Book 10, which, I believe was Dead in the Family. I stopped there with good reason. I felt the plot was thin, and that the bulk of the book (if not the entirety of it) was not actually something Ms. Harris' heart was in. Period, it felt like a work she was pressured to write, or that she felt she 'had' to write. In hindsight, I have since (meaning, just yesterday, when I was combing through the reviews for Dead Ever After), come to understand that this was, in fact the case. Ms. Harris said she was pressured into extending the series beyond the 8 books she originally wanted to write.
My issue with Dead in the Family was how much of that book, which was thin in comparison to her previous volumes, centered around Eric educating Sookie on vampiric political-territorial terms. >_> Okay, great, but my problem was that in 9 books leading up to that, Sookie had been all sorts of mixed up in vampire affairs, and she never once heard any of this. Fine, alright, okay, maybe this was because these were terms never used in the company of non-vamps, ever. There, understandable point, so I'll go ahead and leave that as it is. Like I said, the writing felt forced, like she wasn't enjoying it. I've always been of the mind that if you're writing something you don't enjoy writing, the readers are going to pick up on that. I was so disappointed. I pre-ordered that book, waited for weeks, and then when I read the last word, I closed it and stared at the back cover for a long time, wondering what the hell I'd just muddled through. Kind of like how I felt after I closed the back cover of Twilight- I was like "Um, sure, it's okay, but WTF is everyone losing their mind over this book for?" But I digress.
Now, if you're familiar enough with the series, and have read enough of the spoiler-tastic reader reviews, then you don't actually need to read the final book in the series to know what happens. This is part of the problem when you enrage loyal, long-time readers. Now, as a reader and an author (albeit still new to the 'official' author gig), I'd like to kind of speak on both sides of this issue between Ms. Harris and her very dissatisfied readership.
Ms. Harris has come out and explained that she initially wanted the series to end as it finally did, but felt pressured to expand it. She decided after the first few books in the series just how she wanted it to end. My issue with her action is this- not that she made the ending that she wanted to happen happen, but that she essentially disavowed statements and actions in the previous novels to make that ending come about. There were many more ways in which she could have gone about the ending of the series and having the characters not commit spiritual-emotional ritual suicide. One reviewer said it felt like she simply was tired of the series and wanted to get the ending out, period. Sadly, I do have to agree from the bulk of the opinions I read.
That being said, there was nothing particularly wrong with what she did. Before enraged SVM fans get uppity with me, let me explain. As she stated, they are her characters, and this is her world. She DOES have the right to do with it as she pleases. I read one review in which a reader was very upset about this statement and commented that once a writer shares their work with others, the characters belong to the author AND the readers. I don't believe that's so. Do we come to love the characters? Yes. Do we come to feel the characters pain? Yes, do we cringe and want to throw the book when our favorite character does something stupid? YES. But that does not make the creation of another person ours. We have no ownership over that character just because we've been allowed a glimpse into their lives over the years.
I feel that if she'd simply accounted for everything that happened in the rest of the series, then the readers would not be so angry. They would not feel cheated.The problem was that the wind down to all of those events, the necessary connections to make Sam the final love interest would likely have taken a few more books to work out properly, and I could be wrong, but I think maybe Ms. Harris just wanted to end it, and be done with it. Sadly, however, what this means is that when the readers complain that the final installment of SVM was, in fact, forced, they're absolutely correct.
In the pressure she felt to carry the series on longer, it grew, it became something other than what she planned. Anyone that's ever set a pen to paper and breathed life into a character knows that this happens often. We, as the readers, were treated to a lot of fun, crazy moments that might not have happened otherwise, but in taking us on those initially unplanned adventures, she veered away from her intended path for the story, and in the end, she took the wheel back and , I hate to put it this way, crashed the series into the Cul de Sac where she originally wanted everything to end.
Should she have handled it more thoughtfully in regards to her characters? Probably. But it was her right not to do so.
The readers, as well, do have the right to feel a little . . . cheated. Hear me out. These are characters they've come to love, stories they've waited with bated breath to read, and stayed up ALL night to partake in. After 12 books, they've come to expect a level of story crafting, and of writing that, according to so many, the final volume simply did not have. They ARE entitled, but not in the way Ms. Harris intended the term. They're entitled to their feelings. She made them fall in love with these characters, and care about them as if they were real people, and then, to put it simply, did them all dirty- characters and readers, alike.
It's unfair to talk of how she was pressured to write extra books, basically unintended stories (a fact previously unknown by most of her readership), which all became bestsellers, and then turn around and call her readers vicious names because they're unhappy with a last book that felt, to them, like it was a half-hearted effort. The readers are the ones who made her a best selling author. They loved her, and loved the world and the people she created. And then she wrote a volume in which these beloved, familiar, characters no longer resembled themselves. The final volume, so they're left with no hope, no where to go from here. But they get called horrible names because they feel robbed of what should have been a great ending to a great series? That's just wrong, no matter which side of this issue you're on.
Don't get me wrong, writing can be damned hard. I'm not going to sit here and pretend it would have been easy for her to turn this particular vehicle around to get back to the road she started on, but if she's put her all into side-stories that were never intended, how can she force out the ending she prefers with not nearly as much care, and then simply sit back and say "You don't like it? You entitled, ungrateful readers, how dare you!"
I think Ms. Harris is angry, very angry, about how this book was received. On the one hand, I can't blame her. You don't want to be told your book is bad, no one does. This is a woman with numerous bestsellers, and she's handling the criticism in what could be considered an unprofessional manner, but hey, she's only human. However, she's so busy verbally defending herself, and her work, that I don't think she's given herself time to consider that, hey, the readers have feelings, too.
I'm not saying that she should have changed anything to suit the readers. Not at all. In fact, I feel like an author who caves to public opinion loses a bit of respect and credibility in their own work. If she simply said, I'm going to change this ending to make the readers happy, she wouldn't have been happy with the work, herself. This doesn't mean, however, that the ending couldn't have been handled in a less . .. character-assassinationy sort of way. BUT . . . to act as though she owes the readers nothing, is also not the way to handle this. The readers made her who she is. Their hard-earned money went into making her books so popular. These readers have little pieces of Ms. Harris' heart and soul on their bookshelves. So, I think there's a bit of unfairness all around.
Do the readers have the right to tell her how her story 'could have' ended. No, not really, but that doesn't mean they don't HAVE the right to at least be upset.
People have been speculating if Ms. Harris is a narcissist based on her handling of reader response. Well, again, in all fairness, to blow up and say something like, "I'm the Queen of this Universe, how dare you tell me I'm making MY characters act OoC" . .. does kinda tip the scale that way. It may be true, but there had to be a less "Shut up, I'm the only one that matters in this issue" way to say it. It's insulting to tell the readers, after they've been living with these characters for so long, that they won't know when the characters aren't behaving like themselves. Just because they're your characters doesn't mean that anyway you write them is magically 'in-character behavior', especially if they are established characters in a long-running series. To say the readers don't know what they're talking about is essentially saying, "you're too stupid to notice if my characters are acting like themselves, or not."
Then there was the issue of Sookie and Bill ending on a sunshine and kittens, lets be friends forever note after he raped her a few books back (I'm so grateful I missed that installment). There are readers who are outraged at this because they, or people close to them, are survivors of sexual assault, and they feel this to be a callous and insensitive way to have handled the end of the Bill-Sookie thing. And I'm gonna have to side with the readers on this. I had a story in which the main character is shown to have been raped when she was a teenager, told in an in-the-moment hindsight. I was terrified about putting that chapter up for readers (the story was on fictionpress.com at the time), because I thought if there were any rape survivors that were reading it, I would offend them, or they would feel I handled the situation carelessly, or unrealistically. I tried to be as real, and yet as delicate, about the scenario as I could. And it turned out I did have a reader who'd been through this traumatic experience. She reached out to me and told me that I handled it well. I know that couldn't have been easy for her to say, but I was glad I went with my instincts about how to deal with such a sensitive subject. I think Ms. Harris could have saved herself a lot of anger, and aggravation, had she simply treated her characters like people in the end.
Lastly, the readers are angry about the message. For a long time, they have been told that the vampire community was a metaphor for the gay & minority communities of the real world. They struggled, and fought, and triumphed, and lost, and struggled some more . . . all to have Sookie end up right where she began, and everyone getting the message that they're all better off with their own kind. Here's the problem I have with that. I don't think Ms. Harris was concerned with the message, anymore. I don't think she was trying to say anything, I think her only concern, as she wrote this book, was to end her story the way she wanted, period.
I have the ability to admit that I am the latter. A nobody, at the moment. So I can say what I like. I know you're probably thinking I'm about to turn into growling, snarling, Super Bitch, given this lead-in, but I'm really not, I just like to establish my standing before diving into things.
Now, on with my nonsense!
To begin, I need to point out that I have not (and will not) read the final book in the Sookie Stackhouse series (or, as the original series title holds, The Southern Vampire Mysteries). I stopped at Book 10, which, I believe was Dead in the Family. I stopped there with good reason. I felt the plot was thin, and that the bulk of the book (if not the entirety of it) was not actually something Ms. Harris' heart was in. Period, it felt like a work she was pressured to write, or that she felt she 'had' to write. In hindsight, I have since (meaning, just yesterday, when I was combing through the reviews for Dead Ever After), come to understand that this was, in fact the case. Ms. Harris said she was pressured into extending the series beyond the 8 books she originally wanted to write.
My issue with Dead in the Family was how much of that book, which was thin in comparison to her previous volumes, centered around Eric educating Sookie on vampiric political-territorial terms. >_> Okay, great, but my problem was that in 9 books leading up to that, Sookie had been all sorts of mixed up in vampire affairs, and she never once heard any of this. Fine, alright, okay, maybe this was because these were terms never used in the company of non-vamps, ever. There, understandable point, so I'll go ahead and leave that as it is. Like I said, the writing felt forced, like she wasn't enjoying it. I've always been of the mind that if you're writing something you don't enjoy writing, the readers are going to pick up on that. I was so disappointed. I pre-ordered that book, waited for weeks, and then when I read the last word, I closed it and stared at the back cover for a long time, wondering what the hell I'd just muddled through. Kind of like how I felt after I closed the back cover of Twilight- I was like "Um, sure, it's okay, but WTF is everyone losing their mind over this book for?" But I digress.
Now, if you're familiar enough with the series, and have read enough of the spoiler-tastic reader reviews, then you don't actually need to read the final book in the series to know what happens. This is part of the problem when you enrage loyal, long-time readers. Now, as a reader and an author (albeit still new to the 'official' author gig), I'd like to kind of speak on both sides of this issue between Ms. Harris and her very dissatisfied readership.
Ms. Harris has come out and explained that she initially wanted the series to end as it finally did, but felt pressured to expand it. She decided after the first few books in the series just how she wanted it to end. My issue with her action is this- not that she made the ending that she wanted to happen happen, but that she essentially disavowed statements and actions in the previous novels to make that ending come about. There were many more ways in which she could have gone about the ending of the series and having the characters not commit spiritual-emotional ritual suicide. One reviewer said it felt like she simply was tired of the series and wanted to get the ending out, period. Sadly, I do have to agree from the bulk of the opinions I read.
That being said, there was nothing particularly wrong with what she did. Before enraged SVM fans get uppity with me, let me explain. As she stated, they are her characters, and this is her world. She DOES have the right to do with it as she pleases. I read one review in which a reader was very upset about this statement and commented that once a writer shares their work with others, the characters belong to the author AND the readers. I don't believe that's so. Do we come to love the characters? Yes. Do we come to feel the characters pain? Yes, do we cringe and want to throw the book when our favorite character does something stupid? YES. But that does not make the creation of another person ours. We have no ownership over that character just because we've been allowed a glimpse into their lives over the years.
I feel that if she'd simply accounted for everything that happened in the rest of the series, then the readers would not be so angry. They would not feel cheated.The problem was that the wind down to all of those events, the necessary connections to make Sam the final love interest would likely have taken a few more books to work out properly, and I could be wrong, but I think maybe Ms. Harris just wanted to end it, and be done with it. Sadly, however, what this means is that when the readers complain that the final installment of SVM was, in fact, forced, they're absolutely correct.
In the pressure she felt to carry the series on longer, it grew, it became something other than what she planned. Anyone that's ever set a pen to paper and breathed life into a character knows that this happens often. We, as the readers, were treated to a lot of fun, crazy moments that might not have happened otherwise, but in taking us on those initially unplanned adventures, she veered away from her intended path for the story, and in the end, she took the wheel back and , I hate to put it this way, crashed the series into the Cul de Sac where she originally wanted everything to end.
Should she have handled it more thoughtfully in regards to her characters? Probably. But it was her right not to do so.
The readers, as well, do have the right to feel a little . . . cheated. Hear me out. These are characters they've come to love, stories they've waited with bated breath to read, and stayed up ALL night to partake in. After 12 books, they've come to expect a level of story crafting, and of writing that, according to so many, the final volume simply did not have. They ARE entitled, but not in the way Ms. Harris intended the term. They're entitled to their feelings. She made them fall in love with these characters, and care about them as if they were real people, and then, to put it simply, did them all dirty- characters and readers, alike.
It's unfair to talk of how she was pressured to write extra books, basically unintended stories (a fact previously unknown by most of her readership), which all became bestsellers, and then turn around and call her readers vicious names because they're unhappy with a last book that felt, to them, like it was a half-hearted effort. The readers are the ones who made her a best selling author. They loved her, and loved the world and the people she created. And then she wrote a volume in which these beloved, familiar, characters no longer resembled themselves. The final volume, so they're left with no hope, no where to go from here. But they get called horrible names because they feel robbed of what should have been a great ending to a great series? That's just wrong, no matter which side of this issue you're on.
Don't get me wrong, writing can be damned hard. I'm not going to sit here and pretend it would have been easy for her to turn this particular vehicle around to get back to the road she started on, but if she's put her all into side-stories that were never intended, how can she force out the ending she prefers with not nearly as much care, and then simply sit back and say "You don't like it? You entitled, ungrateful readers, how dare you!"
I think Ms. Harris is angry, very angry, about how this book was received. On the one hand, I can't blame her. You don't want to be told your book is bad, no one does. This is a woman with numerous bestsellers, and she's handling the criticism in what could be considered an unprofessional manner, but hey, she's only human. However, she's so busy verbally defending herself, and her work, that I don't think she's given herself time to consider that, hey, the readers have feelings, too.
I'm not saying that she should have changed anything to suit the readers. Not at all. In fact, I feel like an author who caves to public opinion loses a bit of respect and credibility in their own work. If she simply said, I'm going to change this ending to make the readers happy, she wouldn't have been happy with the work, herself. This doesn't mean, however, that the ending couldn't have been handled in a less . .. character-assassinationy sort of way. BUT . . . to act as though she owes the readers nothing, is also not the way to handle this. The readers made her who she is. Their hard-earned money went into making her books so popular. These readers have little pieces of Ms. Harris' heart and soul on their bookshelves. So, I think there's a bit of unfairness all around.
Do the readers have the right to tell her how her story 'could have' ended. No, not really, but that doesn't mean they don't HAVE the right to at least be upset.
People have been speculating if Ms. Harris is a narcissist based on her handling of reader response. Well, again, in all fairness, to blow up and say something like, "I'm the Queen of this Universe, how dare you tell me I'm making MY characters act OoC" . .. does kinda tip the scale that way. It may be true, but there had to be a less "Shut up, I'm the only one that matters in this issue" way to say it. It's insulting to tell the readers, after they've been living with these characters for so long, that they won't know when the characters aren't behaving like themselves. Just because they're your characters doesn't mean that anyway you write them is magically 'in-character behavior', especially if they are established characters in a long-running series. To say the readers don't know what they're talking about is essentially saying, "you're too stupid to notice if my characters are acting like themselves, or not."
Then there was the issue of Sookie and Bill ending on a sunshine and kittens, lets be friends forever note after he raped her a few books back (I'm so grateful I missed that installment). There are readers who are outraged at this because they, or people close to them, are survivors of sexual assault, and they feel this to be a callous and insensitive way to have handled the end of the Bill-Sookie thing. And I'm gonna have to side with the readers on this. I had a story in which the main character is shown to have been raped when she was a teenager, told in an in-the-moment hindsight. I was terrified about putting that chapter up for readers (the story was on fictionpress.com at the time), because I thought if there were any rape survivors that were reading it, I would offend them, or they would feel I handled the situation carelessly, or unrealistically. I tried to be as real, and yet as delicate, about the scenario as I could. And it turned out I did have a reader who'd been through this traumatic experience. She reached out to me and told me that I handled it well. I know that couldn't have been easy for her to say, but I was glad I went with my instincts about how to deal with such a sensitive subject. I think Ms. Harris could have saved herself a lot of anger, and aggravation, had she simply treated her characters like people in the end.
Lastly, the readers are angry about the message. For a long time, they have been told that the vampire community was a metaphor for the gay & minority communities of the real world. They struggled, and fought, and triumphed, and lost, and struggled some more . . . all to have Sookie end up right where she began, and everyone getting the message that they're all better off with their own kind. Here's the problem I have with that. I don't think Ms. Harris was concerned with the message, anymore. I don't think she was trying to say anything, I think her only concern, as she wrote this book, was to end her story the way she wanted, period.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
My Day for Kicking the Hornet's Nest
I normally try to keep my mouth shut on political, or belief-based issues, 'cause everyone has the right to their opinion (so long as that opinion doesn't tell them it's okay to harm others, and then they go out and do so), and I have friends that are on both sides of some of these issues, and there's no way, in open debate to really throw your opposing opinion at your friend without getting them riled up. However, I feel like there are things that need to be said.
In light of having a few 'omg, don't touch that' topics I want to address, I will label each before jumping in. I cannot stress this too greatly, if you are going to read this post, then all I ask is that you read it to the end, read everything I have to say about the topic, before deciding you don't like what I said, or feeling the need to tear me a new one. Again, everyone is entitled to their opinions, and these are mine. If you read my full points, and you want to open a debate, great, I'm all for a healthy debate. However, if you try to pick me, or my views apart just to start shit, because you're simply some shit-starting troll who thrives on stirring up drama, then expect to be ignored.
Gay Marriage
Luckily, I don't personally know anyone who is anti-gay marriage, so this shouldn't even be a view I'm addressing, but I'm going anyway. If you spend your life with someone, then you should be entitled to the same rights as everyone else- you should be allowed to be at their bedside in a hospital if they're dying. You should be allowed to keep the things you lovingly purchased as a unit, you should be allowed to claim each other as a couple come tax season. Gay marriage doesn't threaten hetero marriages. To say it does, doesn't even make sense. If peel back the layers, what's really being said is that anti-gay-marriage proponents think that society is better off is gay people just 'go along with' a straight life style and pretend to be happy. They would subject children to being born into a fake marriage, with none of the kind of love that should exist between a husband and wife.
It's been said before, and I'll paraphrase it here, 'cause it fits: being gay is not a 'life style choice', but trying to force others to live how you think they should, regardless of their actual freedoms, IS a choice. Our founding fathers put 'separation of church and state' in the Constitution for a reason. No one should be using religion-based belief to forge laws. That's what they do in the Middle East, but gods forbid you compare these bible-thumpers to Muslims.
And stop referring to gay marriage as 'special rights'. They're fucking not. Gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders are still human, you conservative ass-hats. To say they're asking for 'special rights' because they want the same human freedoms and liberties that you have is, in fact, an attempt to dehumanize these people. The problem isn't that LGBT people want EQUAL rights, it's that things have not been equal for so long that those who have been privileged don't realized how simple they've had it, and now that society is going, "hey, let's be fair and make everyone even," they say "What? You want what I have? But that's not fair." Well, ya know what? Yes, it is fucking fair, that is the point.
Racism
I can already hear the quiet gasps going up. Now, it may not be obvious from my physical appearance, but I am, in fact, a child of mixed race-both of my parents are of each of European and Native American descent. Most people who have known me longer than a month learn that anyway, as I don't keep it a secret. As such, I feel I'm a person able to discuss this without stirring up too much shit. I've been picked on for being white, I've been picked on for being 'Indian', I've been picked on for having friends from every band of the ethnic rainbow; my husband is Puerto Rican, the woman I chose to be godmother to my youngest child is black, the woman I've called my sister for 23 years is Asian. I've heard it ALL.
Here's the thing that most people don't realize. Racism is a problem because WE as a society, keep letting it be. People want to make up for the past, or want someone to answer for the past, or make some sort of recompense for things that happened before our parents were even a gleam in our grandparents' eyes.
I guess you can see that I'm not a believer in Sins of the Father. I never have been. I can't find it acceptable in any way to hold one person responsible for the crimes of another. And don't for one second think that because of the color of my skin, I don't have any ethnic past wrong-doings to gripe about, if I so chose (look up slavery of the Irish, look at the native people of this land still living on reservations that the government that took over 'allowed' them to have [in other words, forced them to live on], look up the history of 'disputes' between Turkey and Armenia, open a history book to Hitler's march through Poland). I have a laundry list of ethnicities in my blood, I could go on all day, every day, about crimes against them.
But that's the point.
We ALL could. If every single one of us dug deep enough, we'd all find some terrible gaping wound in the past, and wonder how anyone could forgive it. And the reason that wound can't be healed? The reason forgiveness cannot be granted? It's because those are not our wounds. That forgiveness not ours to grant. The only way we're ever going to heal will be if we all make the effort to put the past behind us and leave it there. And that's never going to happen. Too many people want answers that cannot be given. Too many people simply want to BE angry, and they don't realize that they want to be angry. They want someone to yell at, someone to pay, someone to wound in a measure that equates what their ancestors suffered. And I can understand that, but the person now, the present-day individual that you make answer for a crime which had nothing to do with them, will learn resentment. And in their resentment, they may decide that 'your people' (black, white, yellow, blue, wtf-ever) are 'all the same', so the 'answer' leads to unresolved negative feelings. The question then becomes "Where does it end?"
The hate and the anger has to end somewhere, and as long as we keep poking at old wounds, that end will never come. We'll be hating and raging at one another 'til the sun burns out. We should MAKE it end with us. Stop teaching our children hate. Teach them HONEST history, if you must teach it, and let them draw their own conclusions. If you teach a child something with hatred, they will learn hate, even if you don't openly express that feeling.
I'm just one voice, and no one is going to hear me unless they listen. But, I want to raise my children in a world that isn't color blind, but that sees the different colors and appreciates the beauty in their differences.
And now, the stickiest subject of all:
Gun Control
This is an especially tense issue, and I do have friends on both sides of this. I've struggled with not saying anything when my gun-loving friends post anti-gov't 'don't you touch my gun' posts. And you love your gun? Great! Fantastic. Keep it. Luckily for me, I can say that most of my friends who own guns, KNOW how to use them, maintain them properly, and are responsible gun owners.
Here's the issue. Not everyone that legally owns guns is responsible, or actually knows how to handle them. Are there criminals and evil-minded folk out there with guns? Yes. Do some of them have assault weapons? I'm pretty sure. The government isn't saying they want to take your guns away. They're saying they want to take assault weapons away. And you know what? Private citizens should NOT have assault weapons to begin with. The Right to Bear Arms? That is written with the intent that you should have the right to own fire arms to protect yourself, your family, and your home. . . . And maybe for those of you who hunt, sure. Now, if there is some reason that for any of these things, you need MORE than a hand gun, shot gun & hunting rifle, maybe you need to move to a different neighborhood.
That was a joke, lighten up.
In the wake of the Newtown tragedy, I cried. I looked at my son Mathias, who's the same age as many of the victims and thought about how much it would hurt to have to walk into his room and see his things, and hold his toys or his clothes and know that I would never get to see, or hold my baby boy again. The law makers can complain all they want that restrictions on gun ownership, and the types of firearms available to private citizens is not the answer. But they're not the parent who lost their child to a gun-toting lunatic who got his firearms from his mother's collection; his mother, who, until then, probably thought she was a responsible gun owner.
This also raises the question, that in the 'right to bear arms', do we really need a gun 'collection'? It's a very simple question.
The massacre at Sandyhook took place on my 35th birthday. It felt incredibly wrong and awful to celebrate another year of my life lived when so many young, thriving lives had been lost. I had to explain to my 6 year old and 8 year old what happened. They were scared, sad, and mostly confused. They couldn't understand why someone would do such a thing. And I couldn't explain it, 'cause I don't understand, either.
December 15th, the very next day, one of my friends posted something saying that conservative leaders would look at the tragedy and their reaction would be nothing more than "The liberal government is going to try to take our guns away!" And that's what they've been telling the gun-loving members of the nation ever since.
And, stop getting uppity, I'm not done yet, and I asked that you read this all the way through.
My last point on this ooooh-so-touchy subject is this: You think every man, woman, and child, should bear arms? Okay. The problem isn't allowing citizens to arm themselves. The problem is that once you've allowed them to carry that weapon, who's going to ensure that they know how to use it? An untrained civilian holding a gun and trying to play hero when a crazy person shows up with an assault weapon has the potential for an even worse outcome.
And before you cite me the incidents in which situations have been stopped by armed civilians, or off-duty cops, or veterans who just happened to have their sidearm with them in the right place at the right time, I will point out that this IS what I mean. These are people who are trained (either through years of practice and skill acquired over years, or through some sort of post/job-related training) to handle such weapons.
The answer should be increased security at schools and other institutions thought safe before this happened. The problem there is that we're a nation that pays the people who entertain us billions of dollars, but don't have enough for school funding, which includes things like security staff.
The bottom line is, I don't think anyone really wants to see every single person in this country running around with a gun in their hand. Guns are kinda like alcohol, some of us can handle it, some of us can't. Think about it, whether you love guns or hate them, you know people that you'd never want to see anywhere NEAR a damn gun.
So, you don't want to give up your guns? Great, we don't want to take them away . . . We just want to try to limit the chance of crazy people getting their hands on them. We want to keep assault weapons (which were originally created for military use only, to begin with) away from the people who would use them for outright evil deads. I don't think that's too much to ask. Maybe stronger 'gun laws' aren't the answer, I don't know what the real answer to this is better than anyone else, but something needs to be done.
In light of having a few 'omg, don't touch that' topics I want to address, I will label each before jumping in. I cannot stress this too greatly, if you are going to read this post, then all I ask is that you read it to the end, read everything I have to say about the topic, before deciding you don't like what I said, or feeling the need to tear me a new one. Again, everyone is entitled to their opinions, and these are mine. If you read my full points, and you want to open a debate, great, I'm all for a healthy debate. However, if you try to pick me, or my views apart just to start shit, because you're simply some shit-starting troll who thrives on stirring up drama, then expect to be ignored.
Gay Marriage
Luckily, I don't personally know anyone who is anti-gay marriage, so this shouldn't even be a view I'm addressing, but I'm going anyway. If you spend your life with someone, then you should be entitled to the same rights as everyone else- you should be allowed to be at their bedside in a hospital if they're dying. You should be allowed to keep the things you lovingly purchased as a unit, you should be allowed to claim each other as a couple come tax season. Gay marriage doesn't threaten hetero marriages. To say it does, doesn't even make sense. If peel back the layers, what's really being said is that anti-gay-marriage proponents think that society is better off is gay people just 'go along with' a straight life style and pretend to be happy. They would subject children to being born into a fake marriage, with none of the kind of love that should exist between a husband and wife.
It's been said before, and I'll paraphrase it here, 'cause it fits: being gay is not a 'life style choice', but trying to force others to live how you think they should, regardless of their actual freedoms, IS a choice. Our founding fathers put 'separation of church and state' in the Constitution for a reason. No one should be using religion-based belief to forge laws. That's what they do in the Middle East, but gods forbid you compare these bible-thumpers to Muslims.
And stop referring to gay marriage as 'special rights'. They're fucking not. Gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders are still human, you conservative ass-hats. To say they're asking for 'special rights' because they want the same human freedoms and liberties that you have is, in fact, an attempt to dehumanize these people. The problem isn't that LGBT people want EQUAL rights, it's that things have not been equal for so long that those who have been privileged don't realized how simple they've had it, and now that society is going, "hey, let's be fair and make everyone even," they say "What? You want what I have? But that's not fair." Well, ya know what? Yes, it is fucking fair, that is the point.
Racism
I can already hear the quiet gasps going up. Now, it may not be obvious from my physical appearance, but I am, in fact, a child of mixed race-both of my parents are of each of European and Native American descent. Most people who have known me longer than a month learn that anyway, as I don't keep it a secret. As such, I feel I'm a person able to discuss this without stirring up too much shit. I've been picked on for being white, I've been picked on for being 'Indian', I've been picked on for having friends from every band of the ethnic rainbow; my husband is Puerto Rican, the woman I chose to be godmother to my youngest child is black, the woman I've called my sister for 23 years is Asian. I've heard it ALL.
Here's the thing that most people don't realize. Racism is a problem because WE as a society, keep letting it be. People want to make up for the past, or want someone to answer for the past, or make some sort of recompense for things that happened before our parents were even a gleam in our grandparents' eyes.
I guess you can see that I'm not a believer in Sins of the Father. I never have been. I can't find it acceptable in any way to hold one person responsible for the crimes of another. And don't for one second think that because of the color of my skin, I don't have any ethnic past wrong-doings to gripe about, if I so chose (look up slavery of the Irish, look at the native people of this land still living on reservations that the government that took over 'allowed' them to have [in other words, forced them to live on], look up the history of 'disputes' between Turkey and Armenia, open a history book to Hitler's march through Poland). I have a laundry list of ethnicities in my blood, I could go on all day, every day, about crimes against them.
But that's the point.
We ALL could. If every single one of us dug deep enough, we'd all find some terrible gaping wound in the past, and wonder how anyone could forgive it. And the reason that wound can't be healed? The reason forgiveness cannot be granted? It's because those are not our wounds. That forgiveness not ours to grant. The only way we're ever going to heal will be if we all make the effort to put the past behind us and leave it there. And that's never going to happen. Too many people want answers that cannot be given. Too many people simply want to BE angry, and they don't realize that they want to be angry. They want someone to yell at, someone to pay, someone to wound in a measure that equates what their ancestors suffered. And I can understand that, but the person now, the present-day individual that you make answer for a crime which had nothing to do with them, will learn resentment. And in their resentment, they may decide that 'your people' (black, white, yellow, blue, wtf-ever) are 'all the same', so the 'answer' leads to unresolved negative feelings. The question then becomes "Where does it end?"
The hate and the anger has to end somewhere, and as long as we keep poking at old wounds, that end will never come. We'll be hating and raging at one another 'til the sun burns out. We should MAKE it end with us. Stop teaching our children hate. Teach them HONEST history, if you must teach it, and let them draw their own conclusions. If you teach a child something with hatred, they will learn hate, even if you don't openly express that feeling.
I'm just one voice, and no one is going to hear me unless they listen. But, I want to raise my children in a world that isn't color blind, but that sees the different colors and appreciates the beauty in their differences.
And now, the stickiest subject of all:
Gun Control
This is an especially tense issue, and I do have friends on both sides of this. I've struggled with not saying anything when my gun-loving friends post anti-gov't 'don't you touch my gun' posts. And you love your gun? Great! Fantastic. Keep it. Luckily for me, I can say that most of my friends who own guns, KNOW how to use them, maintain them properly, and are responsible gun owners.
Here's the issue. Not everyone that legally owns guns is responsible, or actually knows how to handle them. Are there criminals and evil-minded folk out there with guns? Yes. Do some of them have assault weapons? I'm pretty sure. The government isn't saying they want to take your guns away. They're saying they want to take assault weapons away. And you know what? Private citizens should NOT have assault weapons to begin with. The Right to Bear Arms? That is written with the intent that you should have the right to own fire arms to protect yourself, your family, and your home. . . . And maybe for those of you who hunt, sure. Now, if there is some reason that for any of these things, you need MORE than a hand gun, shot gun & hunting rifle, maybe you need to move to a different neighborhood.
That was a joke, lighten up.
In the wake of the Newtown tragedy, I cried. I looked at my son Mathias, who's the same age as many of the victims and thought about how much it would hurt to have to walk into his room and see his things, and hold his toys or his clothes and know that I would never get to see, or hold my baby boy again. The law makers can complain all they want that restrictions on gun ownership, and the types of firearms available to private citizens is not the answer. But they're not the parent who lost their child to a gun-toting lunatic who got his firearms from his mother's collection; his mother, who, until then, probably thought she was a responsible gun owner.
This also raises the question, that in the 'right to bear arms', do we really need a gun 'collection'? It's a very simple question.
The massacre at Sandyhook took place on my 35th birthday. It felt incredibly wrong and awful to celebrate another year of my life lived when so many young, thriving lives had been lost. I had to explain to my 6 year old and 8 year old what happened. They were scared, sad, and mostly confused. They couldn't understand why someone would do such a thing. And I couldn't explain it, 'cause I don't understand, either.
December 15th, the very next day, one of my friends posted something saying that conservative leaders would look at the tragedy and their reaction would be nothing more than "The liberal government is going to try to take our guns away!" And that's what they've been telling the gun-loving members of the nation ever since.
And, stop getting uppity, I'm not done yet, and I asked that you read this all the way through.
My last point on this ooooh-so-touchy subject is this: You think every man, woman, and child, should bear arms? Okay. The problem isn't allowing citizens to arm themselves. The problem is that once you've allowed them to carry that weapon, who's going to ensure that they know how to use it? An untrained civilian holding a gun and trying to play hero when a crazy person shows up with an assault weapon has the potential for an even worse outcome.
And before you cite me the incidents in which situations have been stopped by armed civilians, or off-duty cops, or veterans who just happened to have their sidearm with them in the right place at the right time, I will point out that this IS what I mean. These are people who are trained (either through years of practice and skill acquired over years, or through some sort of post/job-related training) to handle such weapons.
The answer should be increased security at schools and other institutions thought safe before this happened. The problem there is that we're a nation that pays the people who entertain us billions of dollars, but don't have enough for school funding, which includes things like security staff.
The bottom line is, I don't think anyone really wants to see every single person in this country running around with a gun in their hand. Guns are kinda like alcohol, some of us can handle it, some of us can't. Think about it, whether you love guns or hate them, you know people that you'd never want to see anywhere NEAR a damn gun.
So, you don't want to give up your guns? Great, we don't want to take them away . . . We just want to try to limit the chance of crazy people getting their hands on them. We want to keep assault weapons (which were originally created for military use only, to begin with) away from the people who would use them for outright evil deads. I don't think that's too much to ask. Maybe stronger 'gun laws' aren't the answer, I don't know what the real answer to this is better than anyone else, but something needs to be done.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Blog Swap with "Zarconian Island" author, Aja Hannah
The lovely Aja Hannah graciously agreed to host me on her blog, and so, while I'm there today, she's here. She has a book due out soon Zarconian Island, that piques my interest on many levels. I can't wait 'til it's out :)
My stomach knotted tighter, winding so hard it hurt.
Kate watched me, rubbing a piece of her hair between two fingers.
I bit my tongue, trying to work the words out.
"The boat …we're going under.”
Possessing powers that are feared and shunned, eighteen-year-old Alexandra “Attie” Hotep is no virgin to attacks. Her ancestors, the Zarconians-- mixed-blood inhabitants of Atlantis--were rumored to be the English fairies who kidnapped children, the Caribbean sirens that sunk ships, and the dream-like apparitions who broke into psyches. By the 1850s, they were hunted to near-extinction, leaving the existence of Atlantis and Zarconians little more than myth.
When a class trip turns deadly, Attie and her friends become stranded on an uncharted tropical island in the middle of the Pacific, and Attie finds herself targeted once more. With a jungle full of extinct and prowling animals, she struggles to find a compromise between keeping her friends safe and keeping her family's secret.
Enter Doug Hutchinson—the school’s soccer star, and a handsome boy with his own secrets. But Attie and Doug soon realize the animals aren't the only threat. There is a traitor amidst the group, one that plans to turn all Zarconians into permanent myths. And Attie is next on the list.
On with Ger's Questions:
1) Personally, being someone who adores Atlantis and Egypt (granted, there's no specific nod to Egypt in your blurb, but the main character Attie's last name, Hotep, brings it to mind), I suppose the first natural question would be: What inspired this story?
You're right about the Egypt part! Attie is Egyptian, though Egypt doesn't come into play until the sequel. I was inspired to write this story after reading Dr. Franklin's Island about some kids who got stuck on an island and a crazy doctor ran experiments on them. Now this is quite different than my book, but I have always enjoyed the idea of exploration and the unknown. I also wanted something where the kids survive on their own, probably because my favorite book as a child was "The Girl Who Owned a City."
2) Have you always been fascinated with subjects like mysticism and ancient cultures?
I have always been interested in ancient cultures. In traveling and finding new places. In the Galapagos. In Egypt and the hieroglyphs. In unnatural nature and what lies beyond the Bermuda Triangle. Perhaps that is why I travel so much in real life. I want to find something unfound.
3) What is your favorite quality about Attie?
I wrote Attie to be a strong female lead. That's what I like the most. She says what she wants even if it's sometimes too blunt. She seems cold at first, but her interactions and deep feelings about the people around her show otherwise. Finally, she doesn't always need saving like Disney princesses.
4) Something I'm always fascinated by is how different, or similar, paranormal authors can be in their opinions on the paranormal. May I ask, do you feel there is more to our world than we can see and touch?
I feel like I could write a paper on this subject. Let's see if I can condense it. My sisters and I are very superstitious to start with. I have written three blogs onwishing, good luck, and bad luck superstitions. Then, we believe in ghosts. While I haven't seen one, I do think they exist. I just try really hard not to think about it because that sort of thing freaks me out.
But when it comes to paranormal things like Atlantis or psychic energy, I think I'd like to believe for the adventure of it. Like I said before, I like the unknown. I wish there was more mystery in the world than there is.
5) Why YA?
I answered this a little bit on Jessie Krehlik's blog. I write YA because it was my favorite genre growing up (and I don't quite believe I'm grown yet). I feel like it's more open to the world of mysticism and paranormal without needing the hard facts or hard fears of adult life. Also, I enjoy the readers, whose minds are still flexible and malleable. They learn lessons from books and it shapes the person that they become.
Good answers :)
Zarconian Island by Aja Hannah due out March 28th!!
Friday, March 15, 2013
Cover Reveal: Colour Wielders by Dawna Raver
BAM
Quinn Sinclair is clueless to who she is. She thinks she's an ordinary young woman—well, mostly ordinary—living an ordinary life with her less than loving mother in Conifer, Colorado. On the night of her birthday, Quinn finds herself betrayed by a man who sends her life spinning out-of-control.
As she struggles to pick up the pieces, a vision of a man with haunting tourmaline-blue eyes begs her for help, and she finds herself transported into a Magykal battle forever changing her life.
Arik Morgaine—Demigod bad boy and outcast of the Magykal Realm—tried to avoid contact with Princess Quinn Sinclair for eighteen years, not wanting to make good on an old threat. But the fates have other plans. Arik can no longer deny his growing desire for Quinn, or the need to protect her from those wanting to control her burgeoning powers. Can the two of them come together and save the Magykal Realm from being destroyed by the Darkest of Magyks, or will powers beyond their control destroy them and their world forever?
(Cover Art by Ricky Gunawan)
Colour Wielders will be available in digital and print formats from Curiosity
Quills Press April 19, 2013. Go to dawnaraver.com for more updates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)