Meljean Brook

Dear Anne Stuart:
I promise not to steal your red shoes.

January 12th, 2008

I think in every reader’s life, we come across passages in writing that grab us emotionally, or that change something fundamental in the way we think or feel, or that we think are beautiful, or interesting, or hateful, or awful, or boring, or any number of responses. I know this has happened hundreds or thousands of times to me; I don’t count or remember every one after I’ve stopped reading. But some I do, and one in particular was a scene from Anne Stuart’s CATSPAW.

Now, I’m not an Anne Stuart fangirl. I’ll buy her books when I see them on the shelf, but I don’t usually pre-order. She’s one of those writers that produces books I always admire, but I don’t always connect with. Not always, but sometimes I do, in a big way.

I didn’t expect to with CATSPAW, because it didn’t sound like the type of story I’d usually enjoy. It was in this collection called THIEVES, SPIES, AND OTHER LOVERS and I don’t even remember how I got it, but I do remember I was living in Alaska at the time, in my dumb little studio apartment, and I can’t remember if the guy living with me had dumped me and flown off to Florida yet–and I thought I loved him, but, hey, I guess this scene has stuck with me longer than any feeling for that guy has.

In that scene, the heroine, Ferris Byrd, is telling the hero, Blackheart, why his past as a cat burglar is such an issue for her. She tells this story about when she was a girl, she saw a pair of red shoes in a store window. And although she knew that she could steal those shoes and never be caught, she didn’t take them.

And that was the blandest retelling of this scene you’ll ever see, because I’m writing it … and Anne Stuart is not. AND because there’s more to it than just a pair of shoes that Ferris Byrd (who used to be Francesca Berdahofski before she changed her name) didn’t steal. There was a girl who had very little, and who determined that her life would never be what her parents’ was, and that she’d never go without. A girl who could have easily taken those red shoes that she wanted so bad … but she didn’t. A girl who can never understand why Blackheart could steal, when a little girl who had nothing wouldn’t — and the little girl knew the only way to really escape her life was to earn her way out.

And still, I can’t begin to get across how fantastic this scene is. How Ferris’s character is revealed in a moment of absolute clarity, and the conflict in the book is illuminated perfectly, and you know every word in the book has been leading up to that scene and every word after it will have to deal with everything exposed in that scene, and as a reader, I’m sitting there thinking, “My god, that is writing done right.”

The writer in me is thinking the same thing, but suddenly that scene has become my personal pair of red shoes. I want to do that.

It would be easy, you know? I’ve got a good brain in my head. I could change the scene around, re-word it, play with it, and someone might say “This kind of reminds of that scene in that Anne Stuart book” but there’d be a lot of doubt. No one would really know, or prove anything. I could slip Anne Stuart’s red shoes into my book, and get away with it.

I’d know, though. That’d stop me right there, because I don’t handle guilt well.

But even if I didn’t stop, I’d also have to write this whole book around it to fit her shoes in, and it wouldn’t be just that scene, but a lot more I’d be taking. Because the red shoes aren’t THAT scene. There’s an unremarkable sentence in the first chapter that helps stitch the uppers to the sole. There’s the first kiss that makes the color more cherry than red. There’s the scene later, with Ferris naked except for the red shoes, and other scenes, with coffee beans and broken credit cards that are all nails in the heel. It all goes together–every word, every sentence, every paragraph, every scene.

And rewriting Anne Stuart’s book is going to be really freaking boring. I had a professor who once told me that writing is thinking (heh, I attribute that, even though it’s probably common knowledge — but this professor, he was one of those that made me really, really think, and I was taking his class as I was thinking about Demon Angel, and so the title of his book that he was making us read ended up in Hugh’s library, and Lilith made fun of it, because she would) but the last thing I want to do is re-think exactly that same things I did when I read Anne Stuart’s book. That kind of rewriting is not “rethinking” in the fun, transformative sense. That’s re-thinking, thinking the same thing again, being stagnant.

Oh yeah — and it was stealing.

I still wanted a pair of red shoes, though. So I got to work making my own — earning my own.

And it’s not like they are completely original, like I’ve made up the idea of shoes. I know I’ve been influenced by others, and I’ve brought in outside sources. Sometimes, I’ll write a scene, shape that heel, and then I’ll look at another writer’s similar heel and think, “Shit.” And then I’ll think about changing it, even though I wasn’t copying or lifting anything, just because it worries me so much. And sometimes I’ll rethink it … but sometimes, that heel is what the rest of the shoe demands, and anything else will make the design look like a piece of ass — or completely non-functional. So you move on, sometimes gritting your teeth, but trusting that, taken all together, it’ll be original, unique, and something to be proud of when it’s done.

More than anything, something that’s yours. And when you end up writing a scene that resonates with you like that scene in CATSPAW did, that has the same effect on you, there’s a very strange sense of humility and pride and love for what you’ve written. And, by god, you got it right. And there are sentences and paragraphs in there that you fight for, and you get it right. And even little phrases that you think, and rethink, and work at until they’re perfect, and you got it right with those, too. Then you finish it up, and you made your own goddamn shoes. And sometimes they pinch, and sometimes you can see where the stitching isn’t perfect, but they’re yours.

And they may collect nothing but one-star reviews on Amazon. The writing might be the clunkiest, shittiest thing in the universe. Your thinking might not be very original or rigorous. It might be a blog entry that no one reads, a journal article written for nothing but money, or an academic paper that your professor bleeds over, or a non-fiction piece that you sweated over and worried over and crafted with as much care as a mother with her newborn. None of that matters, good or bad, long or short, because you worked for it, and made every word your own.

Unless you didn’t. I can’t imagine why anyone would want to do all of that typing.

I can imagine a couple of other things, though. I imagine that if I saw a scene in another book, with a former cat burglar and a woman trying to escape her past, that included a story about how she once didn’t steal a locket, my head would explode.

Because I wanted those red shoes so bad — but I didn’t steal them.

But it’s more than that. I don’t know how Anne Stuart feels about that scene, or about CATSPAW. Maybe she thinks its trash. Maybe she thinks the writing is awful, and worthless. Maybe she wrote it because she had to fulfill a contract. I don’t care; it means something to me. Readers own what they read, too — not in the same way as an author, but there’s ownership there. Maybe some guy who wrote about ferrets once upon a time is dead, and can’t care that someone stole his words — but somewhere, there’s someone who admired them, and who would care. (Maybe there’s a writer who obviously admired his words that should have cared, too.) And so, as a reader, not just a writer, to see someone else take what isn’t theirs just drives me crazy. To see them get away with it would be worse, because someone else might think, “Hey, look! Red shoes — I’m gonna get me some the easy way, too!” or even worse, “Hey, look! I guess that means there’s nothing wrong with getting red shoes the easy way!”

And there is always going to be someone who wants to take the easy way. Always. But if they know they can’t, if they know it’s wrong, that might stop them. If they still want to because they don’t care it’s wrong, maybe knowing there are consequences will stop them. Knowing that someone might rip away the label that isn’t theirs, and show them for what they are: someone with an empty closet.

But I’ve got a closet with red shoes. And although I still think hers are fricking awesome, I don’t need or want Anne Stuart’s anymore.

Carrot Cake: A Love Story

March 30th, 2007

Note: This is another repost from the old blog. It seemed time to bring it over (particularly since a 2am wandering post is a bit, um, wandering).

“I don’t know why I brought you home,” Meljean muttered.

“You know why.” The ruthless sneer the carrot cake gave her made her tremble with longing. “You want me.”

“No!” Meljean turned her head away from the enticing ripple of cellophane, the angular sensuality of the slice within. “I don’t!” But her denial sounded weak to her own ears, and the cake—the cake, in all of its discerning sexiness—would not be fooled by such an obvious lie.

She backed up against the kitchen counter, felt the dig of the silverware drawer—the drawer that her absentminded husband always left open—into her plump rump. The sensation reminded her why she should resist the cake’s sinful temptation.

“You’re no good for me!” she cried.

But the cake wouldn’t let her retreat. The sweet, seductive odor followed her across the kitchen, cutting through the odd smells emanating from the garbage disposal. Her taste buds sprang to attention as if of their own volition.

The cake eyed the quivering buds triumphantly. “Why do you resist? The long, hard, delicious carrots that made me are exactly what you need. They’re healthy.”

“But not mixed with butter and flour and sugar and frosting—no! Do not think to trick me, you cretin,” Meljean said with heat, dismayed by her body’s betrayal. In desperation, she ran to the cupboard, tore it open.

The cake caught her, spun her around. “What do you have in there?”

Its touch sent a frisson of pleasure through her. Her mouth watered with desire. “Low-fat brownies,” she said defiantly.

“You gluttonous slut!” The cake’s tone became hard, unrelenting. “You’ll take anything into that whoring body of yours, won’t you!”

“No!” Meljean wailed, “You don’t understand!”

“I understand.” Its voice was cold, filled with dangerous intent. “You’ve given yourself over and over, and yet you’ve never been satisfied, you’ve only experienced a pale imitation of true pleasure.”

Sobbing, Meljean tried to push the cake away. “I can’t have you!”

“You will, damn you,” it gritted out. “Open your mouth.”

Its demand shuddered through her, but she could not find the words to speak. She shook her head wordlessly.

“Open your mouth, you slutty bitch!” It pressed against her mouth in a kiss surprisingly soft and sweet. Meljean’s lips opened on a gasp, and the cake delved deep.

She moaned in ecstasy, and took…and took…

***

“Are you cheating?” Her husband asked a few minutes later. “There’s white creamy stuff all over your mouth. That can’t be good for your diet.”

Meljean blushed. “It was carrot cake,” she admitted.

“I could make a joke about phallic vegetables,” he said, “but I suppose everyone reading this already has.”

“Probably.”

Meljean fell silent, torn between guilt and the sweet afterglow the cake had given her. Hubby searched through the fridge, then looked up with a frown on his face.

“Didn’t you save any for me?”

“It was a forced seduction,” Meljean said. “I had to take it all; I couldn’t resist.”

“Ah, well, that makes it okay.” Hubby rolled his eyes and walked away, muttering about books with bulbous lettering on the covers.

Meljean grinned, and grabbed the box of low-fat brownie mix from the cupboard. “God, I’m such a slut,” she said.

Battening My Hatches

March 10th, 2007

This is for Cindy, because when I posted a link to this flag on her blog, I think the link didn’t work. And also because when I looked through my old blog to find the flag, I realized that He-Man wasn’t the only one drawing in tons of spam. So I’m slowly going to be transferring some of the old blog posts here (although most of them will be backdated.)

And also because this one seems oddly relevant, yet again. From the old blog, June 1, 2005: (more…)

He-Man redux

January 24th, 2007

Okay, so I was checking out the search strings that lead people to my site, and I’m pleased that DEMON ANGEL and Meljean Brook (and Meljean Brooks) are among the top twenty.

The other seventeen? All about He-Man. I kid you not.

So, curious, I dropped by the old blog and checked out my He-Man post … and saw 982 comments, of which about 950 are spam. So, I plan to delete the post, but since I’d feel terrible if I deprived the world of a source of He-Man fun … and deny all of those Google searchers a place to visit, I’m reposting it here (where I have better spam control.)

Heh. I just realized that link isn’t going to work in about half a second. Anyway, from the archives of April 27, 2005 (my grandma’s birthday) I give you THE MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE … who just might have some unexpected sexual tendencies.

ETA: Comments turned off. He-Man is a spam magnet. (more…)

On Pantsing and Learning from it

January 9th, 2007

In my THE BLIND LEADING THE BLIND post about “pantsing” at The Good, The Bad, and the Unread, romblogreader had this question:

As you progress through writing and revising your second and third novels, have you remained as much of a “pantser” as you were for the first? Has the preliminary stage of writing changed much now that you have the writing/editing/completion of two novels under your belt? If so, how?

I like to think that I’ve changed and learned from the process — I’ve written two novellas and two novels in this series, and gotten helpful and critical feedback on each. Now that I’m writing the third full-length novel, I am keeping my problem areas in mind (like pacing) and making an extra effort to fix it.

But here’s the thing: when I started DEMON MOON, I’d just finished DEMON ANGEL and was freaking out that I’d written a 140K+ novel (for comparison, the average single title for Berkley is around 90-100K, and my contract stated that it should be about 100K) and was determined not to do that again, not to go over 100K, or 120K at the most. And some of my freak-out was because I knew that the extra word count created an additional financial burden for Berkley, because it meant they were editing, proofing, typesetting, printing a book and a half … and I’m a debut author who really shouldn’t piss off her publisher.

But aside from that concern, there was just the feeling that I’d let it get out of control — that it wasn’t tight enough, that I could have cut more out. And when I’d proposed DEMON ANGEL, the entire Part One didn’t exist … it was all backstory. The book started with a prologue, and that was the scene in 1991 Seattle.

So I thought myself pretty much a failure technically, though I really loved the story.

(Okay, this is my writing style in action — the long roundabout way of explaining how I wrote DEMON ANGEL, in order to get to how I started DEMON MOON, and what I did/did not learn from it.) (more…)

Storytime with Missy Pt II

November 16th, 2006

MELJEAN: So, here you publish the conclusion to your alien action figure story.
MISSY: That’s right! I’m so excited. It was lots of fun.
MELJEAN: Well. Okay. Let’s see it then.

MELJEAN: Hopefully, next they’ll get naked.
MISSY: Stop your dirty talk! (more…)

Storytime with Missy Pt 1

November 16th, 2006

MELJEAN: Hey, Missy! Wanna come out of the closet?
MISSY: Yay! Ooooh, what’s all this?
MELJEAN: Your sister and niece took some pictures at home — and when they came up for a visit, they showed them to me. I thought you might have fun telling a story with them.
MISSY: Whoo hoo! Thanks!


MELJEAN: Did you intentionally censor her giant tits?
MISSY: What? God, you’re talking already? Shut up and enjoy the story!
MELJEAN: Meee-ow! (more…)

Do I have to write about the salt on the freaking table?

September 15th, 2005

**originally posted here**

AKA The blog entry on historical accuracy that doesn’t say anything you haven’t heard before, and is really more of a cry of despair and a rant and something else that I’m not sure how to talk about.

So, I’ve got a part of this book set in 1217 England. My characters didn’t speak English, but French, kind of (with a smattering of other languages thrown in, all of which have gone the way of the dinosaur).

So, from the start, I’m translating reality to a modern reader. And not even translating reality, but translating as close to a reality as I can understand it as I read about it in books that are from the twentieth century talking about history in terms that the 20th century authors can understand.

Do I go to source materials? Of course. I try, anyway. Trouble is, I need another translator to understand them.

Take, for example, Chretien de Troyes’ “Knight of the Cart“. I’m referencing it in the book for several reasons: it is an example of what (troubadours, at least, or their lady patrons) thought courtly love and chivalry was (which would, in turn, have its effect on my idealistic knight-hero) and because it is an early story of Lancelot, and the whole “young handsome knight in love with his liege’s wife” thing fits this part of the book pretty well. As my hero and his married lady love have recently returned from two years hiding in the Angevin courts while John lays siege to the husband’s castle in Essex, I figure they’d know the story as well.

Or his Tristan and Isolde. Or any of a billion others.

So I read de Troyes, trying to get a sense of a translator’s sense of structure, language, blah blah blah blah blah, keeping in mind that troubadours were famous for writing in verse and meter that was different from any other verse and meter out there.

And, I have to keep in mind that the translation was written in 1914, by a person whose idea of that time period was likely heavily influenced by Sir Walter Scott and Ivanhoe. And whose use of language was also (probably) influenced by Ivanhoe. Because although Chaucer’s language would be, chronologically, the best (most academically familiar) version of English to translate (or at least the most contemporary of de Troyes, give or take a century or *cough* two), it would be freaking ridiculous.

Which is a long way for me to say: my characters, in reality, would never have said a freaking “nay” or “aye” or “’tis”.

But they ARE saying that. And I’m not sure how to get around it. I need to have my characters speak differently as they travel through time (the story spans 800 years, they aren’t time traveling in the Highlander way), and I find myself falling back on romance conventions–specifically, conventional romance genre language–to indicate that difference and that change. There is something to be said for rhythm and sentence structure in creating a sense of place and time (I’m basing quite a bit of it on Latin construction, as much as I can without sounding stilted and grammatically incorrect–because, quite simply, modern American English (which I’m writing in) does not lend itself to Latin construction very well) but I find that to secure the sense of time through language, I end up using those conventional cues: words like “aye.”

So I’m writing in convoluted modern English and using words which are, at this point, almost a parody of Ye Olde Englishe (which my characters, being descendents of Norman nobility, wouldn’t have spoken) and which, in turn, are actually more Early Modern English than REAL freaking Middle English, which none of us would understand anyway.

GAH!!!

Does any of this matter? I don’t know. I’m not as much concerned with, when the book comes out, cries on the message boards of “historical inaccuracy! They didn’t use “NO” in Middle English!” as my own sense of frustration, and trying to balance verisimilitude (in a story about freaking demons and vampires) and accuracy and storytelling, when true accuracy is impossible and unreadable. And my need to differentiate between time periods by using language codes that, when it comes down to it, are all false.

I’d be more worried about inaccuracies like, “hey, Essex is freaking FLAT, yo! Why you got that castle up high on the top of a freaking huge mountain?” or “why you got a milkmaid sitting above the salt?”

An aside: I’m not going to freaking mention the effing salt at all. I’m so TIRED of hearing about the salt. Or the rushes. Just like I want to kill myself everytime I freaking read about the watery lemonade at Almack’s. Just freaking ONCE I want to read a Regency where some rake spikes the lemonade and all the ladies are like, “Oh, this lemonade is so STRONG!” and then they get so drunk they have a massive Almack’s orgy and screw the rakes and have cunnilingus with the chaperones and all end up with syphilis. I always feel like the lemonade is a tired, tired in-joke between readers/writers of Regencies that says, “WINK! I mention the lemonade and the Four in Hand club so you can tell I did my research, I’m so authentic, giggle.”** Or maybe I’m just ranting now, I don’t know. Sometimes these references are so seamless, I don’t notice them (even the lemonade!). I do know (according to my research, anyway *g*) that if most Regencies were perfectly authentic, many of those ballroom and drawing room conversations would have been written in French.

And, for a uni-lingual ignoramus like me, that makes for tough reading.

ADDED AFTER THINKING MORE:

**Okay, this is a cheap shot. I can’t imagine that authors–any author–doesn’t do the research. It’s the application of it that often annoys me, but I understand how these references get pushed in when maybe they shouldn’t, because they have nothing to do with the story except as a wink.

I struggle constantly with the question of “how much info do I include? What crosses the line between world-building to infodump?” If I mention that Hugh was knighted early because a baron wanted to have a greater show of strength at Runnymede, do I have to go into detail about why? Or does an Author’s Note, or even a tidbit on a website, cover that? But this runs into expectations of reader knowledge, and that discussion might make me tear my hair out. A historical has as much world-building as sci-fi, but with historical instead of scientific theory driving the setting. (Or a contemporary, for that matter, as every detail chosen creates a specific setting, class, and so on.)

And some, like me, after they do the research, make mistakes (see upcoming novella for mistakes caught, but not caught in time to fix.) Contradictory evidence abounds, and sometimes we choose the wrong stuff to write into our stories. And other times we do the fact-checking, but we check the wrong facts (sure, he doesn’t eat tomatoes, but whoops! is that a fork?).

And there are plenty of things which I’ll deliberately get wrong: the language, for example. It’s the language of an alternate universe, because it sure isn’t the language of 1217-this-universe. On a larger scale, the whole story is a deliberate wrong. I’m building an alternate universe where, for my writing comfort and reading comfort, things are wrong–but written that way so that they feel authentic, and right, according to certain literary conventions. And that is a problem and conflict I struggle with internally, but eventually have to make a choice to buck that convention or give in to it–and considering alternatives, I give in to it. Is that what I’m saying?…Yeah. Yeah! I think so.

Also, maybe that all of this has more to do with literary conventions than historical accuracy. Heyer did a buttload of research, sure–but she wrote her books through an early 20th century lens. And yet many Regencies are based on her literary model, and her books are hailed as the epitome of “accuracy”. Romance literary conventions call for a American native as noble savage, the English-hating fiesty Scottish heroine, and the Regency lemonade–and when a book deviates from those expectations (often in the name of historical accuracy) the hue and cry is raised.

Anyway. I just don’t know. I’m not out to write the same (part of a) book someone in the thirteenth century would have written, anyway. And as a reader, historical inaccuracy (in the linguistic sense, to a certain point–no Regency guy should say “dude,” but sex-for-genitals gets a pass from me; and getting easily-verifiable dates wrong really needs an Author’s note) doesn’t bother me as much as a lack of characterization or uneven characterization (or using a setting and research to provide character for a person, rather than giving the person a character.)

Yeah. Anyway. I write “anyway” too freaking much.

You can be my wingman, baby.

April 20th, 2005

**originally posted here**

I couldn’t help but giggle as I listened to a group of students in the lab argue over the homoerotic nature of TOP GUN (if you don’t know about this, scroll down to see remarks when you follow this link — more is in the sidebar). But then I started thinking about romance novels.

Uh oh.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that every hot man sans skid marks is gay. It is also a truth universally acknowledged that all romance novel heroes are hot.

I have never read a romance novel where the hero has skid marks. Ergo, all romance heroes are gay.

Until, of course, the heroine de-queers him.

The most obvious example of this is in the books that follow the TOP GUN formula. I like to call these:

THE GAY WIDOWER ROMANCES

Here’s the scenario: the hero is a rebellious military/cop type. The usual psuedo-masculine-that-really-hide-homoerotic-impulse activities go on, such as taking showers together and then hanging around half-naked in towels, playing volleyball with shirts off, swilling beer from phallic bottles, and on and on.

Then, through no fault of the hero’s (although of course he takes the blame), his partner dies.

Gasp! His heart is broken. The tender comfort of his homosocial relationship has been shattered, and he will never, ever, EVER make a commitment again. He will never take another partner again. NEVER!!

Until, of course, the heroine comes along and convinces him otherwise, and introduces him to the new comforts of a hetero partnership. And it’s not just a matter of trading in the flight controls (a stick for a button).

Once he finds and forms that new partnership with the heroine, then he is also free to go back and re-establish his relationships with those in the former homosocial circle, but under different terms. He goes from being “dangerous” to getting offers of “you can be my wingman anytime”. Why?

Because the luv of the heroine has put his former rebellious behavior in the proper, de-queerified context. He’s safe now, and his energies are directed toward being all alpha with the heroine.

Which leads me to the second most obvious type of this behavior:

THE CONFUSED BROTHERHOOD OF BACHELORS

You know, those Regencies where all the guys huddled together to protect the Mighty Penis from the feminine and domesticating chains of marriage? It explains a lot about those cross-dressing-heroine plots, too.

In those cases, the men bond together so that they can keep boxing at Gentleman Jack’s or wherever. They hump a bunch of women to keep up appearances, but really all they want to do is get back to the club where they can admire each other’s manly virility.

That’s totally gay.

Then along comes the heroine, and even though the guy is a man-slut, he’s all: “I’ve never felt like this before! I’ve never trusted a woman like this before! I’ve only ever (OMG!!!) had this type of cameraderie with my fellow bachelors!”

And, of course, all the other bachelors like her, too. They’re like: “She’s really cool, Lord Wolfmonsterdick.” In these cases, it doesn’t seem as much a movement outside the homosocial circle as a bringing of the heroine into the circle. (Alas, these scenarios never end up in an orgy.)

In these Regencies, the man is de-queerified, but only because he moves outside the ‘official’ circle: he’s not a bachelor anymore.

Deep inside, he’s still there. And, once the entire series has been completed, they can form a new circle: “The No-Longer Confused Married Men: Now If Only I Can Convice My Wife To Take It Up The Butt” group.

Give me the seven deadly sins…please?

March 18th, 2005

*Originally posted here*

Between the discussions about realistic heroines on RTB, various blogs and SBTB I don’t have anything more to add, but something Candy mentioned in her review of Karen Ranney’s book, TO LOVE A SCOTTISH LORD, made me stop and go…whuh? Not because she was wrong, but because it was so true:

Quote


Does [the heroine] have some adorable yet meaningless flaw, like, ohhhh, a fear of stairs and heights that she overcomes to treat Hamish? Check.

I hate adorable yet meaningless flaws, and yet they are all over the place.

Men in romances have flaws (often, it is the Hi, I’m An Asshole, And I’m Going To Treat You Like A Worthless Slut flaw) but women…well, they are quirky. Isinnit cute?

Okay, so I don’t always hate these flaws—sometimes they make me laugh, and they can be really fun. But they aren’t flaws. Flaws should be somehow linked to the seven deadly sins (but in a non-religious way). Got a heroine who is greedy? Now that’s a flaw, and if you make me understand her, and make the hero love her despite that, then I’m one happy reader. Got a heroine who is proud and arrogant? Ditto. Who gets jealous easily? Is vain? Yep. Someone who isn’t honest with herself because it is easier than the alternative? Check.

Now, I’m not talking about people who are deservedly proud of themselves, or greedy because they actually deserve to be greedy (they were starved/poverty-stricken) but are flawed to a fault. They hurt people by exercising their particular flaw—and not in a deliberate, nasty way, but in an “Oh, I didn’t realize that I was so screwed up” way. Like Oedipus, but without the nasty mother humping and the eye-gouging and the dooming all of your offspring.

I want flaws that actually have to be worked through in a relationship, or worked around, or something that makes the flaw more than just an exercise in showing how perfect the heroine is (conquering the fear of heights to play doctor with the hero). I want strengths and weaknesses—and not just weaknesses like: I’m a wimpy-ass doormat, and I finally stand up for myself at the end of the book! or, I think I look like a toad, but then I realize I’m beautiful at the end of the book! (Those are issues, not flaws—if a heroine is treated like an ugly stepsister her entire life, of course she’s going to have a skewed self-image, and hurrah for her working through that, but is that the only problem she has? Bleh.)

Fear of heights isn’t a character flaw—and I want character flaws with some bite to them.

Anthosia3c sponsored by Seven Jeans for all Mankind
All original site content (c) 2005-2007 Meljean Brook. All Rights Reserved.