No, no — this is not about the letter in RWR about how today’s heroines all talk and act like sluts (because that’s been done and discussed over and over and over and over and over.) But I do feel I should warn readers that a) my heroines aren’t likely to be virgins (although they could be), and b) they are going to be aware of their sexual needs, c) might not always have the healthiest sexual history, but they know it, and d) might say “fuck.”
What you won’t find in my books: a heroine who says, “What is that long, hard thing in your pants?” (Although, I guess Savi did say that to Colin, kind of.)
His hands enfolded one of hers, brought it down to his upper thigh. A hard, steel length lay beneath the fine wool of his trousers. â€œNot precisely what I’d like you to touch in that location, but it’s there if you want it.â€
A gun. Either loaded with tranquilizer darts made with hellhound venom, or bullets laced with the same.
I miss Colin sometimes. Sigh.
So, anyway! This was about me getting around. And I am! I’m over at Bam’s blog, writing the Best! Story! Ever! (AKA, the kind of stuff that comes out of me at 1am, and the caffeine isn’t working anymore.)
I’ve also sent a post to The Good, the Bad, & the Unread for their ValenDuckie event. It should show up today or tomorrow — it’s all about non-romantic movies, and the romances in them.
And tomorrow, I’ll be guest blogging at Simply Romance Reviews.
…did I mention that all of these posts have prizes attached? Like, um, a certain new release? Go forth!
ETA: Okay, considering where I’ve taken the comments, obviously this did become about that letter. I mentioned over and over, and here are the places the discussion has gone on before (just in recent memory — there were a few others (I think at JMC’s blog, and I’ll link if I can track them down)): Jeaniene Frost’s livejournal, and at the Smart Bitches. But although I remembered (and applauded) Jeaniene’s response last month, I didn’t realize until I stumbled across it again that it was in response to the same letter, printed in both the January RWR issue and the February issue. WTF? Is it an oversight, someone in editorial hoping for a reaction, or someone in editorial agreeing with the letter-writer’s viewpoint so they’re publishing it again?