bookmark_borderRomance Writers of America and GLBT

Romance Writers of America (RWA) has started a new chapter called “Rainbow Romance Writers” (RRW) for the GLBT authors. Be still my heart.

I am sooooo not excited about this group. I’ve never been to a RWA meeting. Nor do I want to fork over the $110 membership dues ($85 a yr after first). Nor do I want to fork over the $25 additional membership dues to join RRW. I just don’t see the benefits. Perhaps later, maybe, if everything actually comes along. I don’t see that happening. I could be wrong and, in a way, I hope I am. And, no, I do not consider it a bad thing to wait to see what happens once the glitter stops falling.

RWA has argued letting in GLBT writers for years. Perhaps this “chapter” is their way of quelling the riots (that may or may not exist). So far, the website for RRW is promoting what seems to be all gay (male) fiction with perhaps a transgender and perhaps a bisexual novel listed on the “bookshelf” page. The “links” page lists Lambda Literary (but not GCLS) and a bunch of publishers (some even lesbian oriented).

What I find missing from the sparse website is this: what are the benefits (specific to RRW)? what happens to the GLBT romance books (of members) now? will they be put on shelves alongside het romance (how would the bookstores know?)? will Nora Roberts’ books be just a few shelves away from mine (alphabetically)? It all comes down to: will joining RWA and RRW create more sales and/or help me to be a better writer?

RWA membership has some benefits, depending on how one looks at them.

    Advocacy (contract assistance it seems)
    Romance Writers Report (newsletter)
    eNotes (email newsletter)
    Chapters (local, online, special interest)
    Members-Only Resources (“Find valuable information and resources only available to members.”)
    Contests and Conferences
    Subscription to Nielson Bookscan (for an addition $58), Publisher Alley (an additional $30 reduced rate), and Publishers Weekly (30% off subscription rate)

Nope, not for me. The money is too steep and the benefits are too minimal. I get more from my $10 a yr dues to Golden Crown Literary Society (GCLS) in the form of friends, networking, and a cool yearly conference. For another $30 minimum, I can join Lambda Literary Foundation and get emails and newsletters specifically for GLBT readers and writers.

bookmark_borderJudging What You See

By now, many people have heard of Susan Boyle. If you’ve not, here’s the scoop.

The UK has a reality show called “Britains Got Talent”. It is what American Idol copied. (there’s a whole other essay on the difference in show titles, eh?) Last week, a 47 yr old Scottish woman came out onto the stage. She’s overweight, double chinned, nice brown dress. She is unimpressive in every way. Then, after a short interview of sorts, she starts to sing.

You have to see the video yourself to understand. (The video has had just under 23 MILLION views and the embedded link for it has been removed.)

Susan Boyle blew them away. Out of the water. Even Simon (who I cannot stand) was floored. Why? Because she has an incredible voice wrapped in a real world body. Very little make-up, no eyebrow tweezers (ouch ouch ouch), no plastic surgery. Personally, I don’t care what her body looks like. I’ve got one of those real world bodies, too. Before she went out onto the stage itself, I was assuming this was going to be one of those “why oh why did her friends not tie her down and drug her until this was over?” things. I hate it when people think they have talent when in fact they can’t sing any better than my dogs! I find it painful. Not just my ears, but my spirit as well because people laugh at them rather than offer them help. They are put down and teased. But when Susan Boyle stepped out onto the stage, and I heard her speaking voice from that angle, I knew she could sing so I kept watching. But I had not clue her voice was that damn good.

Another YouTube video is actually a still photo with sound behind it. It is of a charity CD made in 1999 in which Susan Boyle participated. How did anyone not notice her then? Here’s the link to that recording of Susan singing “Cry Me a River”.

Do a YouTube search for her name and you’ll be swamped with videos and copies of interviews. I liked the one with ITN News.

Some articles that have popped up this week discuss the difference between a frumpy woman having a great voice and a frumpy woman who doesn’t. That her frumpiness is Cool and Oh So In only because she can sing. From “The Susan Boyle Phenomenon” article at The New Agenda:

When I first watched the clip, I was disturbed by the audience’s initial eye-rolling and derisive laughter. This, I thought, is why I have so little tolerance for pop culture. The twits were laughing at Susan Boyle for no other reason than that she was not young and not gorgeous. Apparently it was heinously absurd for a not-young, not-gorgeous woman to even haul herself out there on a stage (boo! hiss! climb back in the Kitty Condo with your cats why don’t you!) much less have the sheer monstrous hubris of thinking she could sing.

But of course she can sing, beautifully, and everyone in the world is now thrilled by this reminder that even not-young, not-gorgeous women still have value. If they can sing.

Go, Susan, Go! Me and the other frumpy women in the world will be watching you succeed.

bookmark_borderAmazon Ranking Part 3

Got some more info via linkages:

The Guardian (UK): Amazon’s de-ranking is not just a glitch

AfterEllen.comAmazon’s “Glitch” Myth Debunked

Google News search results for “Amazon Glitch”

Google News search results for “Amazon Rank”

The page for Butch Girls Can Fix Anything now has the book listed in the category of “Books” but nothing else. Whoo Hoo. I feel better now.

bookmark_borderAmazon Ranking Cont.

Now that the heat of the ranking crash has died down slightly, it’s time to look through the rubble for truth.

Here’s some genuine journalists giving their reports:

– NPR’s All Things Considered:

LA Times Jacket Copy:

– LA Times Technology column: Amazon begins to re-rank affected ‘adult’ books; theories swirl

The Guardian (UK): ‘Gay writing’ falls foul of Amazon sales ranking system

Then there are bloggers/forumites everywhere making comments (including myself). But here are some noteworthy ones with good opinions and/or factual information:

Dear Author blogger Jane: Amazon Using Category MetaData to Filter Rankings

Lesbian Fiction Forum (where I hang out) – Amazon De-ranks “Adult” Books (this thread is highly emotional for valid reasons. Be warned there are some tough language, hard opinions, and soap box standing.)

There was, for a few hours, some twit saying he was the one that did this as a hacker. His code has been looked at (he actually said exactly what he allegedly did) and has been deemed faulty. In other words, “weev” didn’t do it. And if “weev” actually did, he was stupider than stupid for admitting it. His original post has disappeared. I think he said he did it as a joke that got blown completely out of proportion.

If anyone knows of any other news article, blogger post, forum thread, whatever, let me know.

bookmark_borderSocial Networking Revisited

How funny that another article pops up about “social networking” online: Facebook Users Get Worse Grades in College

Her study found that Facebook user GPAs were in the 3.0 to 3.5 range on average, compared to 3.5 to 4.0 for non-users. Facebook users also studied anywhere from one to five hours per week, compared to non-users who studied 11 to 15 or more hours per week.

However, Karpinski emphasized that correlation does not equal causation, meaning Facebook use might not be the culprit behind lower GPAs or less study time.

For instance, students who spend more time enjoying themselves rather than studying might tend to latch onto the nearest distraction, such as Facebook. Or students who use the social networking site might also spend more time on other non-studying activities such as sports or music.

The study did show that students who work more hours at jobs spend less time on Facebook, while students involved in more extracurricular activities were also more likely to use Facebook.

I found that last paragraph above to be the most interesting. If a student works while at college, they are less likely to use or spend less time on Facebook. Perhaps the added reality of having to work to pay for things makes one less likely to want to dive into the false reality of Facebook and other such things.

bookmark_borderAmazon Ranking

Amazon.com, Amazon.com – wherefore art thou brains? Thou hast filled them with shit and verily I say unto you, thou hast really fucked up. Again.

Here’s the short story: Amazon.com has a thing called “ranking” that is based on the number of sales. So the higher a book is on that sale, the more likely the books is to show up on various related pages. The lower a book’s sale ranking, the less likely it will show up anywhere, including searches. Sounds reasonable in some realities. The problem now is that Amazon.com has decided to de-rank a bunch of books that they consider “adult”. Again, sounds reasonable in some realities.

However, and this is a big however, their concept of “adult” is very narrow. Almost all GLBTQ books have been de-ranked. Not just the erotica, but romance and non-fiction. Playboy’s books are still up there as are Kuschiel’s Dart (and related books). Why are they not considered “Adult” and have their rankings removed?

I could go on but I won’t. Instead, read more from these fine folks:

Okazu: Amazon De-ranks “Adult” Books
In Protest of Amazon’s new “adult” policy (an online petition site; the information is in the small, scrollable window at the top and you can click the “view whole petition” link on the left)
Mark Probst – Amazon Follies
Booksquare’s “Open Letter to Amazon Regarding Recent Policy Changes”
Kelley Eskridge – Tell Amazon They Are Wrong

And the Smart Bitches have gotten in on it, too. As someone else said, “Heaven help Amazon now!”. With their post “Amazon Rank”, they’ve come up with the perfect solution. A non-violent, non-name calling, mature method based on proven results: a Google bomb. A Google bomb is when folks across the great Internet use similar words that all link to the same thing. This worked well a while back when some of us had trouble from a nasty pseudo-agent. Every time her name was mentioned, a link was used to point to an article proving her lack of ethics. This meant that any search for her name resulted in the article being in the top five or so of the search results. The idea was to warn any newbie writer to stay away from her.

The Smart Bitches have created a new definition to go into the Internet lexicons: Amazon Rank. The idea is that whenever someone uses the term Amazon Rank, they link back to the page they created that has the definition. Try it now. Go to Google and type in Amazon Rank. What pops up first? Other search engines don’t react as quickly to this kind of trend. But they will.

Here is a screenshot of a Harry Potter book set:

Now here is my book:

So, bad example to use mine anyway since it never got very far up the rankings. Here is Lee Lynch’s “The Swashbuckler”. A classic that has been around a long time so it should have a decent rank, right?

Funny thing is, other books that somehow got rankings outside the Lesbian/Gay bits still have rankings showing. Here’s Brenda Adcock’s “The Sea Hawk”.

I was about to make a big purchase from Amazon. I was going to get two music CDs, several books, and an iTouch. The shopping cart total sits at about $600. Not now. There are other places to shop from. Depending on how they handle this, I may never shop there again. If my queer book isn’t good enough to be in the rankings, then my queer money isn’t good enough to line their pockets.

bookmark_borderThe “In” of Internet

Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, LinkedIn – not only do they have us CombiningWords with CapitalLetters in weird places, it has us spread too thin. In author groups, having a MySpace or Facebook page is THE thing to have. I have neither. I have a Blogger and LiveJournal space but they only point here. I am a member of LinkedIn (not sure why, but I am). I’m not part of the “in” crowd.

I don’t understand Twitter. Verbal voyeurism, even for a writer, can only satisfy so far. I love gadgets. I have all sorts of gadgets. I even have a cell phone! It only allows me to send and receive phone calls and not surf the ‘net or check email but that’s the way I like it. It’s the way I like my food, too. I don’t eat a burger with mustard and ketchup. They tend to overpower the main tastes. I think the subtly of lettuce and tomato bring out the wonderful goodness of the dead, cooked cow. I don’t eat many casseroles unless the items put together are balanced and not overwhelmed by one particular spice. Yeah, more evidence I’m weird. But I digress….

I just read an interesting article (Are you a twit if you don’t want to Twitter?) on how “social networking” is starting to overwhelm folks.

It shouldn’t be surprising that quick-hit online communications, the stuff of 140-character “tweets” on Twitter and “status updates” on Facebook, leave some people cold. Craig Kinsley, a professor of neuroscience at the University of Richmond, notes that studies of human interactions reveal that our brains crave networking, online and off, but differentiate between the quality of the interactions.

“Many short contacts may leave the user wanting deeper, more meaningful exchanges. Like a meal of cotton candy, when you come right down to it, there is not much substance,” he says. “A good conversation with a good friend is much more life-affirming than a few tortuously abbreviated or emoticon-filled lines in a tweet that anyone can read. How special is that?”

Our brains crave prolonged social activities. Maybe this is why instant messaging and chat rooms grew to such proportions. We could have cyber conversations with instant gratifications vs Twitting or updates on Facebook.

Earlier in the article:

“Being exposed to details, from someone’s painful breakup to what they had for breakfast – and much more sordid details than that – feels like voyeurism,” says the 31-year-old public relations executive in Washington, D.C. “I’m less concerned with protecting my privacy, and more concerned at the ethics of a ‘human zoo’ where others’ lives, and often serious problems, are treated as entertainment.”

Exactly! Human zoo. Reality shows are taking over the networks, even Animal Planet! Do we really need to surround ourselves with such type of reality? We are too removed from it to fulfill that neurological need. Personally, I’d rather sit at a table at Waffle House and listen to my friend tell me of her soap opera love life. Facial expressions, hand movement, pauses here and there – they speak more than any emoticon ever can.

bookmark_borderLottery Winnings

No, I’ve not won the lottery. Gotta buy a ticket first and, frankly, I’d rather put my dollar with the others in the Mason jar out in the back yard. Dang, I told y’all where it was and now I gotta move it.

Anyway, this post is more about Spam than anything else. That and gullibility.

I use Mozilla’s Thunderbird for my email accounts. The junk/spam filter on it is pretty good and it learns quickly. I set up other message filters to get rid of the obvious ones. If the spam filter thinks it has a spam, it sends it to the Junk folder where I then can check it out and delete it. I have it set up so that anything I say is spam is sent directly to the trash folder which is emptied each time I close down Thunderbird.

I have an idea for a really good junk/spam filter: have a spell check built in. If the subject line contains a \ or ! in the middle of a word, chuck it out.

Lately I’ve been getting a lot of lottery emails. It’d be funny except I know people actually believe those things. So, here’s some hard facts: If you won a lottery in the Netherlands or somewhere in Africa, do you really think they’d let you know via email? Or if someone has umpteen thousands of dollars stuck in some sort of political shift and need your help with it, again, do you really think they’d contact you via email? Or would they, like, I dunno, go to an embassy?

Thunderbird has this column where if I click in it, the email is marked as Spam and away it goes. That way I don’t have to open the email and then hit delete. If your email program doesn’t have this kind of option, try to right click on the email and select delete from there. Opening an email from someone you don’t know or that you know is spam can cause some mean things to happen to 10 people you know. Okay, just kidding on that last bit.

Here’s some other random email advice:

– When the real PayPal sends out an email, they don’t have any links in it. Sometimes, for a real transaction, they will have a transaction number link, but that’ll be it. Why? Because spammers, crackers, virus, and malware folks love to use PayPal to scam folks. The real PayPal says things like: “go to our site, paypal.com” without using a link. Good for them!
– In connection to the above, if you don’t know if you should trust the email, put your cursor over the link. Don’t click on it, just put the little arrow over it. Now, most email programs will then show you the actual URL of that link in the bottom of the window somewhere. Check to see if the URL is the same. Usually, it’s not.
– If a greeting card website sends you an email message and all it says is “a family member” sent you this card, don’t click the link. Legitimate notices of e-cards will say who it is from and often has a short message from them. If you get an e-card and don’t know who it is from, delete it. So for my friends and family: don’t send me e-cards. Yeah, some of them are cute and cool and excellent examples of the artistic uses of flash player, but, really, spend the freakin’ few cents and send me a real card, okay?
– Just ’cause Oprah says it is good don’t mean it is. And just because an unsolicited email says Oprah says it is good, really really means it isn’t good. Delete that.
– Do you really want to order a prescription medication from someone who can’t spell the name of that medication? I don’t care if it does make your man-part stand at attention for hours on end, if they can’t spell it, don’t buy it!
– Same goes for any other penis oriented emails. Do straight women really want big huge penises on their partners? Frankly, it sounds painful. I get more penis email than I do lottery emails. And I don’t do either one of them!

One more thing and then I’ll let you get back to whatever you were doing. Let’s say you get a really cute email from someone. It has cute pictures of puppies, babies, kittens, and any combination thereof. I admit, I am a sucker for those things, too. You decide to forward it to everyone you know because it is just so freakin’ cute. Fine. But, after hitting forward and before hitting Send, do a few simple things first. Take a look at that email. Now, how far do you have to scroll down before you get to the cute puppy? Even scrolling a pixel or two if too much. All that information space is usually taken up by the email addresses of all the others who also thought it was a dang cute puppy. Forward after forward after forward. You know, if you send it to me, I’m going to embarrass you something awful. ‘Cause I’m gonna hit Reply All and tell everyone you sent it to that I thank you for giving me more email addresses to sell to spammers! Not just the addresses of everyone you sent it to, but aaaallll those other email addresses, too! I’m gonna make a fortune! Seriously, I’d never do that but it is tempting. (I once tried to count them all and stopped counting at about 120 email addresses that was included in a single fwd-ed message) Delete all that gooble-goop at the top of the message. It’ll take but a second or two. Send the cute picture to everyone you know but use Blind Carbon Copy (BCC) instead of To or CC. This means that no one will know who else got the picture but it also means my email address remains with you and not your Cousin Phil, Uncle Ernie, and your college roomie from ’88. Over the years, I have seriously lost two “friends” because I kept hitting Reply All and thanking them for more email addresses to harvest. And, frankly, if the subject line has more than one Fwd in it, I’m not going to bother reading it anyway. So delete those, too. Don’t send me anything about chain letters or online petitions. My name at the bottom of the loooong list won’t mean crap ’cause it has to be a real signature to count in anything legitimate anyway.

bookmark_borderFertility Treatment Myths

5 Myths of Fertility Treatments

Just as the invention of contraceptives freed sex from the concerns of baby-making, new reproductive technologies have freed baby-making from sex.

Yet despite 5 million such technology-assisted births, plus the recent eight by Nadya Suleman, there remain common misperceptions about “test-tube” and “designer” babies.

The article addresses 5 common myths about fertility treatments.

Myth 1: Designer babies are coming soon

Reports that we will someday be able to artificially choose a child’s traits, “from a scientific point of view, are totally totally made up,” said Sarah Franklin, researcher, author and keynote speaker at The Politics of Reproduction conference held Saturday at Barnard College.

(…)

Myth 2: In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) is easy

“The media tends to report the success cases,” said Debora Spar, president of Barnard and author of “The Baby Business,” but failures are the norm.

(…)

Myth 3: Egg donation is common

“It is egg sales,” Spar corrected. Because no one wants to think about money in relation to their child, the baby business talks about “delivering hope” not “profit,” she said, but it is a market like any other.

(…)

Myth 4: IVF increases fertility

Actually, a woman undergoing IVF must first take hormones to shut down her fertility cycle, Franklin explained.

(…)

Myth 5: The children will be fine

“The voice that gets lost in all these debates is that of the child,” Spar said. No one knows the long-term effects of spending, as an embryo, a few days in cultured media or exposed to surges of synthetic hormones, she said.

(…)

The end of the article discusses the recent octuplets births and includes a link to another article.

The Ethical and Legal Implications of Octuplets

We all know about the old woman who lived in a shoe, the one with all those kids and who didn’t know what to do. Well, one thing she didn’t do was have eight more kids. And this wasn’t because nothing rhymes with octuplets.

Having eight children at once — or seven, six, five or four, for that matter — is not healthy for the children. Such human litters rarely occur naturally because, the sad truth is, the children rarely survive to adulthood to mate and to pass along a genetic predisposition to multiple births.

It’s a simple medical fact that the more babies in the brood, the lower their average birth weight. And the lower their birth weight, the more they are susceptible to a lifetime of health and social challenges.

The article, which is much more articulate than my previous post about this, is written by Christopher Wanjek, LiveScience’s Bad Medicine Columnist. He does a good job of discussing the future of those babies and any others in their positions.

bookmark_borderBody Laws

There’s an infamous saying in regards to pro-choice: Keep Your Laws Off My Body.

And I agree with it. When the laws start to govern what we can or cannot do to our own bodies, it opens up a whole mess of abuse potential. I do not like the idea of abortion. But I dislike even more the concept of a woman not having the choice. It is her body. The paternal parent of that wee cellular mass can walk away and no one ever know he had responsibility. But for nine months, everyone knows who the maternal parent is. Her body goes through physical and emotional changes. All because she made a mistake, was raped, or was coerced into sexual intercourse that resulted in a pregnancy. To say she has no right to terminate that pregnancy is just wrong. Meanwhile, the male is still going about his business.

And now we are looking at purposeful pregnancies that result in a costly and physically dangerous event: impregnating an unemployed mother of six living at home with her parents. And not just impregnating her with the typical one to three embryos, but with six. Now there are 8 more children for her to feed and care for. 8 more children who will most likely have a disability or two. Three of her other children have disabilities and receive state disability income. She told an interviewer that she was going to return to college. I can’t see that happening. Eight infants and at least one other toddler? The oldest of her kids is 7. That’s what, kindergarten age? Maybe first grade? So that’s maybe one kid out of the house each week day. What of the other 13?

So where does the law fit in this? Who is at fault here? The idiotic woman? The idiotic physician? Should there be laws that govern in vitro fertilization?

In vitro fertilization is when they take eggs from a woman and sperm from a male and do various hi-tech stuff with them. The result are cellular masses (ie embryos) with the potential to be human. These masses are then implanted into the woman’s uterus where, hopefully, they “take” and she is officially pregnant. The accepted rule is that a woman in implanted with anywhere from one to three embryos to increase the chance one or more will work out. These embryos are so small, so early in development, that the division that creates identical twins has not happened yet.

So what happened with the woman in California? Why was she implanted with six embryos at once? Two of those embryos split, resulting in two sets of identical twins. There were so many babies in there, that the hospital’s doctors didn’t realize there were 8 but instead thought there were 7. The smallest is just over a pound and the largest is just over 3 lbs. Altogether, they weigh just 15lb 1oz. I just cannot fathom a single infant that small, but 8 of them? Who is going to pay for their extensive stay in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (at an average cost of $164,273 each)? Who is going to pay for the 46 or so staff that were there just for the delivery? Who is going to pay for the follow up care? Keep in mind, this is a single woman who lives at home with her parents and already had 6 children, all 7 yrs or younger.

I really don’t blame anyone for wanting children. It will be my number one regret in life that I couldn’t have kids and was unable to adopt. And I don’t want any laws or rules that dictate how many kids a woman can have. It’s her body.

But in this case, we are talking about removing Mother Nature from the picture. This woman became pregnant by artificial means. Purposeful things happened. This isn’t fertility drugs made six eggs drop at the same time into the uterus where they then met oh-so-happy sperm. She already had 6 kids. Did I mention she was unemployed and lived with her parents? But she had six embryos left over from her other pregnancies and decided, along with the physician (and I use that term sarcastically), to have them all implanted at once. Those where her embryos to do with as she chose, yes. I don’t deny her that right. She paid for them, might as well use ’em, right?

The problem here is money. It always comes down to money. And who is going to pay for the result of her lack of common sense? The state can’t say “Sorry, you’re an idiot and we aren’t going to support you” because then they’ve opened the door to say that to anyone. What about the moron that raced down the highway on his motorcycle and crashed? He was an idiot, too, right? Depends on the viewer. Some would say it was an accident, some would say it is his right to drive his motorcycle. What about the guy who gets so drunk his brain fries, making him not much more than a stalk of broccoli? Definite idiot, but should the state say he is such an idiot they aren’t going to help pay for his diapers? The money to pay for this care comes from the taxpayers of that state and from the gov’t deductions from our paychecks. The idea is that if my taxes help pay for the care of the idiots and non-idiots other citizens of my state who have health emergencies, then the same option would be available to me and my family, should we need it.

Should there be laws to govern idiocy and/or lack of common sense? Debatable. Should there be laws to govern the implantation of embryos? Definitely.

Should there be laws to govern the implantation of embryos into an unemployed, living with her parents, and already have 6 kids woman? There should be but I hope there never are. Keep the laws off my body and out of my bedroom. Put it instead in the doctors’ offices and fertility clinics. Put it where it began, where someone put a chunk o’ change down for a service. Regulate that service. I just paid to have My Truck fixed. Laws say they must make it work again and work safely. Rules, both assumed and instituted, say that this part must work with that part. There are no laws that say because I drive a Chevy, I am not allowed to be protected from poor repair work. If I can pay for it, I must be provided with the repair as covered by rules and laws. Why is there more common sense at work with the repair of My Truck than there was in that doctor’s office in California?