Author: Jeffe Kennedy

Stupid Female Drama

Jeffe Kennedy / / Blog

the talon of the hawkAs I was preparing to write this post, the US Supreme Court just ruled that no state can ban same-sex marriage. This effectively legalizes gay marriage in the United States.

Much excitement and rejoicing!

I’m happy for my gay friends. More, I’m happy to see the recognition of one of my fundamental beliefs: that people should be able to love and have sex in any way that makes them happy. As long as everyone is consenting, it’s nobody else’s business what people do together.

It really kind of baffles me that anyone wants to pass judgment this way.

But then, I’m not much for judgment of any kind.

So, that happened today. Some of the Supreme Court commentary that people are sharing regarding the decision is really interesting, particularly Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s musings on marriage evolving away from the concept of women as property. I also read this article, musing about gender and all the traits we associate with being male or female – both in body and mind.

And then I’d been thinking about this one review of THE TALON OF THE HAWK. I know, I know – I’m not supposed to read the reviews! In this case, however, the reviewer tagged me on social media with the review. In more than one venue. It wasn’t an amazing review, but not terrible either. Still she complained quite strongly about something that my heroine, Ursula, does near the end. I know it’s something that frustrated a number of readers – including one of my critique partners – and I did consider taking it out or changing it. In the final cut, however, it was something that I believed Ursula absolutely *would* do. It’s part of her final character change that, despite how far she’s come, she still reverts to a particular emotional habit. Yes, it’s annoying and frustrating and she’s absolutely in the wrong.

But she has to figure that out before she can really evolve as a person. To become somebody other than where she’s been heading all her life.

I get, therefor, why this reviewer was angry at Ursula for doing it – or at me for writing it – but what bothered me, and has stuck in my head, is that she referred to it as “stupid female drama.”

This seems so terribly misogynistic to me. Yes, Ursula makes the mistake of refusing to hear her lover out. She leaps to an assumption based on her own emotional issues. But why is that exclusively the territory of females? Don’t all people, regardless of their physical or mental gender, sometimes fail to listen to the people close to them? Most every major fight I’ve had with my husband had to do with one or both of us miscommunicating in some way. A lot of the time it was because we had so much emotion tied up in whatever it was that we didn’t think clearly. I think it’s fair to say that he can be worse about it than I am – and I say this with the perspective of nearly 25 years together – because I tend to be more cerebral and he’s more emotional. This has nothing to do with him being male and me being female. It has whole lot more to do with me being an INTJ and him being an INFP.

Personality has no gender, is how I see it. Nor do the emotional issues we all strive to overcome so we can be happy and fulfilled.

So, sure. There’s stupid drama and it’s Ursula’s fault, but that’s the only way that it’s female. Just as we in the U.S. can now dispense with the terms “same-sex marriage” or “gay marriage” and just call it what it is: marriage.

Be Careful Pulling That Self-Pub Trigger

Jeffe Kennedy / / Blog

columbineI’m not usually the one to give self-publishing advice. That’s because, while I’ve done a bit of it – a couple of backlist books (Petals and Thorns and Negotiation) – I’ve put a lot more focus on the traditional path. There are a lot of reasons for that, which aren’t really pertinent to today’s point, though I’m happy to talk about it if anyone wants to know.) That said, I will be doing more of self-publishing in the future, including a fab anthology project and an exciting secret something with Grace Draven.

Still, I feel like I should say something to up-and-coming writers who decide to self-publish.

Apparently there’s a lot of bad advice out there, because this particular question keeps coming up on my author loops. A gal going to RWA Annual Conference asked for advice on pitching to agents and editors. Which is great that she’s asking! I pitched for many years and it’s not easy. However, she said that she self-published the first book in her series and it’s not doing well, but the second book is almost ready. She wondered if she should pitch the first book or the second.

The answer? NEITHER.

And I should caveat this by saying that she is FAR from the only person to do this.

So here’s the deal. We all read the stories about the self-pubbed book that gets picked up by a major publisher because it did so astonishingly well. This makes for great news in part because it’s SO RARE. It doesn’t seem like it, because the stories are so high profile, but statistically this is hugely unlikely to happen. This is one of the very worst reasons to self-publish, especially the first book in a planned series. Seriously. Here’s why.

If the self-published book does not do astronomically well – and that means tens of thousands of copies – then a traditional publisher will not want it. That’s just the facts of the industry. The book has been market-tested and will hold no appeal for a traditional publisher. Which means that an agent will not want to represent it, because they know they can’t sell it to a publisher. Simple logic.

Also, pretty much no publisher will pick up the second book in a series. There are some exceptions to this. Occasionally a traditional publisher will drop a series after two books and another will pick up the third. But again, this happens when the original series did decently and I’ve only heard of it working when a bigger traditional publishing house drops it and a smaller, usually digital-first, publisher picks it up. I don’t know of any cases where they’ve picked up more than one book. It’s really a gamble that lovers of the series will buy that final book to round out a trilogy. With a series, most traditional publishers want to control the packaging and marketing from the beginning.

So the upshot of this is: 99.9% of the time, once an author self-publishes the first book in her series, she has to commit to self-publishing the entire series. If she wants to try for a traditional publishing deal, too, then she needs to pitch an entirely new series to agents and editors.

(Also, if she really wants to go the agent route, then it’s best to pitch to them first, and let THEM pitch to editors, but that’s a whole other post.)

I want to add that committing to self-publishing a series can be a terrific plan. I have several writer friends doing very well that way. One, Elizabeth Hunter – whose book THE SCRIBE (book 1 in the Irin Chronicles) I’m just *loving* – told me that she saw no significant audience for her books until she published book 3. Other people have said book 4 or even 5.

Sure, self-publish a series! But commit to that path for it and don’t look at self-publishing the first book as a stepping stone to getting it traditionally published. It *can* open the doors to having another series traditionally published. But once that first book is out there, it’s out. If you harbor hope of taking that series down the traditional path, think very carefully before you pull the trigger and click that “Publish” button.

How to Switch Up that Filter Bubble – and Why You Should

Jeffe Kennedy / / Blog

Under ContractHard to believe that my third Falling Under book, UNDER CONTRACT, comes out in less than a month! Let me know if you’d like a review copy or want to be part of the blog tour.

A few months ago I made a deliberate effort to switch up my filter bubble. If you don’t know what that is, Eli Pariser gave a great TED Talk about it, which really opened my eyes to the problem. Essentially, social media is both deliberately and accidentally pruning the information we see. Facebook promotes both the people it thinks we interact with most and what stories they want us to see. When we search on Google, the results are tailored to where we are, what we usually look at and, again, what they want us to see. On Twitter, I use lists to do my own pruning, so I can manage the flow of information. I have the people I follow sorted into groups like Friends, Writing Friends, Writing Community, Readers, Agents/Editors, and so forth. I have the columns for each list set up in the order I most want to see them – Direct messages is on the farthest left, then Notifications, Mentions, Friends, etc.

I sometimes switch people in and out of lists, but I’d kept the same order for a long time. Until last February when I went to the Coastal Magic Convention. (Speaking of which – I’m going again next year and it’s one of the most fun, relaxed and reader/author friendly conventions ever. Registration opens June 30. You can like the Facebook page to keep abreast of updates.)

At that time, the movie version of Fifty Shades of Grey was about to come out. Predictably, my timelines were full of criticism for the books, the author, the social/political implications and, in anticipation, the movie. A lot of authors and publishing industry folks have mad hate for all of these things, for myriad reasons. They cite bad writing a lot. Many people want to upvote “good” romance, erotica and BDSM in its place. If you looked at my typical feed alone, you’d be mystified that this franchise is at all successful. Pretty much everyone in that particular bubble hates on it.

So, imagine my surprise at going to this reader convention where pretty much everyone THERE was excitedly talking up the movie. They could not wait. No one said anything about bad writing or social/political implications. They loved the books, the author and, in anticipation, the movie. One gal mentioned to me that 25 book bloggers had been selected to attend the premier, she referenced it offhand, by way of telling me a story about the contest to select them. I said I’d had no idea about that. (And how smart of the movie studio, huh?) She gave me a funny look and said, “What rock have you been under?”

My filter bubble one.

It was such a relief to hear from the readers, to hear their pure love for the books instead of the relentless criticism. And isn’t that what I need to hear about, as an author? I want to know what the READERS want, not what other authors think.

So, I deliberately switched things up. I moved my Twitter columns around, varying which columns sit in my most-looked-at positions. On Facebook, I made a point of looking up people I don’t see in my feed much and interacting with them – particularly readers and book bloggers – so they’d get promoted in my feed.

And it worked!

Yesterday, one of my author friends – who is a bestie, so she’s always high in my feed – commented that she was bummed about all the hate in *her* timeline for the new Fifty Shades book, Grey. It’s essentially the same story as the first book, but told from Grey’s point of view. I had not seen much of the hate! I’d been seeing excitement from readers as they snapped up the book on release day, devoured it, and happily discussed.

Total win – because what the readers love is what I want to know about.

Happy weekend everyone!

Writing Kickass Disabled Heroines (and Heroes)

Jeffe Kennedy / / Blog

Disabled Protagonist PanelThis is a great pic of our panel, at RT Convention, on writing disabled characters. From left to right, that’s Sassy Outwater, me, Megan Hart, Damon Suede, Tessa Dare and Linnea Sinclair.

Sassy, who is a passionate activist for accessibility for the disabled put together this panel, inviting authors with books she’d read that she felt portrayed disabled characters in strong, positive ways – sexy ones, even. I tweeted about the panel (NATURALLY) and Carla Richards (@carlarichards) asked me to relay some of our high points.

Of course, this was over a month ago and it *feels* like years ago, but…

We started with introductions and each author discussed the books and characters Sassy had selected. We talked about why we “chose” those characters – sometimes they choose us – and what their various disabilities had to do with the stories themselves.

 The thing about a really good panel is I learn so much from my fellow panelists. I loved hearing about other people’s stories. I’d read – and loved, loved, loved – Megan Hart’s BROKEN, about a woman whose husband suffers an accident and becomes quadriplegic. Damon Suede talked about his characters with PTSD and another with severe injuries. Tessa Dare writes of the impact of chronic diseases in her historical romances, such as the complications of negative rH factor on pregnancies in that era. Linnea has a deaf hero and another with cybernetic prosthetic limbs, following an accident.

I always feel like the non-dramatic one in this context. In fact, I wouldn’t call my heroine in PLATINUM disabled at all, but Sassy insists that’s why she’s a great example. My heroine Althea is albino. This was my follow-up to SAPPHIRE and I was playing with the impact of color in stories. I knew I wanted the book to be about a metal sculptor and the images of white-platinum. I wanted a heroine with that coloring – and for him to be attracted to her for that reason.

As I read up on what it’s like to be albino – and this was one of the questions for the panel, how we did our research. I did mine by reading an albino girl’s blog where she journaled very frankly about her condition – and discovered many things I hadn’t known. The tremendously increased incidence of skin cancers and, very interestingly, poor eyesight. This dovetailed perfectly with my heroine because I wanted her to be a failed artist. I tied in her difficulty with fine vision to her inability to paint the delicate watercolors she felt compelled by her culture to create. In the end, through her love affair with the sculptor, she finds other ways to express herself.

So, there’s a couple of key factors here, that arose over and over in the panel. I’ll try to encapsulate them.

  1. The disability was always a key part of who the person is. It shapes their lives, their outlook, what they can and cannot do, how other people treat them. We all agreed that the syndrome of having a character with a disability that doesn’t actually give them problems is weak writing.
  2. None of us had “magic fixes” for our disabled characters. They all had the same (or worsening) disability at the end of the story as at the beginning. The stories were never about curing the person, but about how they lived with it and achieved their goals.
  3. For most of us, the person was loved in part because of who they became as a result of the disability. Their loves appreciated their inner strength, their struggles, their joy in what they were able to do, and took part in that journey. In several cases – like mine – the disability contributed to their particular attractiveness.
  4. Sometimes the plot, the internal and external conflicts, hinged around dealing with the disability. Sometimes it was a subplot. Sometimes it didn’t matter to the conflict much at all. This is key because for all of us the STORY mattered, not expounding on the disability.
  5. Everyone agreed that doing research is key. Sassy, in particular, emphasized that most people dealing with disabilities are delighted to answer honest, heartfelt questions about what their lives are like. They’d much rather give good information than see nonsense perpetuated in fiction.

For those who were there, anything I forgot to mention? Or do you all have other additions or questions?

All in all, it was a terrific panel that I’d love to see again. Big-brimmed hat’s off to Sassy for organizing. Speaking of which, she’s in the hospital right now recuperating from brain surgery to remove tumors. (Yes, related to the blindness.) She can use all the positive thoughts she can get, so send them her way!

 

 

Slapping Tits on a Dude

Jeffe Kennedy / / Blog

Larcout

I’ve been friends with K.A. Krantz for, wow, six years now? We’ve been critique partners and sister Word Whores all this time. And now she’s come out with her epic fantasy debut! SO excited for her!

So we took some time to pour some wine in our respective time zones and had an Instant Messenger chat about warrior heroines.

Jeffe: So, tell us about Larcout!

K.A. KRANTZ: Larcout is the story of a fire-warrior, who shields her slaves from the lethal amusements of her kin in hopes that protecting them will prove to the gods that she’s worthy of freedom from their mountain prison.

Jeffe: What is a fire warrior?

K.A. KRANTZ: most people have blood in their veins, Vadrigyn–our protagonist–has fire, and that fire demands domination and destruction.

Jeffe: so she’s a badass?

K.A. KRANTZ: Oh yeah. She can kill you with a touch thanks to venomous parasites that live in her hands.

Jeffe: nice

K.A. KRANTZ: As the only fire-warrior without wings, she’s had to learn to not only protect herself, but to standup for what and who believes in…which just happens to be her. Not unlike your warrior princess Ursula.

Jeffe: heh. Only Ursula had to train all her life for her warrior skills – no handy venomous parasites

K.A. KRANTZ: Oh, Vadrigyn’s had to train. She comes from a kill or or be killed society.

Jeffe: Aha! does she follow a particular martial system, as Ursula does? Ursula’s is tied in with the folowers of the warrior-goddess Danu, she of the bright blade and clear eyes

K.A. KRANTZ: Fire-warriors are the children of the Goddess of Instigation, the only feminine deity among five gods. There aren’t acolytes and priests in her native culture. They simply adhere to the demands of their essential fire. However, Vadrigyn is wingless because she’s a mixed-breed…a product of blood-being mother and a fire-warrior father.

Jeffe: sounds like a tricky relationship

K.A. KRANTZ: Let’s just say Mom doesn’t bake cookies. She’s a sociopath with magic of mind-control.

Jeffe: Ursula is mixed-breed, too, interestingly enough, with her Tala shapeshifter sorceress mother and (mostly) human father

Jeffe: Interesting that our warrior-heroines both have powerful mothers!

K.A. KRANTZ: We don’t do weak women.

Jeffe: No doubt part of why we are friends!

K.A. KRANTZ: LOL! True!

K.A. KRANTZ: But it’s important to show women with agency–whether they’re wielding weapons or using the strength of their character to pursue their happiness–it’s important.

K.A. KRANTZ: Did I mention, it’s important?

Jeffe: Important, you say?

K.A. KRANTZ: yeesh, lemme be a bit more redundant.

Jeffe: I’m totally keeping this

K.A. KRANTZ: you would

K.A. KRANTZ: ’cause it’s important

Jeffe: as a woman with agency

K.A. KRANTZ: and a wine glass

Jeffe: so, let’s talk about that – WHY is it important? ~slurps wine~

K.A. KRANTZ: There are rumblings out there that we — writers, we — are cementing a masculine woman as the ideal stereotype. She has physical strength on par with men. Excels in combat the same way as men. Views combat in the same way as men. We’re being accused of slapping tits on a dude and calling it “strong female protagonist.”

Jeffe: I’m restraining myself from making a nasty comment to that

K.A. KRANTZ: Yeah, I know you are ’bout to ‘splode over that notion.

Jeffe: Well, it’s RIDICULOUS. As if all of these male superheroes are totally believable. No, no – it’s PERFECTLY realistic for a guy to get bitten by a radioactive spider and become superhuman

K.A. KRANTZ: My answer to that is, “then you’re missing the entire scope of the internal conflict.”

Jeffe: Because the internal conflict is heightened and exacerbated by that tension between gender and ability?

K.A. KRANTZ: Yes. Because of external expectations of the surrounding characters (which may or may not reflect the expectations of certain readers). Vadrigyn spends the bulk of her life defining expectations because she looks like no one and nothing else.

Jeffe: Ah, interesting

K.A. KRANTZ: The only thing of which anyone is certain is that she’s a woman.

Jeffe: because no penis?

K.A. KRANTZ: Yep. They choose to make that her defining characteristic.

Jeffe: This is one of Ursula’s issues, too. She’s the heir to the High Throne, but grudgingly so. Her father really wanted a boy to succeed him. And all the jokes are that she sleeps with her sword and likes that better than having a man in her bed

K.A. KRANTZ: and if she’s not fucking anything with three legs, she’s less of a woman

Jeffe: That implication is there, yes, though there’s less stigma to it in her culture. Mostly she doesn’t hook up with *anyone* and no one can figure why. But then, many of the followers of Danu are celibate

K.A. KRANTZ: The issue of celibacy is an interesting choice to make for your character(s). Deliberate?

Jeffe: Well, as you know, I don’t do much deliberately. Ursula insisted on that truth. She has been celibate, but for other reasons. The High King wouldn’t allow her to take the actual vow. Though she would have, if she could

K.A. KRANTZ: It’s so interesting to balance the ramifications in our western sexually-driven society. For Vadrigyn, sex is a matter of domination, not a demonstration of intimacy

Jeffe: ooh, that IS interesting

K.A. KRANTZ: It’s something those around her fail to understand

Jeffe: does she have sex with males or females – both?

K.A. KRANTZ: Well, she has a small problem what with that fatal touch thing

Jeffe: oh RIGHT! eep

K.A. KRANTZ: but intimacy, actually experiencing true intimacy, is completely foreign to her. It’s a challenge with which she struggles throughout the book – non-sexual intimacy, that is. (and sometimes almost sexual)

Jeffe: she sounds like a very alone person – which is also Ursula

K.A. KRANTZ: I think loneliness is a result of taking the uncommon path

Jeffe: That’s a very good point

Jeffe: For Ursula, it’s also about protecting herself and others, which I think is consistent with many male warrior heroes. There’s always that sense of social isolation

K.A. KRANTZ: there’s a quote out there by Paul Tillich. “Loneliness expresses the pain of being alone and solitude expresses the glory of being alone.”

Jeffe: love it! So, let me ask you this – was it fun to write your warrior heroine?

K.A. KRANTZ: oh, fuck yeah

Jeffe: ha! tell me why

K.A. KRANTZ: there other women in the book, each strong in her own way, each vulnerable in her own way, but for Vadrigyn, she began as anti-hero. The story is told solely from her perspective, so she (hopefully) doesn’t come across as evil. But if you were an outsider living the results of what she does, you might think she’s less than admirable. And that was the fun part of writing her. As writers we’re always told to make sure our villains have their own valid, relatable reasons for doing what they do…

Jeffe: that brings me back to an earlier thread, about non-warrior women having agency, too. For example, my most-beautiful and most-spoiled princess, Amelia, is decidedly NOT a warrior – and not at all admirable to begin with

K.A. KRANTZ: Amelia may not wield a sword, but she is forced into certain conditions that demand bravery

Jeffe: yes! And that, to me, is really the crux – that finding bravery

K.A. KRANTZ: and she rises to the occasion(s), and I think that is what all women can relate to–rising to the call

Jeffe: Amelia wields a hairbrush, but she is a goddamn MASTER of it!

K.A. KRANTZ: Do not underestimate the damage a brush can do!

Jeffe: INDEED

K.A. KRANTZ: (Believe me, I have those kind of brushes)

Jeffe: Ha!

Jeffe: so, to wrap up. ARE we slapping tits on a male hero?

K.A. KRANTZ: I don’t think so. I like to think we’re challenging the definitions of femininity.

Jeffe: Which are arguably limited

K.A. KRANTZ: As long as our heroines are defined by more than who they fuck and how they look, then we’re making progress.

Jeffe: Right. The Bechdel Test is a good starting place, but it’s really the bare minimum

K.A. KRANTZ: Let me ask you this: if you changed Ursula’s name to Uri, and all her pronouns to “he”… would she read like a dude? Would The Talon of Hawk become a M/M fantasy romance?

Jeffe: Oooh, interesting question. No. No, I really don’t think so. Ursula is profoundly female in certain ways.

K.A. KRANTZ: That, I think is a test more authors should use.

Jeffe: I love this idea!

K.A. KRANTZ: I’ll be interested to know from the readers if V passes that test!

Jeffe: I’m so excited that this book is out in the world!

K.A. KRANTZ: Aww, bless you and thank you!

Jeffe: I read an early draft, and I’m really excited to see the final creation. I loved it then – I’m sure it’s stellar now

K.A. KRANTZ: It’s come a long way since you braved a full reading of it – “Hey, K.A. KRANTZ, it’s fun…but is there a …plot?”

Jeffe: lol! I said more than THAT

K.A. KRANTZ: lol, that’s true! very true

Jeffe: Well, you *asked*! And there’s a happy ever after – it’s out now! Check this out, peoples:

Blood-beings can be chattel or char. Fire seethes through the veins of every Morsam, demanding domination and destruction. Combat is a hobby. Slaughtering the inferior blood-beings is entertainment. Life is a repetitious cycle in the prison fashioned by the gods. But mix-race abomination Vadrigyn os Harlo suspects the key to freedom lies with safeguarding the blood-beings; until her blood-born mother uses foreign magic to turn the Morsam against Vadrigyn. Betrayed, bound, and broken, Vadrigyn struggles against the dying of her essential fire. The ebbing flames unleash the dormant magic of her mixed heritage… The magic to destroy free will. Seized by the gods and dumped in the desert nation of Larcout to stop history from repeating, Vadrigyn discovers her mother’s legacy of treason and slaughter still festers. To survive the intrigues of the royal court, the roiling undercurrents of civil war, and the gods themselves, Vadrigyn must unravel the conspiracy behind her mother’s banishment. But manipulating free will unleashes a torrent of consequences. If she fails the gods, she will return to the Morsam prison, stripped of all magic and all hope. If she succeeds, she can rule a nation. Kasthu. Roborgu. Inarchma. Live. Learn. Burn.
 
Buy it here!

 Amazon  |   Barnes & Noble.com |  iBooks  |  Kobo

Please Speak Ill of the Dead

Jeffe Kennedy / / Blog

Me with my dadThe other day, David (aka “The Man”) said to me that he thought he wasn’t as good of a man as his father had been. His father died nearly two years ago now, and there were thoughts from the family on Memorial Day (he was a Marine in the South Pacific in WWII) and photos of visits to the cemetery. So I wasn’t at all surprised this was on David’s mind, nor that he felt that way.

Instead, I thought, “yep, right on schedule.”

Longtime readers of this blog likely know that my own father died when I was very young – three years old. That’s me with him above. He was an Air Force fighter pilot who went down in his F-4. I have two memories of him – and those are vague, brief snippets. Otherwise I grew up with the knowledge that he’d died and I hadn’t really known him.

Which means most everything I know about my father came from other people and what they told me about him. When I was a little girl, I thought of my dad as this amazing, saintly, superheroic man who could do not wrong. Smart, handsome, loving, shining integrity, brave… Flawless. As I got older, it became clear to me that he could not have been flawless. No human being is. The fault lay in the people who told me about him, because they gave me a relentlessly sanitized version of who he’d been.

You know the old saw – “Don’t speak ill of the dead.”

Once I figured this out, I got better at asking the right questions. I asked my mother and my dad’s brother what they hadn’t liked about my dad. What habits had driven them crazy. What was the biggest fight they ever had. My grandmother stubbornly refused to answer anything like this. My father had been an angel on earth and that’s all there was to it. But the other answers – once people got over their hesitation to be critical of a man who’d died tragically, much too young – those were the stories who fleshed out his character. For the first time in my life, I felt like I had a real sense of my father as a person.

It meant so much to me.

So, now, nearly two years later, I’m not at all surprised that David’s dad is looming large in his mind. A man of great character and accomplishments, who we all loved and miss greatly. But he wasn’t perfect. I reminded David of that and we talked about the things his dad did that drove him crazy, mistakes he’d made, the biggest fights they’d had. And that helped put things back in perspective.

In some ways we always measure ourselves in comparison to our parents. A difficult thing because that’s so difficult to do with any objectivity. Especially once a parent is gone and the cheerful whitewashing begins.

But I know I’m no saint – and neither was my father. I love him all the better for it.