What's another word for...

So here's something interesting that I stumbled across on thesaurus.org: the word "masochist." Notice anything depressing about the suggested synonyms? 

Not only are they all highly inaccurate, but the suggestions with the most votes are: 

degenerate 

pervert

deviate 

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. And I'm not, really. I am annoyed though. I'm annoyed that the so-called synonyms have to come wrapped in a negative value judgement. And I'm annoyed at the assumption that any of the words on this list even come close to being anything like a synonym. All of those things on that list are very, very different, and very, very specific. 

And sure, of course I shouldn't be relying on some website that suggests avocado as a possible synonym for oak, but it's different. An oak does not equal an avocado. The comparison is stupid, but it's not offensive. 

Oaks aren't avocados, any more than masochists are degenerate. 

I'd say the whole thing is like comparing apples and oranges, but then thesaurus.org probably can't tell the difference. 

Books. Babies. Not the same thing.

I don’t subscribe to that whole “my books are my babies” mantra that you see every now and then. I don’t have babies. Lucky, because I’d be in jail if I treated my babies how I treat my books. It’s my understanding that babies have to be fed and washed and clothed and, most importantly, that you can’t just abandon them if they begin to annoy you. So, no. Books and babies are very different things.

I do understand where this sentiment comes from, though. I really do. We work hard on our books. We create them. We are emotionally attached to them.

But they’re still not babies.

Because too often when an author pulls out the “But my book is like my baby!” thing, it's the first stop on the crazy train that is the Meltdown Express. Before you know it you're at "How dare you criticise me just because you're too stupid to understand my genius" Station. 

As though likening a book to a baby is an excuse to have an overwrought reaction to an unfavourable review.

As though someone saying they don’t like your book is like someone harming your child.

Rubbish.

Why not talk to someone who’s had a child, and ask them if that child in any way compares to a book? Better yet, why not talk to someone who’s lost a child and find out what they think of that cutesy little book analogy?

Books are a lot of things. They can inspire you, and educate you, and they can take you to places you never thought you’d get to go. Books are wonderful, and they are more than the sum of their parts. They can be magical.

And yet… they’re still not babies.

Well, maybe this kind of baby:

I hatch them, I wish them well, and then I kick them the hell out of my nest. 

Whatever happens to them out there, they’re tough enough to handle it, and so am I.

IOC, Your Cowardice Is Showing

In news today, the Australian media is speculating as to whether gay Australian Olympians could be arrested at the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, because of Putin's extraordinary anti-gay laws. But of course, it's not just gay people who can be detained for up to fourteen days under these laws, it's anyone who might be suspected as being pro-gay. I'm not sure what pro-gay means, but I have a feeling anyone reading this post is guilty of it. And anyone writing it. 

* crosses Russia off list of places to travel* 

Australian Olympic Committee spokesman Mike Tancred said this: "Under the IOC charter, discrimination of any kind is strictly forbidden. I am sure the IOC values will prevail."

Really, Mike? Really? 

Well, that's reassuring. Everyone happy to go now?

You see, I like the ideals of the Olympics. All about striving for the best, and what humanity can do blah blah blah, but it’s hard to take the IOC seriously when, really, you know they’re just a bunch of old men who travel the world for free, and get wined and dined and seduced by countries who, for some reason, think that spending a gazillion dollars on a sporting event is a good idea.

But overlooking blatant abuses of human rights? That’s a whole other level.

You can promote yourself as non-political all you like, except for two things. Firstly, IOC, didn't you boycott South Africa during the apartheid era for shit like this? 

And secondly, turning a blind eye to human rights abuses isn’t being non-political. It’s being an accomplice.

For those of us who don’t want to play that game, there is always Amnesty International. 

Do you read Historicals?

I was having an interesting conversation the other day about historical fiction, and I was genuinely surprised when I was told by a friend that she didn't read it. 

As a history nerd, I was SHOCKED. I blame my love of history on not have a television for a period as a child, which led to looking to alternate sources for stories. That, and a mother who loved history even though she failed it miserably at school. (Hi, Mum!) Because it occurred to me at a very early age that history, literally, is EVERY STORY IN THE WORLD EVER. And how is that not awesome? 

But my friend told me that she finds it difficult to invest emotionally in historical fiction, since the protagonists -- had they lived -- would already be dead now. Which I can kind of understand, but also I can't. Because If I only stuck to stories that might be real and happening now, wouldn't that restrict me to contemporary, realistic fiction? And if I did that, wouldn't I be missing out on a lot of great fiction? 

source

I love history, so I'm completely biased on the subject. I"m also currently writing another historical, so yeah, I've got a horse in this race.

I love when the world-building in historical fiction is vivid, and I love when the writer gets the details right. On the flip side, I HATE it when they get it wrong. I read an m/m historical recently where there was a very big Public Display of Affection, and it threw me out of the story straight away. Because no way, just no fucking way, would two men kiss and grope each other in public in the middle of the day in Victorian London. Just no. 

You're writing history, not rewriting it. Just...just don't. 

Of course if happened. The proof is all over Victorian Gentlemen in Love. But it happened in private, it happened underground, and these men must have lived in constant fear of discovery. Let's not diminish that by jemmying in PDAs that couldn't have happened. 

Wow. That turned into a slight rant, didn't it? So let's get back to the point: Do you read historical fiction, or does it just not work for you? Whatever your answer, I'd love to know your reasons. 

Bad Author Behaviour

Is it just me, or is there a lot of Bad Author Behaviour on Goodreads lately? 

I won't link to the latest incident or call anyone out, because whether it's the author, a sock puppet, or some random helpful fan who thinks they're doing the author a favour, I don't know. But it's unattractive behaviour, and nothing will land you on a "Don't buy" list quicker than slagging off the people who bought your book in good faith. 

Here's how I see it. 

Goodreads is for readers, not authors. The second someone pays for your book, they can like it, hate it, or they can desperately want to KILL IT WITH FIRE. It's their right. And it's also their right to tell all their friends what they think. That is the whole point of the site. 

Okay, sure, not all reviewers are fair and balanced. Too bad. But it is not your job, and it's sure as hell not your BFF's job, to call them on it. Because Goodreads is for readers. You're playing in their sandpit, and you take the bad with the good or you get the hell out. 

The moment you publish a book and it's in the public sphere, your don't own it anymore. Okay, you own the copyright and whatever, but it's not your ickle precious baby who has to be protected from the big bad world. Hell no. You wave it off, you wish it well, and you let it make its own way. 

The simple fact is, some people will love what you write and some people will hate it. And if you're not ready to deal with that, then maybe you're not ready to call yourself an author. 

On that note, I don't comment on reviews of my own books. I might "like" a few now and again to get the cover out in everyone's feeds, but that's it. I'm more than happy to talk about my books if you invite me to, but I'm not going to butt in on the conversation you're having with your friends because I don't have any right to do that. Readers shouldn't have to worry that authors are going to start a shit storm because of something they say. 

When you get your royalty cheques from your publisher, where do you think that money came from? So to all the Authors Behaving Badly out there, grow up, chill out, and stop biting the hand that feeds you.