Thursday, May 23, 2013

Entertainment Weekly Likes Half Of What I Have To Say About Charlaine Harris

While Spoilergate was raging (see last two blog posts for deets), I read an interview with Charlaine Harris in Entertainment Weekly. I'll admit at first I merely stared at the picture of the yummilicious True Blood cast, enchanted and slobbering. Half an hour later, having mopped up almost all of the drool, I finally realized Charlaine was there, too. The accompanying interview was interesting and unintentionally funny since it had been conducted before Spoilergate. 

Normally a shy, retiring person, I hesitate to express an opinion of any sort as I'm unwilling to take even the smallest chance of accidentally offending anyone. But I finally summoned the courage to write to the editor. Millions must be told what Charlaine Harris has endured! And also I really want to see my writing in Entertainment Weekly! Dammit, it was the right thing to do! Then, because I'm working on being the youngest person ever diagnosed with Alzheimer's, I promptly forgot...uh...what was I talking about? 

Fast forward a few weeks, I'm chewing gum, eating cashews, and reading the EW with the lovely Bruno Mars gracing the cover...and there's my letter! Well, some of my letter. Part of my letter. Woo-hoo! (All silliness aside, I'm still amazed when I see my name in famous pubs like that, especially when it lacks the "person of interest" caption.)

I mentioned this on FB and soon had several requests for the entire letter. So because I live for pleasing my readers, and because it rained all week and the sun is finally out--I can be warm again!--I'm going to copy and paste as opposed to, I dunno, giving much thought to this post.  

Enjoy! Or don't. Either way I'm outside, coaxing the mud in my pots to, I dunno, turn green and produce plants or something. Plants: nature's quitters.

* * *

The uncut version (enjoy the unusual lack of expletives):

It was unintentionally hilarious to read about Charlaine Harris ("Sookie Stackhouse's Final Chapter") especially after Dalton Ross' column about spoilers a few weeks back. Though DEAD EVER AFTER, the final Sookie book, is a May release, a bookstore carelessly sold it early to a reader ("What legally binding contract not to sell before the release date?") and the controversial ending was quickly posted to the web. Cue eighty zillion readers losing their minds. EW always asks what I want to know, but questions like "There's been so much buildup to this final book. Have you been getting lots of mail?" took on a whole new meaning given the online furor. A week in, the issue is no longer about spoilers, bookstores blowing off legal agreements with zero repercussions unless Stephen King or J.K. Rowling is the author, or even Harris' polarizing ending...it's about reader entitlement ("I read something you wrote so you owe me the ending I wanted!") and author attacks ("Harris isn't just lazy, with this book she disrespects her readers.") From debating the morality of posting spoilers ("I'm glad the reader did it; she saved me twenty bucks.") to victim blaming ("Really, this is partly Charlaine's fault for not having a plan to deal with early spoilers.") in less than a week...doncha love progress?

Entertainment Weekly's version:

It was unintentionally hilarious to read the interview with Charlaine Harris about "Sookie Stackhouse's Final Chapter", especially after Dalton Ross' column about spoilers a few weeks back. Though Harris' DEAD EVER AFTER was released on May 7, an online seller carelessly sold it early to a reader and the controversial ending was posted on the Web. Cue 80 zillion readers losing their minds. EW always asks what I want to know, but questions like "There's been so much buildup to this final book. Have you been getting lots of mail?" took on a whole new meaning given the online furor.

I thought it was interesting that they changed "bookstore" to "online bookstore". Ooh, were those sneaky petes in on it???? What are they up to over there? Further proof that you can never, ever turn your back on Entertainment Weekly. Now if I could only decide if Bruno Mars is prettier than Beyonce...




Sunday, May 05, 2013

Charlaine Harris: Still Bullied, With A Dash of Victim Blaming

This is an addendum to my last blog, The Bullying Of Charlaine Harris And The Wisdom of Neil Gaiman. I wrote that blog in response to what I felt was unfair treatment of a colleague and also because I really get off on "Charlaine Harris" "Neil Gaiman" and "MJ Davidson" being in the same blog post.  Before if you Googled "Charlaine Harris" and moi, the only thing that happened was some of our awesome anthologies came up. Bo-ring! But now if you Google the three of us...ahhhh.  Smell that spicy Neil/Charlaine/MJ three way goodness.  Mmmm...I can sense Neil a little more every day, you know. My courageous bitchy blogs are making him love me though he has never met me and has no idea I exist. Ah, Neil...embrace this newer blog and come to Mama.

I am so sorry for any mental images I might have just slammed into your brain.

Anyhoo, the "debate" (that would be the polite word, which I owe to all of you after what I did to your brain a few seconds ago) rages on. Everyone's got something to say and because there's this thing called the Interwebs (is that the technical word?) we're all saying it.  "So stop blogging about it, MJ". Hey! Don't tell me what to do. Neil Gaiman won't stand for you bossing me around! He will be all up in your shit before you can say "I thought the Other Mother in CORALINE was a perfectly viable alternative". You do not want to bring the wrath of Neil upon your cringing head, trust me.

Now where...?  Right.  Spoilergate still blazes.  Almost literally, but I'll get to that below.  To recap:  a reader was able to buy a copy of DEAD EVER AFTER because the bookstore either a) wasn't paying attention, or b) said, "what legally binding contract?"  Mysteriously (except not) the spoilery ending was posted on the web.  Cue everybody losing their shit for various reasons.  I blogged about the shenanigans last week, and since then have found out a few things I didn't know at the time.  The "should Charlaine Harris be beaten to death and then scolded for hours?" debates have been all over Amazon, Goodreads, FaceBook, and my blog.  Plenty of readers found my snarking hilarious; plenty more are starting "should MJ be beaten to death and then given Godiva chocolates?" threads, and plenty more are honestly concerned with my mental health.  ("You're annoying beyond belief but I really think you should see someone.") Not to worry, gang, I switched out all my meds for Flintstone's Chewables because they're prettier and cheaper, and I'm getting saner by the millisecond.  Does anyone else hear a high-pitched constant whistling but only when they're drinking a ton of alcohol?

Anyhoo.  Below is my post in response to other posts about my post on Goodreads re-posted here with some edits for your posting pleasure.  And mine!  But that goes without saying.

* * *

I'd like to thank readers for taking the time to read my post and comment. We don't all agree, but how dull would the world be if we did? 

First, Charlaine Harris isn't hiding behind me. Although she could, since I'm still at my winter weight ("But we're almost two months into spri--" "Shut up."), and have yet to finish losing the baby weight ("But the baby is starting high school in--" "Shut UP!"). She didn't ask me to weigh in on Spoilergate. Charlaine Harris has never asked me for anything.

But part of the reason I was so interested in jumping in is because something like Spoilergate happened to me when UNDEAD AND UNFINISHED came out. The spoiler-free version is, readers of my series found out something completely shocking about the hero and heroine that was a huuuuge game changer, that I'd never so much as hinted about in earlier books, and reactions were everything from, "Whoa, way to shake up the series and leave me on the edge of my seat!" to "You vapid whore, I told you not to go off your meds."

What was startling was the intensity of the reactions and how out-and-out horrible some readers got, the mildest of which was "f*ck you, you'll never get another penny out of me, you cant" (Except, ahem, it wasn't cant.) 

Even more startling: many readers thought that I'd ended the series that way. This blind-sided me, for several reasons: 1) at no time had I ever said UNDEAD AND UNFINISHED was the last book, 2) I told every reporter (blogger, newspaper, magazines, radio) the exact opposite: not not NOT the last book, and 3) I titled the book UNFINISHED. As in the opposite of FINISHED. In really really big letters on the front of the book as well the spine. Shiny big letters: UNFINISHED (ta-dah!). And at the end of the day it came down to how some readers were hurt ("How could you do this to me?") and my bewildered reaction ("How could you think I'd string you along for ten books only to screw you in the end?"). 

[This is MJ, breaking into this post to address the readers of the Betsy series:  seriously, how could so many of you leap (ka-sproing!) to the conclusion that UNFINISHED was the last Betsy book?  Everyone's calmed down now, but nobody ever explained that to me and it always puzzled me.  Did you read about it somewhere?  Did someone tell you?  Did you just assume that a shocking ending meant...ffftt!  No more Undead books.  Did you not notice the big shiny letters spelling UNFINISHED on the cover and the spine?  My editor and I knew this would shake things up and did everything we could to make sure people knew there were more books to come.  As above I bogged and told every blogger, radio, TV, and newspaper reporter that more were coming.  And, I feel obliged to again mention, there was the title: UNFINISHED.  In all seriousness, all snark aside, what else could my publisher and I have done to reassure readers?

Back to the GR post.]

So, for me, the DEAD OVER EASY fracas wasn't just that some readers willfully made Spoilergate happen.  My problem was that several readers were/are raining down all kinds of holy hell on the author based on the ending of a book they haven't read, which continues today, and the book *still* isn't out. They don't care what she's done in past books; they don't care that there may be a method to her alleged madness. In the case of UNFINISHED, readers completely discounted the several thousand pages they'd loved after reading the last paragraph on the last page of a book that wasn't the last in the series and was helpfully titled UNFINISHED. As we all agree, the readers were 100% entitled to feel any way they wished about any book I wrote at any time, as I was to write the book I wanted. But I was startled at how some readers made up their mind on the spot: boom, done, see ya.

So, yeah: the DEAD EVER AFTER furor is all about me. (I know how it sounds. Admitting you have a problem is the first step and perhaps some day I will take that step.) Anyway, Charlaine knows this. Most authors writing a series know this: some readers will be thrilled ("OMG, just how I figured!"), some will be satisfied ("Not the way I thought it would go, but okay."), and some will be pissed ("I have read your books thus you owe me happiness and also, I demand a romantic HEA for the last book in a mystery series."). But it doesn't make it easier to understand.

As to the perception that I think the onus of Spoilergate is on the reader who got DEAD EVER AFTER early, I'd respectfully ask that you re-read my original post, where I wrote that, in fact, it is not up to the reader to call the bookstore out on their breach of contract. I owned my hypocrisy by saying if THE WINDS OF WINTER (pub date unknown because George R.R. Martin enjoys torturing me) was on the shelf tomorrow, I would buy the HELL out of that book. And then I would...NOT...post "OMG Sansa ends up on the Iron Throne and has triplets with Tyrion!" on the web, but that's a whooooole other thread. Spoilergate is not about the lone reader getting the book early; it's about what the reader did after they read it. And what happened after that. And what happened after that. 

When Charlaine mentioned "malicious readers" she wasn't referring to the reader who got the book first; she was referring to the readers who have been...well...malicious (which the dictionary defines as malevolent or spiteful). "I hate the ending" isn't spiteful; "Charlaine is stupid and lazy" is.  And while the person who started the "here's the spoilered ending to DEAD EVER AFTER but watch out 'cuz it's spoilery with spoils!" thread on Amazon might not have intended the uproar that followed, the bottom line is that it's a brush fire of bitchiness over there and has been for days. Saying "but I didn't know people were gonna come to my thread that I started and say nasty things in response to my thread that I started" is up there with "I only started the brush fire; it's not my fault it's still burning." This strikes me as, at the least, naive. The person who started the spoiler thread seems like a nice enough person (we've been courteously going back and forth a bit on Amazon), but she also seems completely unconcerned about her part in Spoilergate. She feels the blame for the personal attacks on Charlaine lies with Charlaine, for not having some sort of DefCon 3 lockdown plan for spoilers. 

Regarding the readers who suggested Charlaine should have disabled all comments on her FaceBook page, limiting reader exposure to spoilers and her own exposure to the virulently negative posts: there was no way Charlaine was gonna win this one. Her choices: 

1) Charlaine doesn't restrict any comments from anyone: nearly 200,000 readers get spoiled and understandably enraged. "What is wrong with you? How could you not delete those out of respect for the rest of us? Manage your social media, dammit!"

2) Charlaine only deleted posts with spoilers: readers instantly assume she's only deleting negative posts. I saw many "you're only deleting negative posts!" comments posted after negative posts that had not been deleted. In other words, I had to read through several negative posts to get to a post complaining that negative posts were being deleted. So not only are some readers enraged, they're not paying attention. If Charlaine is slow to delete the spoilery ones, she must not be paying attention, either. If she's quick to delete the spoilery ones, she's OMG only deleting negative ones, what a jack-booted bitch! 

[Me again, with an aside to my readers:  that?  Was hilarious.  "You're deleting negative posts just like BiteMeHarris said in her post about how hateful and shitty you are to us she totes proved how you're deleting only neg posts and if u don't believe me just scroll down and read their negative posts about how you're being shitty and only deleting neg posts plus they were so right to call you shitty because you are so shitty Charlaine you shitty shit!!!!"  Me:  "Holy hell.  I think I'm having a stroke.  So much snarking and so little...yes, the nosebleed confirms I'm definitely having a sarcasm stroke.  Worth it.  I regret nothing except having a Twix for breakfast which I washed down with a V-8."]

3) Charlaine disables all posts: this had the potential to be at once the most all-encompassing but also the most damning. "Are you that afraid of getting negative feedback, you Paula Deen-sounding fascist? We demand to be heard! GUYS, GUYS, HARRIS ISN'T LETTING ANYBODY COMMENT SHE'S PRACTICALLY RE-WRITING "DEUTSCHLANDLIED" OVER THERE!"

So, again: no way to win. Just like she couldn't write an ending that would please everyone. Or deal with Spoilergate in a manner that would please everyone and offend no one.  I also don't see how Spoilergate can in any way be "partly Charlaine's fault". Because she wrote the book? Because she knew the ending would polarize readers? Because she was wearing a miniskirt at night in a bad part of town? I don't...what?  WHAT?

All that to say, I think several readers were dead on when they pointed out that there's not a chance in hell we're all going to agree. They're right, of course; we probably all know that. But disagreeing doesn't have to be a synonym for disrespecting. I appreciate reading others' viewpoint and I've learned a lot from the other posts here. I think at the end of the day if we can come away with that, it's not a bad thing. 

Friday, April 26, 2013

The Bullying Of Charlaine Harris And The Wisdom Of Neil Gaiman

Reader entitlement.  Yeah, it's gonna be one of those blogs, so be ready.  At my best, I'm only annoying, and I'm not at my best right now.  I am in a froth of outrage on a colleague's behalf and also, one of my rotten teenagers snaked the last DQ Buster Bar from under my nose.  I had to have cereal for breakfast instead, which is making me feel all Cruella deVille-ey.  Picture me channeling Hayden Christianson yowling the Darth Vader, "Noooooooooo!" except mine would be better because Hayden sucked.

So Charlaine Harris' last Southern Vampires book, DEAD EVER AFTER, is out May 7.  Except it's kind of out now, which is why the interwebs are exploding.  Some random asshat got their claws on an early copy, which is sneaky enough, but then posted the ending online, which is borderline sociopathic.

But first, a word about release dates, contracts, and asshats.  Publisher release dates aren't just random dates they pick out of a hat for funsies.  Marketing revolves around release dates, and so do book tours (not to mention author deadlines), and ads, and reviews.  Because industry pros take that shit seriously, stores that want to sell a book must sign a contract agreeing NOT to sell a book before the release date.  So right out of the gate, if a store sells a book before the pub date, they're in breach of contract and could get fined and/or blacklisted, and the clerk who sold it could end up jobless.

(This leads into the Charlaine Harris mess, I promise.)

Let me emphasize that it's not on the reader to make sure a book store isn't in breach.  Also, I'm a gaping hypocrite in that if THE WINDS OF WINTER was on the shelf three days early, you bet your ass I'd buy it.  I'd knock over the two little old ladies and the shivering orphan standing in front of me to yank that thing off the shelf and buy it.  That's because I'm a hypocrite and also, the store is the one who should be paying attention to little things like honoring a legal document.  This happens to me all the time...I'll start seeing customer reviews of one of my book days before the book is actually out, or a reader will mention they were able to buy it at their local bookstore and can't wait to go home to read it and how cool because they didn't think the book was even out until next week!  I'll be, "Thanks for the nice e-mail, I hope you love the book and arrggghhhhh!   Sorry, I'm fine now, and I do appreciate that you bought the book and what bookstore sold it to you early?  Can I have their phone number?  And possibly their alarm code?"  Social contract: it's not cool to burn down bookstores.  Actual contract:  it's not cool to ignore contract clauses and sell books whenever.  If they blow off theirs, I'm willing to consider blowing off mine.  

One of the reasons ignoring release dates drives the publishing industry nuts is because the best seller lists only count books sold on and after the release date.  Future contracts depend on how the last book sold.  Future everything depends on how the book sold.  Sure, the author will eventually get the royalties, but marketing pros and agents and editors don't look at royalties; they look at sales, they look at best-seller rankings.  Any sale made prior to the release date falls into the black hole of contract breach, never to return.  There have been times my books haven't made a best-seller list, and there have been times when they have, and I've clung to my spot by my ragged fingernails.  A thousand books sold the week before the release date can make all the difference between me hanging onto the list, panting, for another week, or falling down and down, screaming all the way ("I regret noooothing!").

Anyhoo, that's why books released pre-release date cause problems for the writer/publisher.  Whoever the spoileriffic asshat who started all the trouble is, they either bought the book because a store wasn't paying attention, shoplifted same, got their hands on an ARC (Advanced Reviewer Copy, printed early for the media/reviewers), stole same, bought one off Ebay (This has happened to me!  And I feel guilty every time: "Please don't buy my book a week early for $100.  No one knows better than I that it's not worth $100.  Wait a week and spend $24.99."), or broke into a book warehouse, robbed it, then burned it down because what social contract?  However they got it, they probably weren't supposed to have it at all, so bad enough, right?  But posting the spoiler wasn't just wrong; it was pure meanness.

Things got yuckier from there.  That was partly my fault, because when I found out what happened I literally said to myself, "That's awful, poor Charlaine!  I can't see how this could get any worse--hey, what now?"  Because yep.  It got worse.  Charlaine, if you're reading this, it's my fault.  I dared the gods.  I won't be able to make eye contact with you at RT next year.  My shame is great.

To explain the awfulness of the worse, I'll have to talk vaguely about DEAD EVER AFTER.  I don't think I'm revealing anything a reader of any of the Sookie books wouldn't have already guessed but if I'm wrong, I apologize, and I'm apologizing because I experience human emotion because I'm not a sociopath.  So here comes a minor spoiler about a book I haven't read early and spoiled, on purpose, online, because I'm not a sociopath:


(minor spoiler)


The Sookie books are a love triangle, and apparently Sookie makes her choice by the end of DEAD EVER AFTER.

Okay, so, the nature of triangles means that, because it's a triangle and not a rhombus or a parallelogram, not everybody is going to be thrilled, because it's a triangle.  (See:  the TWILIGHT books, PRETTY IN PINK, MY BEST FRIEND'S WEDDING, GONE WITH THE WIND, REALITY BITES, every X-MEN movie, TITANIC, THE HUNGER GAMES, PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, THE GREAT GATSBY, EMMA, WATER FOR ELEPHANTS, THE AGE OF INNOCENCE, ONE FOR THE MONEY, NORTH AND SOUTH, OUTLANDER, and every single book or story or movie or play about a triangle in the history of everything.)  So, natch, when the asshat spoiled the ending, some readers were fine with the author's choice and some lost their minds.

And are still losing them.  When Charlaine realized what the spoilery asshat was up to, she posted to her FaceBook page:  "By now some of you know that a reader in Germany obtained a copy of DEAD EVER AFTER and decided to post the ending online. While this is unfortunate, I wanted to say this to all of you: Even if you *personally* are unhappy with the ending, please don’t spoil it for other readers. DEAD EVER AFTER goes on sale on May 7th; after that date, you are more that welcome to come here and tell me how much you like - or don’t like - the choices I’ve made for Sookie. But from one Sookie fan to another, I’m asking you all to please not spoil the book for other readers. Thank you so much for your continued support."

Short and classy...like Charlaine!  Heh.  Anyhoo, that seemed a sensible and even restrained reaction to the online reaming the unnamed asshat was bringing down on her.  Except.  The very first comment under that was essentially, "I hated your stupid book; it was basically an EXPLETIVE to all your readers, how could you (SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER) you numb EXPLETIVE?", and some of the ones that followed were worse.

Oh no she dih-unt!  (Yeah, I know.  We don't say that anymore but sometimes I still do because it was a total 'oh no she dih-unt' moment.)  So:  ending spoiled, on purpose, before the release date.  Charlaine discovers this, and does the classy restrained thing.  The result:  still more online reaming, more spoiling, more raging sociopathy.

Almost more astonishing is the speculation flying all over the interwebs, absurd conspiracy theories and ideas that some readers seem to think are really and truly true.  So I figured I'd address a few of them.

1) The publisher knew readers would HATE the ending which is why they tried so hard to keep the spoilers quiet so HA HA, their little plan FAILED, free speech for evah and Charlaine's publisher nevah!

Uh, no.  Publishers keep spoilers quiet so ENDINGS DON'T GET SPOILED.  This applies to pretty much any book with a spoiler.  They weren't sitting around in a board room saying, "This is the worst book ever.  We must keep the ending a secret!  For sales!"  They were sitting around in a board room saying, "This is the last Sookie book.  We must keep the ending a secret!  For sales!"  Remember:  any copies sold before May 7 do not count toward best-seller lists.

2) Charlaine's agent made her do it!

Seriously?  You really think that?  Uh, no.  Agents don't make writers do anything; they work for the writer.  Agents can cajole, they can play devil's advocate, they can stretch a business lunch into three hours, but at the end of the day, Charlaine's agent didn't stick a gun in her ear and shrill, "Bitch, write the ending the way I told you and also, your W-9 will be late this year because I'm between assistants!  But the temp will validate your parking!"

3) Charlaine wrote it like that because she hates me!

It's hilarious to me that some readers have made this all about them.  Since it's all about me, they're wrong.  Charlaine wrote the ending because that was the ending she wanted for her characters.  The end.

4) It's Amazon's fault!

Well, probably not.  Although they're certainly swinging into action at their usual snail-in-a-coma pace.  "Fear not, aggrieved readers, we'll look into this right away.  To the servers, my minions!"  Amazon's idea of right away is no one else's idea of right away.  I'm sure they'll respond to complaints and take down various offending posts by 2028 at the latest.

5) It was really good the ratty asshatty posted the ending online because now that I know the ending I won't buy it.

No, it wasn't.  Even if the ratty asshatty was somehow in charge of letting readers know all series endings because ratty asshatty has a telepathic link with the readership and JUST KNOWS exactly what they'll love and what they'll hate and thus because of their ratty asshatty oath had to defy the...I can't even finish that speculation.  Ratty Asshatty was entitled to hate the ending, but should have let readers read and think for themselves.

6) Charlaine is stomping on our free speech!  She only wants the praise and doesn't want anyone saying anything mean about her book!

No.  Per her FB message (see above), Charlaine is asking that readers wait until May 7 to post their opinions so as not to spoil the ending for other readers.  Love it or loathe it, she invites readers to comment.  Love it or loathe it, she welcomes people to let her have it right there on her FB page if they like.  That is the opposite of free speech stomping.

 7) So what if readers are flaming her on her FB page?  She made a choice to end the book that way, we're making a choice to let her know we hated it and also, she sucks.

It's not just flaming on her page.  She's getting threats.  Because that's how much perspective has been jettisoned out the window: people are actually threatening her with, among other things, felony assault.  Like my hero, Liz Lemon, I don't dare roll my eyes much longer or they'll stay rolled forever ("Ow! Cramp!"), but give me a goddamned break.

8) Charlaine had no right to write that ending.

No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no.  

To paraphrase Neil Gaiman:  "Charlaine Harris is not your bitch."  He's right, except he was talking about George R.R. Martin.  GRRM, author of the SONG OF ICE AND FIRE series, takes years to write a book, and because his stuff is so thoroughly wonderful, readers get pissy waiting years between books.  GRRM also goes to lots of cons and signings; he's probably one of the easiest mega-famous writers to meet.  Because of this, a reader asked Neil Gaiman if there was a nice way to say, "Mr. Martin, I love your books but I've been waiting years for the latest one and you keep changing the release date and I know you go to lots of cons, so could you maybe go to fewer conferences and instead stay home and write?  Because you're letting me down by not doing that?  Okay?  Please?"

And Neil comes back with, "Uh, no.  There's no nice way to ask him that.  To ask any writer that."  Which he followed with, "George R.R. Martin is not your bitch."  His blog on this, called "Entitlement Issues" is here in all it's wonderfulness:
  http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2009/05/entitlement-issues.html

Anyway, take "George R.R. Martin is not your bitch" and apply it to every writer living or dead or yet to be born.

Charlaine's writing process is not governed by democracy (J.K. Rowling said it pretty perfectly: "I'm not taking dictation.")  She doesn't owe her readers the ending some of them insist on.  She doesn't even owe readers an explanation.  "But I've bought her books."  "But I've been reading her stuff since the beginning."  "But she made me love Insert Character Name You Love Here."  "But she owes me a the ending I want."  "But her books are all about me because I love them."  "But I'm mad now and she has to kiss it and make it better."  "But MJ, your highlights are tacky."

Nope.  And my (red!) highlights are lovely, so quiet, you.

If you hate the writer's choice, if you hate what she did with characters that belong to her, that's 100% your perogative.  If you were mega-pissed when Scarlett O'Hara ended up with (spoiler!) no one, you're perfectly within your rights to never buy another book Margaret Mitchell...okay, bad example, but you see where I'm going.  Love/hate the ending.  Return the book (which you didn't buy before May 7) or shred it for the giant nest no one knows you keep in the basement.  (My nest is made of shredded phone books and is shin-high and I shall crouch in it to protect my eggs and hide from zombies.)  Tell your friends it sucked ass.  Vow you could do better and begin your journey toward years of rejection slips...absolutely your right, every one of them.

But Charlaine Harris isn't your bitch.

And that's that.


* * *

MaryJanice Davidson welcomes your nerd rage at madeupemailaddy@it'snotreal.com.

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

I Re-post My Love Letter To Boston, Because I Friggin' Love Boston


A year and a half ago I blogged about how living in Boston inspired my Wyndham werewolf stories. It started out as simple book PR, and ended up as a love letter to Boston and the Cape. In the wake of this week's tragedy, I wanted to re-post because nothing, not one. Damned. Thing. Has changed. Boston is still wonderful, and I still feel so lucky to have lived there.
* * *
My publisher asked me to talk about WOLF AT THE DOOR for an upcoming newsletter, and ignoring her sensible suggestion of a page, I wrote six. So I'm posting the thing in its entirety below, whether you like it or not. How 'bout THAT (um, seriously, thanks in advance for your attention)?
The characters in WATD have been trapped in my head for years, poor bums. When I wrote my first single-title werewolf novel, Derik’s Bane, I had no idea readers would be so intrigued by the idea of werewolves living on Cape Cod, and would want to read more about them.
I was intrigued, sure, but that was because I was putting my husband through Harvard with a series of wretched temp jobs, and for the first time in my life was living 1500 miles away from my family. (Irony: as an Air Force brat, I swore when I hit 18 I’d never, ever move again. Then I met someone who lived 1500 miles away. Thanks for nothing, irony, you jerk.)
Massachusetts was an eye-opener for a former Midwestern trailer-park inhabitant. Noisy, fast, fuming, and noisy. For some reason, nearly everyone I talked to out there seemed to be furious with me. I found this puzzling, since usually people needed to be with me for at least half an hour before the Hulk rage overwhelmed them.
I can hear it now, so shush: “That’s a stereotype! I live in Boston and I’m super-nice, ya vapid dumbass!” I’m sure you are super nice. I’m sure you’re super delightful. And I did meet many people from Boston and the Cape who I adored and are friends with to this day. But I also met a lot of people who seemed to be enraged by my very presence.
So there I was, trying to learn the subway system, getting trampled at Filene’s Basement sales (“Please...I—I just want to see if that shirt’s a twelve...please get off my neck...ow...”), and adjusting to a society that had little use for cars.
Of all of them, the car thing was the most amazing. When my then-fiance told me I could sell my car before we moved to Massachusetts, I flat-out didn’t believe him. It sounded impossible and dangerous. You’d die in Minnesota or North Dakota if you tried walking to work without a car. You could die checking the mail. If the elements didn’t get you, the wolves would.
But he’d been right, and I sold my car. After some nervousness (“Is this the train to Harvard Square? Also, please don’t rape or kill me.” “Kiddo, I’m 82, and you’re not my type.”), I learned to appreciate the T...it was nice being able to let someone else drive while I read or snacked, or snacked. The trains were (relatively) clean, and I was never bothered. At worst, some poor idiot would assume I knew what I was doing (“Is this the train for the Aquarium?” “Kiddo, I gotta get ready for my 83rd birthday pahty, whyncha leave me alone?”), and ask for directions. I went through lots of books during my commute, and listened to lots of Ace of Base on an ancient tool once called a Walkman by my people.
I was homesick for the Midwest, sure, but Boston and Cape Cod quickly grew on me. I found myself grazing at Faneuil Hall, spending hours browsing the Barnes and Noble on Park Street and the Wordsworth at Harvard Square, and being morbidly aware that the letter R was usually nowhere to be found in the mouths of the people around me.
“Anothah stereotype, ya useless hack! I’ve lived in Bawstahn my whole life, I been to Fenway Pahk, I grew up in Chahsten an’ if you do that thing, that ‘pahk the cah in Havahd yahd’ thing I’m gonna smack ya upside ya big fat head! All that’s nothin’ but hate-mongerin’, jerk!”
Like I said: surrounded by awesome food, gorgeous beaches, and people I didn’t know who were super-pissed at me. I started wondering why: something in the water? (This was before we all started carrying our own clear fluids in Aquafina bottles.) Something in the subway? Something in their...nature? Their genetics? (I actually heard the light bulb blink to life over my head: ding!). Thus, I got the idea that werewolves lurked among us, werewolves who were always fighting their natures and trying to hide in plain sight. Werewolves who would lash out when the stress got to them. And a ton of them lived on the Cape.
So Derik’s Bane was born, and it was such fun. I really liked the Cape Cod characters, because I was a born tourist and once I got over my apprehension, loved the museums, loved the parks, loved the beaches, loved the peanuts and lemon ice you could buy on the street. I loved how I could shatter the kneecap of the woman lunging for the same jeans I was at the annual Filenes sale. Best of all, I loved the sense of history. I had to walk past Benjamin Franklin’s grave every day on my way to work. I lived within walking distance of the Mount Auburn Cemetery. I sat in the Old North Church and tried to imagine “one if by hand, two here by me”, or whatever Paul Revere was supposed to have figured out.
By the time I sat down to write Chapter One, I’d come to love beauty of Boston and the Cape, the friendly and straightforward people, the truly awful driving that gave me a new appreciation for life every time I returned safely from the grocery store...and don’t start with the stereotypes again. That one’s true and you all know it. Boston drivers are more dangerous than a baker’s dozen of serial killers.
True to my frivolous and contrary nature, I cried when it was time to move to Boston, and I cried when it was time to move back to Minnesota. In five years, I’d embraced and admired a part of the country that was wholly different from anything I’d experienced the first twenty years of my life. They could have seafood as fast food out there! They thought nothing of dropping everything and heading to a beach, sometimes without sandwiches! They fearlessly crossed the street during rush hour and lived to tell the tale!
All this to say, I was homesick for Minnesota and confused when I wrote Derik’s Bane, and writing that book helped me get over myself and appreciate Boston.
Fast forward a few years, I asked my editor if I could write another single-title about the Wyndham werewolves, since readers had been asking for that book for years. She agreed at once, and I got to work. By then I’d been back in Minnesota for a few years and was writing full-time. And though most of Wolf at the Door takes place in Minnesota, the few bits in Boston reminded me how afraid I’d been to move there, and what I dumbass I’d been to be afraid, and how much I wanted to see the area again.
So I finished the book, talked to my hubby/writing partner (we co-write the Jennifer Scales series), and as it turned out, this year we’ll be having Thanksgiving on the Cape. What can I say? It’s gorgeous out there, and the people are great. Anyone who says different is an idiot. A blonde, six-foot tall, vain, klutzy idiot.
So that’s the scoop, and I thank you kindly for your attention. But I’m closing the laptop now...gotta go pahk my cah. Did you know you can actually get your point across more quickly if you omit needless consonants?

Thursday, April 04, 2013

I Explain Cheese and Mustard to a Subway Employee

I love Subway sandwiches.  They're fast, they're delicious, they're ubiquitous, and if you don't drown them in mayo and heap them with French's fried onions and then eat them with three kinds of potato chips, they're healthy. (So I've been told.  I myself adore French's fried onions.  And also potato chips.)

But I think Subway might have to step up the employee training.  I was waiting in a short line, and it was about ten minutes until the lone employee got to me, but I wasn't pissy about that.  (I was pissy, to be sure, but because we were out of French's fried onions.)  It's why I go NOWHERE without something to read.  And is it me, or does Subway seem to have zero interest in increasing their standard number of employees making sandwiches?  (Hint: their standard number is 1.) No matter what city I'm in, or what time it is, there's always one lonesome employee making the sandwiches, and the other or others are in back, out of sight. You can sometimes hear them moving around back there. It's eerie. Subway ghosts!

Anyway, waiting ten minutes was nothing new.  The weird part came when it was my turn, and I asked for cheese bread for my daughter's icky sandwich.  "Asiago bread," I said.

"I don't know what that is." 

Surprised, I took a look at the types of bread and corrected myself: "Sorry, I meant Cheddar bread." 

"Oh, okay. We've got that. The other kind, I never heard of." 

"It's a kind of cheese," I explained to the sandwich shop employee.  This was a little weird, but maybe only to me.  Maybe Asiago is more of a rarity than I thought.  Then I remembered: this whole encounter was taking place in Wisconsin, a state not unfamiliar with cheese.  Wisconsin is called America's Dairyland.  Know why?  Because it's one of the nation's leading dairy producers.  Know what's made of dairy?  Cheese. 

So, yeah. Definitely weird.

Then as she was finishing my kid's Asiago-free sandwich, I asked for Dijon.  

"I don't know what that is."

Wait. What?  The Asiago thing could probably be overlooked but Dijon?  The fifth most popular condiment in the country?  (Yeah, after this I went home and looked it up.  Shut up.)   

"It's a kind of mustard." Please, please let her know what mustard is.  "Uh, the opposite of honey mustard, I guess.  It's got a bit of a bite to it."

"Okay.  I've never even heard of it."  

"Really?"  This is why we have to bring back those "pardon me, do you have any Grey Poupon?" commercials.  "You've never heard of Dijon?"  Argh.  Leave it alone, MJ, you're like a bloodhound on the scent of a T-bone.  Just let it lie.  "And you've never heard of Asiago cheese?"  Dammit!  I told you to let it lie, you T-bone sniffing bloodhound bitch!

(Keep in mind, this entire conversation is happening IN A SANDWICH SHOP.)

She nodded at my car, parked in front.  It was a small shop, and surprisingly narrow, so we could all see my out-of-state license plate.  "Outta town?"

"Yep.  I apologize for bringing my big-city ways into your shop."  She laughed, thank goodness.

I took my Dijon-less sandwiches and went home to do a little research, and not just on how popular Dijon mustard is.  Per their website, "SUBWAY® brand is the world's largest submarine sandwich chain with more than 37,000 locations around the world."  Wow!  That's a lot of people who might not know what cheese or mustard is. "We’ve become the leading choice for people seeking quick, nutritious meals".  Yeah, just not people who choose...no.  It's too easy.  I'll just say the website was good for a few laughs and let the rest lie. So back off, inner voice.

I'm not outing that particular shop.  There's nothing wrong with not knowing something, and there's nothing wrong with admitting it.  In fact, I was impressed that she was so straight-forward about it.  Since she hadn't heard of either of the things I wanted, she must have known Dijon and Asiago weren't lurking in the back with the ghosts.  She could have just said, "We don't have that" and I would have had to blog about something else this week.  (Thank goodness she didn't!)  As someone who doesn't know something at least eight times an hour, but who only admits it four times an hour, I've got no particular problem with that Subway employee.  She was a nice woman doing her best alone in front because of the whole "we can only let you see one employee at a time" Subway policy.

But Subway Corporate might want to re-vamp their training to include defining different kinds of cheese and mustard.  Just a thought.  You're welcome, Subway!

(Also, my sandwich was delicious, despite the total lack of fried onions.  But I can't put that on Subway.)

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

YOU AND I; ME AND YOU: There is no escaping me in 2013

My second new release of the year, coming out 2 weeks after my first release of the year, hits stores today!  YOU AND I; ME AND YOU is the third in my FBI BOFFO trilogy (Bureau Of False Flag Ops).  I followed the rule of trilogies as set by the Scream movie franchise: everything you thought you knew from books one and two?  Nope.  You can toss quite a bit of it out the window. 

Y&I is about the Jones sisters, three women living in one body. Diagnosed years ago with Multiple Personality Disorder, Cadence, Shiro, and Adrienne catch killers due to, not in spite of, their unique psychiatric histories. They also sow chaos due to, not in spite of, their unique psychiatric histories.


Keep an eye on my FaceBook page this month...we're giving away free books every week!  Meanwhile, I leave you with a random snippet from Y&I, a glimpse into George Pinkman, clinical sociopath and reader favorite (many readers see him as a Dennis the Menace type + semi-auto = good times.)


* * *



     “Aw, jeez, again with goddamned BOFFO?”
     We all turned at the sound, and the techs stopped pretending to be busy and actually became busy.  Because Special Agent Greer was upon us, and mighty was his annoyance.
“We heard you guys had no clue how to catch bad guys, so we figured we’d come over and help you out.  You’re welcome.”  George grinned.  Law enforcement was one of many perfect jobs for someone who thrived on and lived for confrontations.  Also politics, door-to-door sales, and collections.
(A terrifying digression:  George paid for college by working for Cutco.  Cutco is a company that makes and sells knives.  Their salespeople go door to door.  George Pinkman paid for college by talking his way into peoples’ homes with a big bag of knives and selling homeowners potential murder weapons.  Do I have to add that he was their top salesman three years running?  I do not.)


Thursday, March 07, 2013

USA Today Tolerates My Anti-Twilight Leanings

My USA Today interview is out, and once again a national newspaper has rewarded me for being obnoxious.  Because now I know they'll let me be mean about Twilight, which given my raging jealousy of Smeyer's empire, suits me fine.  (In all seriousness, while I'm fantastically envious of Ms. Stephenie Meyer and her Empire Of Sparkly Apex Predators,  I love that she got a TON of people reading paranormal romance.)  

I'm off to write the most gushy, inappropriate, chock-full-of-weird-vibes thank you note to Pamela Clare.  I want her to feel gratified that I'm appreciative of her kind words, while also feeling a little squicked out.  ("Why is this thank you note weirdly damp?")  This might well take the rest of my day.  Meanwhile: 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/happyeverafter/2013/03/07/maryjanice-davidson-interview-undead-and-underwater/1969143/