Well, maybe they "got it like that," the wife and AW.

---

From what little I've read of her, I'm thinking I'd rather purposely step on a crippled feral kitten in front of you and Nic.

Sweetie, she's a doll. She's one of my favourite people, and she's stone solid funny. She's also passionate and stubborn and noisy, all of which are traits you kinda need to be LA County's Public Defender in international drug cases. She pulls no punches, she's real to her bootheels, she takes very little shit, and she says what she thinks, usually more politely than I do - she actually does have a small reservoir of tact, which lord knows, I dont.

She also has exquisite taste in men. Michael - well. Yes.

And if I told her about my internet marriage and asked to borrow Michael, she'd laugh like a loon for ten minutes and then share the joke with him.

---

Oh, deb. I just meant she has a grand passion for him, that's all.

She also has exquisite taste in men. Michael - well. Yes.

Definitely. That's the sort of yes, where you both say it aloud, and nod at the same time, to make certain you're being perfectly clear.

---

Hee! Yep. That kinda yes.

She's due at my booksigning at Bonanza. I suspect she'll leave Michael at home with the kids - you'd think Sophie and Rosie would be veterans of booksignings at this point, but Zeke is still way too young.

Still, I can hope. I'll probably hint when I email her about it. Usual levels of tact: "HEY! BRING THE GORGEOUS GEEK!"

---

I'm not sure if I'd want you to do that, or not. On the one hand, Michael Chabon! Knowing who I am!(tell him to write the name down...he might have cause to remember it...;)) OTOH, it makes me want to run somewhere and have my legs shaved and my prose tightened, right now. It'd probably be easier to get my legs tightened and my prose shaved.

---

Well, my beta readers and I are sort of figuring this out together, as we're all sort of new at this.

I have asked some pointed questions and a couple of them responded to them when I first asked, but haven't said anything since. Maybe it's time to send out some specific questions again.

I have told them I want honesty, though not brutality. I want them to point out the negatives, but to do so with some kind of explanation. "This sucks" doesn't help me, where as "some of the dialogue in this scene took me out of the story because it didn't ring true to who the characters are." to use an example of a useful comment I've gotten from one of my readers.

Same goes for the positive stuff. "I love it" is great for the ego, but doesn't exactly tell me what I'm doing right so I know to keep doing it.

I definitely prefer the positive to the negative, and I know my instinct when presented with actual criticism is often denial, but I know finding the faults in my writing is going to help me improve a lot more than lauding the strengths. When I do get a critique, I'll read it once, let myself go through my instinctual "No way", take a breather and then come back and read the critique again with an open mind. Hopefully I'll eventually get to the point where I can skip the gut reaction part and go right to being able analyize what the person is actually saying.

I do have a friend with an English degree who I know will pull no punches, but I'm kind of holding off on asking him to read it until I finish the entire first draft because I'd like to get it done before someone thoroughly rips it apart.

---

wrod.

---

Yep - big differences. I can say, with all honesty, "Look, I am fantasy impaired; I literally can't tell the satire from the classics, they all read the same to me, blind spot, can't help it." NOT the same as saying "Oh, man, ANOTHER chick named Cerridbronhwennydd, wearing armour that shows off her dimples, and being mad at her mom, as well as a perfect killing machine, pass the air sickness bag, yuck, kill me now".

And a whole third level possible, with what I did yesterday: A five-hour edit on a fantasy novel (no dragons, or Welsh girls with armoured ovaries, or hobbits, or I'd have been no use to her), with the understanding that she was getting a hard emergency look from essentially virgin eyes: someone who dimply does not grok, much less enjoy, any of the tropes.

It was useful to her. I had a few things that seemed obvious to me, that she thought shouldn't have been obvious to me if she'd written it effectively. So in a way, my ignorance of her genre was a plus.

But no trashing. Trashing is just evil.

---

someone who dimply does not grok

But she does it with a smile.

---

I'm thinking of entering another writing contest in addition to the Golden Heart.

Talk me down, people.

---