So first, today I'm guestblogging over at Romance Vagabonds, so puh-leeze come stop by! My post over there is all about my continuing quest to craft the perfect one-sentence hook - and I need some help. Writing the blog made me realize that the GOTH blurb on my website was long overdue for a change.

The blurb I used to have up there was my first attempt at writing a hook. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't great. It went like this:

As a girl, Lucy Waltham wanted to be ‘one of the boys.’ Now Lucy’s grown into a woman, and she wants … one of the boys.

Orphaned at the age of eleven and left in her brother Henry’s care, Lucy refused to languish in the schoolroom while the men had their fun. She’s spent eight autumns in their company, hunting, fishing, and worshipping Sir Toby, her brother’s rakishly charming friend.

Now Toby’s about to become engaged to the angelic Sophia Hathaway, and Lucy is desperate. Seduction is her weapon; Toby, her target. All she needs is practice. She turns to another of her brother’s friends – Jeremy Trescott, the Earl of Kendall. Jeremy taught her to angle for trout and snare a grouse. Who better to give her lessons on trapping a man?

Against his better judgment, Jeremy agrees to her scheme. He reasons he can distract Lucy long enough to save Toby’s engagement and Lucy’s reputation. But what starts with a kiss (Or two. All right, three.) sparks into a fiery passion. And when Sophia’s angelic halo slips, Lucy must choose between the love of a girl’s dreams and the desire of a woman’s heart.

Once I finished the book and began working on my query letter, it became clear that this hook just wouldn't do. It ends, as CM once so saliently put it, on a ridiculous question of "love-or-radish" proportions. As in, "Will she choose the love of her life? Or will she choose to be beaten about the shoulders with a rotten radish?" Lucy's choice is obvious, of course. Who would pick girlhood dreams over womanly desire? Sheesh. Not me.

This is the new blurb, which closely resembles what's in my query letter. (But my query letter doesn't have those headings, of course!) I tried to keep the same light, comic tone, but end on a note of conflict.

A huntress taking aim at love…

Lucy Waltham is about to turn poacher. She’s spent eight autumns with her brother’s friends, angling for trout, snaring grouse, and admiring the rakishly charming Sir Toby. When Toby plans to marry another, Lucy vows to bag him first. With a few practice kisses under her belt, she’s ready to give chase. But instead of luring the dashing knight, Lucy reels in a much bigger catch. An earl.

An earl dodging his troubled past…

Plagued by would-be wives, rioting tenants, and the ghosts of a boyhood tragedy, Jeremy Trescott, the Earl of Kendall, has plenty of problems. He’s about to get one more. For eight years, Jeremy’s kept his friend’s pestering sister at arm’s length. Until the night Lucy runs into his arms, and her ‘practice’ kiss sparks a fiery passion. Suddenly, the chit he’s always ignored is the woman he can’t forget.

A passion that can’t miss!

When a scandal threatens to ruin Lucy, Jeremy takes matters – and a compromising letter – into his own hands. His impetuous gallantry costs him a friendship, his dignity, and his bachelor freedom. He’ll be damned if he’ll lose his heart, too. But Lucy needs rescuing like a fish needs a curricle. She wants love, and she won’t settle for less.

Notice that this one also makes it sound as though the hero actually does something in the book. It also keeps mention of secondary characters to a minimum.

Of course, in between these versions were about a dozen other attempts. I re-wrote this thing until my brain hurt.

Be honest, which do you like better and why? Did I trade up, or make a change for the worse? Are the headings in the new blurb just too cheesy?

Okay, another topic brought to you by special request of Mr. Dare.

Inquiring men want to know - what is it about bad boys? Why are women attracted to those dangerous, hell-raiser types, even though we know we'd be better off with someone respectful and principled and caring? Why do we cheer for the girl to pick Sawyer over Jack, Wolverine over Cyclops, Rhett over Ashley, Han Solo over Luke Skywalker? And why-oh-why didn't Andie go to her prom with Duckie?

My initial idea, although I'm open to argument, is that it's not too different from why we love the tortured heroes. There's just something about that fantasy that a woman's love can tame/reform/save/otherwise bring low the most jaded, arrogant cad - it's irresistible. Then there's the element of danger - so sexy and thrilling.

My current hero is a bad boy who's like Sawyer and Wolverine and Rhett and Han Solo all rolled into one. I love, love, love the bad-boy hero. Perhaps it's because I never got my bad-boy fix in real life. Seriously, I've searched my memory and come up blank. To my shame, I've actually never dated a single bad boy, although I've attracted some very strange ones. The closest I can think of is the gothed-out headbanger guy in high school who wrote me a 9-page letter in scripty handwriting to declare his undying love for me. I turned him down. I already had a date for the prom with the senior class valedictorian. How lame is that? (And after I turned him down, he wrote me a 12-page letter telling me what a bitch I was!)

So the TMI question for today: Make up for my deficiencies and share your baddest "bad-boy" story. Come on, you know you have one. And I actually have well-formed suspicions of who has the best.

Oh, and if you have any insights for Mr. Dare on why women find bad boys so delicious, feel free to share those, too.

So Lacey had this fun blog on the results she got googling "Lacey needs." I decided to take that idea and change it up a bit. Here's what happens when you google "Tessa believes."

Tessa believes that "writing is a process, a craft that can be learned."
Tessa believes the mansion holds the secret of her birth.
Tessa believes that as a child she was attacked by an owl and flew like a witch.
Tessa believes everyone can learn to use Divine Energy to enhance their lives and understanding of themselves and their world.
Tessa believes she is superman.
TESSA believes that communication is essential to its mission.
Tessa believes no visit to Amsterdam is complete without a visit to the red light district.
Tessa believes her life is charmed.
Tessa believes none of it.

Quite the credo, isn't it?
Go forth and waste time.

Okay, so here's a comment I've had, in various permutations, from some of the contest judges who've read my first 25-30 pages and synopsis. It goes like this:

The conflict in GOTH is too weak to sustain a full-length book because there's a Big Mis.

Well....

In a way, they are right. Yes, there is a Big Mis. And if it were the sole source of conflict, it would indeed be insufficient to sustain a whole book. In actuality, this particular misunderstanding only persists for less than 1/3 the book, and there's plenty of other stuff going on meanwhile.

So first - I realize my synopsis is failing to adequately communicate the nature of the Big Mis, and the fact that their misunderstanding is a symptom of their conflict, rather than the cause. Yes, in the end, it's a conversation and "I love you's" that make for an HEA - but they can't have that conversation until they each work through their own internal conflict. They're misunderstanding each other because they're misunderstanding themselves - their strengths and worth as individuals, their capacity to love and be loved. I have to work on revising my synopsis to reflect this, which shouldn't be too hard.

Second - The synopsis could evidently do a better job of reflecting the tone of my book. The Big Mis is but one of many absurd plot devices in GOTH. The entire plot depends on a series of misunderstandings, ill-timed interruptions, and strange coincidences. My intention was to write an over-the-top comedy with a layer of authentic romance that ultimately transcends the silliness. So, how do I 'wink' at the reader of my synopsis to say, "Yes, I know this is ridiculous. It's meant to be a bit silly, but the romance is real." That's a challenge.

Third, however, there seems to be an implication in the judges' comments that a misunderstanding can never be a legitimate conflict. It's like another Rule of Romance that's sprung up - any book with a Big Mis is an automatic wallbanger. And sure - fans of angsty murder or espionage subplots will not be drawn to GOTH. It's just not that kind of book. But I take exception to the notion that a Big Mis is always a Bad Idea.

At the risk of hearing you all groan, "not THAT again!" - I point to my perennial example, Pride and Prejudice. There are a few villain-ish characters in P&P - Wickham and Aunt Catherine - but they aren't the true antagonists. What really keeps Elizabeth and Darcy apart is their own internal ... well, pride and prejudice, as reflected in the ways they continually misunderstand one another. Moreover, the plot of P&P is pushed along by all manner of absurd coincidences - Elizabeth's cousin just happens to be the vicar on Darcy's aunt's estate, she just happens to visit Pemberley on the same day Darcy arrives unannounced; of all the officers Lydia could have run off with, she picks the same one who nearly ruined Darcy's sister....

Now GOTH is no P&P, don't get me wrong. But if a Big Mis worked for Austen, why should it be off-limits to the genre she inspired?

Can you think of other examples of novels, romance and otherwise, where a Big Mis works? I'm thinking that near the end of Gone with the Wind, for example, there's a point where the only thing keeping Scarlett and Rhett apart is a misunderstanding. She's sick and wants to call out for him, but she resists, thinking he doesn't love her. All the while, he's waiting for her to call for him, just once - and when she doesn't, he gives up forever. Siiiigh.

Okay, we're going to dial it down a bit this TMI Tuesday - I mean, after last week, any sex topic would be a bit anticlimactic. (Groan, I know. Sorry, couldn't resist.)

My WIP, Goddess of Beauty, takes place mainly during a month-long ocean voyage in the early 1800s. I find myself wondering how much of my heroine's daily activities I should sketch for the reader, and what I should leave to the imagination. Do I go into the details of bathing (what little she would have done)? The privy? And it's a month-long voyage, which means a certain monthly event must take place - do I mention that?

Time-travel books often handle this well - because you have a modern character, viewing the historical world through our eyes. So of course, issues of hygiene and comfort are of increased importance. But would a character in a straight historical consciously think about those things?

What's your threshold, in historicals, for TMI? Do you like the "authenticity" when the author includes early-morning visits to the chamber pot? Or do you prefer a hero with perfect pecs and no discernible bladder? Any bodily functions you have absolutely NO desire to see described in print?

And I apologize in advance, but I'm uber-busy today with meetings and work - so I'll be a bit of an absentee blogger.

Big day yesterday for the FanLit team, in case you haven't heard.

Ericka Scott (Pamsko) has a new release from Cobblestone, Crystal Clear. I'm running (um, make that clicking) over to buy it right now!

And Pamela Bolton-Holifield (aka Doglady) is a finalist in the Royal Ascot! Yay!

I am not a finalist in the Royal Ascot, alas. But I did get good scores and great feedback from the judges, so I'm pretty pleased with how I did. Just didn't quite make the cut. Can't complain.

So, the lovely gypsy girls over at Romance Vagabonds threw down the gauntlet and challenged one another to complete their WIPs by RWA National Conference in Dallas (starts July 11).

Since that's my goal, too, they've generously allowed me to join them! In my case, it's like an eight-week NaNoWriMo. I'm counting by pages this time, so I need to write about 40 pages a week, or 5-6 per day, to finish. I think I can! I think I can! I've got the little pagemeter over there to the right. Keep me honest, please!

You know, there's a part of me that wonders if cranking out pages like this is the best way to write a book - that maybe I should be working more slowly and thoughtfully.

But then, this is what I did with GOTH, for the most part - except that was more like 4 pages/day. And it worked. I finished - where I'd tried and failed so many times before. Plus, if the ultimate goal is to become a successful romance author, ideally I'll have to be writing a book every 6 months or so, anyway. Right? Might as well get used to working that way now.

(That's me thinking like Lionel Shriver ... see post a few screens down.)

Anyone else setting big, bold goals they want to share?

There's a pernicious rumor in Blogdom that I've heard a few times now. It goes something like this: The words "I'm sorry" are an anachronism, if you're writing a Regency.

To which I say, "I'm sorry, but that's just wrong."

Some quotes from Pride and Prejudice:

Elizabeth, from The Proposal at Hunsford:

In such cases as this, it is, I believe, the established mode to express a sense of obligation for the sentiments avowed, however unequally they may be returned. It is natural that obligation should be felt, and if I could feel gratitude, I would now thank you. But I cannot -- I have never desired your good opinion, and you have certainly bestowed it most unwillingly. I am sorry to have occasioned pain to any one.

From Darcy's letter (THE Letter):

But from the severity of that blame which was last night so liberally bestowed, respecting each circumstance, I shall hope to be in future secured, when the following account of my actions and their motives has been read. -- If, in the explanation of them which is due to myself, I am under the necessity of relating feelings which may be offensive to your's, I can only say that I am sorry. -- The necessity must be obeyed -- and farther apology would be absurd.

Darcy, during the Second Proposal:

``I am sorry, exceedingly sorry,'' replied Darcy, in a tone of surprise and emotion, ``that you have ever been informed of what may, in a mistaken light, have given you uneasiness. I did not think Mrs. Gardiner was so little to be trusted.''

And I could go on and on. That word appears dozens of times in P&P alone. This book was written in the late 1700s to early 1800s, and first published in 1813. It's as Regency as Regency gets. For heaven's sake, it's the the very origin of the Regency romance genre! So let's quash this "I'm sorry" anachronism myth without apology.

If it's good enough for Jane, it's good enough for me.

Of all the jobs I've ever had - and this includes that miserable stint in my college cafeteria - being a mother is both the hardest and the best. I doubt my qualifications and my sanity daily, but the dozens of kisses and hugs I receive pretty much even the score.

Sometimes people wonder aloud how I get any writing done with two young kids. But oddly enough, I think being a mother gives me lots of inspiration for writing romance. When FanLit happened, my baby was just a newborn. I wrote several of my FanLit chapters by typing with one hand while I nursed/rocked/held him in the other arm. I wrote the whole time I was pregnant with him, too - I call him my muse.

Although I've been happily married for several years, both of my babies have served as wonderful reminders of how it feels to be in the first blush of love. I have every little detail of my kids memorized. I never get tired of looking at their cute little dimples, or kissing their fat little cheeks, or running my fingers through their curly hair. I'm completely infatuated with them. And while I still love my husband quite ardently, of course, that bloom of infatuation is a bit harder to sustain with an adult. Somehow, it's just not cute when his nose is snotty.

How about you? How do you remember that feeling of infatuation? Are there relationships in your life that may not be "romantic," but nonetheless inspire you to write about love?

Oh, and thanks to everyone who came by my guestblog last week! I really appreciate it.

I'm so excited to be invited back to Romance by the Blog today, to guestblog about my day at Avon. Michelle thought her bellas would be interested in hearing about the cover art, and if you read this blog regularly, you'll have heard most of it before. But I'd be much obliged to anyone who can drop by to keep me company! Plus, Sara Lindsey photoshopped me a killer "cover" for Goddess of Beauty that you have to see!

If anyone's clicking over to my blog today from RbtB, welcome! Below are links to all my posts about my day at Avon HQ. And it's not too late to join in on yesterday's "breakthrough" TMI Tuesday topic! Put your feet on the furniture. Make yourselves at home.

Cover Art (a bit more detailed than my guestblog today)
Publicity
Editorial
Marketing
Tea with Eloisa

(Linking to all those posts reminds me ... those of you who won stuff that week - if you didn't get your prizes by now, drop me a line to let me know.)