Tessa Dare

A while back, I shamelessly asked for blogging ideas, and Sarah Tormey (I believe?) suggested I blog about how my writing process has changed since I began writing romance.

Gee, what an interesting question! Honestly, I am not sure. Let’s see. I’m currently writing my 6th romance novel (not counting the novella).

Things that have not changed: My pace of writing. Compared to many, I am a relatively slow writer. If I get 1500 words in a day, I’m thrilled. With deadlines every 5-6 months, this has meant I must be very disciplined and write almost every day. Of course, I inevitably fall behind–and I’m able to push myself to write 4 or 5,000 words in a day occasionally, when I need to. But that’s rare.

I still use the same method of plotting (or lack thereof). I tend to sketch out a fairly loose plot, basically strung around a series of “moments” I’m building toward (turning points, I suppose you might call them). But the connecting scenes between points A, B, C, etc. usually develop and evolve as I’m writing.

I like to think I’m a little better at identifying plot or characterization problems as they arise, and taking steps to correct them earlier rather later. Not perfectly prescient, of course, but to some degree I think I’ve internalized the voices of my trusted CPs and editor and can “hear” what they’d say before they say it.

Which leads me to another difference–I don’t exchange writing with critique partners as much as I used to. Or at least, not on a chapter-by-chapter basis. Part of that is sheer time constraints, but also just a certain comfort level we’ve gained with our own voices and craft. I still try to recruit several people to read finished drafts of every book so I can get a variety of reactions to the plot and characters, check for continuity and confusing scenes, etc. And if I’ve written myself into a corner, they help me talk me through it.

So those are my thoughts on it, unorganized as they might be. For the writers out there, how has your process evolved?

If you don’t watch the Bravo TV show Top Chef, this post won’t have much interest for you, sorry! But TC is one of…three?…TV shows I actually make a point to watch, and something’s been bugging me ever since this week’s “Restaurant Wars” episode. (Warning: Spoilers ahead, if you DVR’d it and haven’t watched yet.)

“Restaurant Wars” happens every season once the “cheftestants” are down to eight. They divide into teams of four, and each team opens a restaurant for one night. It’s usually an episode filled with drama and strife between competitors and lots of frantic rushing around. This year’s Restaurant Wars was no exception. The two team leaders were both chefs with lots of obvious talent and experience, and they’re two of my favorites on the show. Michael V. has this sort of hotheaded, foul-mouthed renegade image going on. To me, he has seemed awesomely talented, but somewhat inconsistent. The other team captain, Jennifer, I’ve come to associate with precision, consistent quality, coolness under pressure. In an earlier episode, she lead the entire team of contestants and really impressed me with her toughness.

During Restaurant Wars, however, Jennifer imploded. Now, there could be lots of reasons for it. But I think she had the better team of the two, and they just fell apart at every level. Because each of them has mad skillz, they kind of decided to divide and conquer–each person working to his or her own strengths. Jennifer didn’t get in anyone’s face. She just trusted her teammates to deliver the stunning, high-quality dishes they’ve produced in the past, and in the end they all failed (including Jennifer herself) to do so. During the critique portion of the show, host Tom Colicchio said that they needed someone to step up and lead, and no one did.

On the other hand, Michael V’s kitchen was a storm of drama, accusation, micromanaging and profanity. He had two people on his team who clash loudly and often, and a wider range of skills and experience to work with. He basically took control with an iron fist and a foul mouth, and in the end, all the food was amazing–his, most of all. The judges declared Mike V.’s restaurant to be the best Restaurant Wars effort on Top Chef, ever. Quite an accomplishment.

So what’s bugging me here is this. It reminded me of last season, when fan fave Carla imploded in the season finale after coming on strong and improving with each challenge. Once again, her implosion seemed to have a lot to do with leadership — she listened to her sous chef’s suggestions too much, and trusted her to do things that didn’t happen. Her consensus-building style ultimately worked to her detriment.

I know every man and every woman is an individual with his or her own unique brand of leadership or lack thereof. Generalizations are just that: generalizations. But what bugs me about this week’s Top Chef is that once again, it seemed like a female chef leading with what I consider a more feminine leadership style–trusting the talent of teammates, building consensus, leading by example–lost BIG time to a competitor running in full-tilt Alpha Male mode, complete with bullying and cursing. Even Michael V’s own brother said he was annoyed that Mike’s bad behavior was rewarded. But it was rewarded…because it worked.

Clearly there were other factors involved in how the episode went down, and I know editing plays a big role in how the events appear on TV. But after the Carla disappointment and Jennifer’s meltdown, I’m asking myself if a woman can succeed in a team challenge on that show (or in a real kitchen) without basically adopting an aggressive, dominant male personality. I find myself wondering, do the team members respond better to the Alpha male leadership because it’s truly more effective, or simply because it’s what they know and are used to?

I will admit, I never watched Top Chef very consistently until last season, so maybe I missed examples of women leading well and winning. Please bring them up if you have them. Other thoughts?

So, there was an article in the New York Times today that has generated some online discussion, much of which centers on whether it’s “stealing” for a Kindle user to allow a few friends to share her downloaded books. It’s not stealing, according to the terms of the Kindle user agreement. Customers are allowed to download a purchased book on up to five devices, much the same as a reader can pass a print book she’s purchased to her family and friends. Courtney Milan has a brilliant post today opining that such sharing is a reader’s right.

My own belief is that the sharing of books is not only a reader’s right, but an author’s benefit and a public good (that’s my librarian side showing). I’m not talking about piracy here, where a book is illegally downloaded thousands of times, but rather the sharing of purchased books amongst friends, family and neighbors. There’s a huge difference between the two.

I’ve had readers write to me to tell me they enjoyed my book(s), but then go on to apologize for the fact that they got the book from a library or a friend, rather than by purchasing it themselves. It just makes me sad that they feel they should apologize! Please, if any of you reading this feel that way – don’t. Feel free to write me and tell me your reactions about my books, however you obtained them. If your life is anything like mine, time is your most precious resource. The dedication of the 4, 6, 8+ hours it takes just to read the book is an investment worth far more than $6.99. However you got the book, if you expended the time, imagination, and emotional energy to engage with a story I wrote, I am grateful to you. You’ve certainly earned the right to comment on it!

Of course I like sales and royalties. Depend on them, as a matter of fact. But as an author, especially as a new author, I firmly believe that the total number of readers is the key to my building an audience. Some of the readers who’ve written me these apologetic letters go on to say that after borrowing my first book, they went out and bought the other two. Woohoo! That’s exactly the point. It would be shortsighted of me to look at that first instance of borrowing as a “missed” sale, when it in fact led to two additional ones.

In my debut trilogy, the heroines pass a book from one to the next–a bawdy little novel called The Memoirs of a Wanton Dairymaid. Essentially, it’s a romance novel. Lucy gives it to Sophia; Sophia gives it to Bel; Bel passes it on to Hetta… Along the way, a second copy must be purchased due to some of Sophia’s…ahem, artistic alterations to the original. Et voila! The Wanton Dairymaid’s author (Portia, by the way, from The Legend of the Werestag) has just scored a second sale–one she never would have made, had Lucy kept that book hidden beneath the false bottom of her stocking drawer.

Please, share my books with your friends. Borrow them from libraries. And don’t ever feel you should apologize.

Lately, a fair number of people have asked me whether I plan to write stories for some of the peripheral characters in my debut trilogy. First, let me say that I love those questions! I love it that people want to read more about them.

Just in case anyone else out there is wondering the same thing, let me answer here on the blog. And I should probably add this to the FAQ, too.

Joss
Before A Lady of Persuasion came out, lots of people were asking whether I’d write a Joss book. I tried to reply with coy “we’ll see” comments. And even after reading A Lady of Persuasion, some of them are still asking for a Joss book! (If you haven’t yet read ALOP, the following is a spoiler. Highlight the empty space to read it.)

I loved writing Joss and really wanted to give him a happy ending. Because I only had three books on this contract, I didn’t know that I’d ever have a chance to write him a book of his own, so I wrote his romance with Hetta as a secondary romance, and I was really happy with how it turned out. But even so, a lot of readers seem to want more of them. I’m considering writing a novella. At the end of ALOP, they are on their way to marry…but they haven’t tied the knot yet! Who knows what could happen… *wink* However, I can’t even think about writing such a story until I finish the third book of the new trilogy.

Davy
I do adore Davy, the fifteen-year-old green hand from Surrender of a Siren. Some people (some of them my very close friends) insist that he would make a wonderful hero, and I’m not opposed to the idea. Some even want him marrying one of Sophia and Gray’s daughters, which to me would seem rather awkward…but then, awkwardness makes for great story! Who knows. In my opinion, to make Davy into a hero who could carry his own novel, I would need to put him through a lot of hardship. And I’m not sure I want to do that to dear, sweet Davy! I haven’t ruled it out, but I have no plans to write such a story now.

The kidlets: Tommy, Lyddie, and all the other children at the end
This was a question I just got asked for the first time. I’d never even thought of it before! Aside from the few readers angling for a Davy/Miss Grayson romance, no one had asked about the other kids yet. There are a lot of them! And it might be fun to write about them…but then again, the same problem rears its head. It’s difficult to write a character-driven romance between two happy, well-adjusted people with parents who are living and loving, not to mention this entire circle of friendship and support they’ve developed. If I wanted to write a Tommy/Lyddie romance, for example, I would probably have to let something awful happen to at least one of them, and that would perhaps call into question the “Happy Ever After” ending of the original trilogy. So I don’t know.

In all cases, I would never say never! But aside from a continuation of Joss’s story, I don’t have specific plans to write any of them at this time.

Any other characters I forgot?

In other news…
Over at The Season, Surrender of a Siren was voted the readers’ Favorite Historical Romance for the month September! How exciting, and what an honor! Thanks to any of you who voted.

Oh, and tomorrow I’m signing books at the Fullerton Reads book festival in Fullerton, CA – from 11 AM to noon. This is a big event with fun for the whole family, so if you’re nearby, please drop in!

Hello, hope you all had a great weekend!

So, people have been asking about next year’s books, The Stud Club Trilogy. And I may as well start talking about them, since books one and two, One Dance with a Duke (5/25/10) and Twice Tempted by a Rogue (6/22/10), are now both available for pre-order! And because I’ve just recently received my lovely, sexy covers.

Oooh.

What’s different about this series, compared to the first trilogy? Well, they’re a smidge darker in tone, as you’ll see from the series’ inciting event, but they still have a fair amount of lightness and humor. The characters are all a little older and experienced than they were in my first set.

But I’m sure the burning question is, “What the heck is the Stud Club? Are you joking?”

Well, I will admit. Like so many elements in my stories (hello, Werestag?), it did start as a joke. After writing a series that was largely heroine-driven, I wanted to switch emphasis to the guys this time. And one logical way to do that was to create my own take on a “Regency bachelor club” series. And if I was going to do that, I thought, why not call it what it is? A Stud Club.

But the Stud Club actually does have a meaning, and to explain, I will quote from the proposal I submitted for the trilogy:

In Regency England, horseracing was known as “The Sport of Kings,” the collective passion of the wealthy and well-connected. Noblemen spent vast sums of money breeding, stabling, and training thoroughbred horses to compete for honors at racetracks like Newmarket and Epsom Downs. The Jockey Club was an actual gentlemen’s organization—its exclusive membership, which included the Prince of Wales, took responsibility for the schedule and rules of organized horseracing.

In this trilogy, “The Stud Club” is the brainchild of one good-humored and universally-liked gentleman: Leo Chatwick, the Marquess of Harcliffe. Years earlier, Leo purchased a valuable stallion at auction—Osiris, a champion racehorse now retired to stud. So many of his friends asked for the favor of breeding privileges, Leo devised the Stud Club as a lark—he had Osiris legally put in trust and created ten brass tokens to represent membership in the club.

It worked like this: possession of a token entitled a man to send his mares to be mated with the famed Osiris. However, tokens could never be purchased or given away, only won or lost in a game of chance. In this manner, Leo created a sensation within the ton—a club so elite it had only ten members, yet membership was attainable to anyone with luck.

As the years passed, the club was a source of good fun and camaraderie, forging unlikely alliances across class barriers and furthering Leo’s reputation as an excellent sport. He was friend to all, enemy of none.

But on the night the trilogy begins, Leo is brutally murdered.

Yeah, that would be the source of the slightly darker tone. Poor Leo. But as you see, the Stud Club remains a joke, even within the books. It’s Leo’s joke on a class-conscious society, and his legacy to his peers. The heroes of the trilogy are the Club’s three surviving members (Only three, Tessa? But you said ten tokens! I know, I know, all will be explained…), the titular duke, rogue and scoundrel. Only chance could unite three such different men, and after Leo’s death, suspicion drives them apart. In the search for meaning and justice, they each find love in unexpected places. Which is good, because boy, do they ever need it!

More on the guys another time…

In the meantime, let’s just gaze at the models portraying them…and sigh.

Thank you to those of you who left me blogging suggestions yesterday!  How my writing process has evolved…great idea, will do.  Teasers for next trilogy…oh, most definitely! But today I will direct you toward Petit Fours and Hot Tamales, where I’m blogging with my two critique partners, Courtney Milan and Amy Baldwin.  We were invited to discuss our critique relationship, and how it has evolved over the past three years.  And of course, you’ll learn why the nickname for our group of three writers is “The Two Geniuses.”

Happy Wednesday, everyone!

(That’s a quote from Disney’s Beauty and the Beast.  Ah, Lumiere.)

Hooray!  Twice Tempted by a Rogue is turned in to my editor! (And not a moment too soon, since it has just shown up on the Random House site! Release date June 22, 2010.)

This means I have emerged from the Deadline Cave.  I am blinking at the bright rays of the sun, and slowly catching up with email, snail mail, grocery shopping, reading, sleeping, and the like.

I’ve posted a new contest for October and November.  In honor of Isabel Grayson, heroine of A Lady of Persuasion and indefatigable advocate of social justice, and in recognition of the fact that October is Fair Trade Month, I’m giving away gift certificates to GlobalExchange, a nifty online store that specializes in fair trade products.

So, now that all my books are released and I’ve met this deadline, I should theoretically have more time to blog, hm?  And I realize that my blog audience has changed a bit in the past few months, so I’m not sure what all to blog about.  This year’s books?  Next year’s books? What’s new with the darelings? My writing process? Does anyone out there have a burning question…?

What should I blog about?  Any ideas welcome!  All (okay, most) questions answered!