The Stuff of Life


So…I “met” someone, and he and I have spent a lot of time getting to know one another over the past month. I meet a lot of people and have been fortunate to have more than my share of interest from men through the years, but in my life I have found a true connection with another to be mostly elusive. Not this time. Back on Valentine’s Day, I blogged about what I was looking for in a relationship, and this man checked every box…and then some. I admired his character and accomplishments. His intellect excited me. His heart touched mine. We were kindred spirits with sizzling chemistry. Best of all, his feelings seemed even stronger than mine–nothing on earth is sexier than a man you like ardently desiring you and being unafraid to show it. We met in a seemingly random way that I don’t believe was random at all. It felt like kismet.

All of the details are precious and private, but suffice it to say that roadblocks appeared. It became apparent that, because of a complex series of circumstances, he couldn’t make me one of the priorities in his life. I knew that, given what we had already experienced, settling for less than his full measure would only make me sad and frustrated, so I felt I had to let him go. It wasn’t what I wanted. I don’t think it’s what he wanted, either. We’re two smart people, so I find myself wondering if we worked hard enough to solve this. When the universe gives you something, is it wrong to give it back? Or maybe it was never really given? How do you trust your instincts when they are an amalgamation of fear, regret and hope? Can this be fixed? I just don’t know…

I DO know this: Connection. Interaction with others. This is the stuff of life. It’s what is really important. It’s why we’re here. It’s simple, really. So why do most of us find it so darn hard?

Revisiting Cardinal Memories

Cardinal Memories: Recollections from Baseball’s Greatest Fans (University of Missouri Press, 2000)

I love romance novels, and I love the St. Louis Cardinals. At first glance, those two passions may sound incongruous, but they really aren’t: To be a baseball fan is to embark on a lifelong love affair of a sort, one you can’t end no matter how many times your team breaks your heart. My first book, a collection of stories about the Cardinals, was an ode to the devotion that every baseball fan understands. I thought I would share one of the tales here. Though the book was published nearly two decades ago, it is still available on the publisher’s website (,1611.aspx), and via Amazon.


Why You Gotta Be So Mean?

Mean Girls (2004). Photo courtesy of Paramount Pictures.

It happened, as many childhood traumas do, in the school cafeteria. In eighth grade, I ate my PB&J or lunch room fare every day with my best friend, Laurie*, and her friend Kate. We were neither popular nor unpopular—merely part of the vast junior high middle class. As we shared our Hostess snack cakes and dissected the minutiae of our lives each day, I discovered that I didn’t like Kate. She tended to brag about her dad’s income a lot. Though she was an average adolescent like most of us, gawky with glasses and braces, she regularly made biting comments about many other girls, particularly those whose families were known in our small town to be on welfare. And while she was a solid “B” student on her own merits, she had no qualms about cheating for an “A.”

Though I came to dislike the time I spent with Kate, it never occurred to me to stop eating lunch with her, or even to ask Laurie why they were friends—I blindly accepted her as part of a package deal. Thus we were still dining together at the end of the school year, when the yearbooks were passed out. Our school ritual was to bring our yearbooks to the cafeteria, and visit each other’s tables during lunch, thus gathering all of our desired signatures in one fell swoop. On that day, Kate surveyed the cafeteria, carefully choosing her targets, and motioned over two classmates, Chris and Terri. Both girls were the antitheses of Kate: They came from lower-income homes, wore second-hand clothing and were in need of dental work. They were quiet and shy, the kind of girls who deserve better but usually pass invisibly through the halls and do without invitations to the homecoming dance.

Chris and Terri walked reluctantly to our table. They had no relationship with Kate, and seemed somewhat nervous to be singled out by her. However, when she smiled and sweetly told them that she wanted to sign their yearbooks, they handed her the tomes. Kate opened Terri’s yearbook, turned to Terri’s picture, and proceeded to scribble out her photo. Amazingly, after witnessing this, Chris permitted the same defacement. The most deplorable thing was that I watched it all and said and did nothing. I wasn’t afraid of Kate. I was an only child, supremely confident, and I remember thinking to myself, “These girls need to stick up for themselves. I would.”

Ah, but it wasn’t as simple as that. I thought about Chris and Terri all summer, about how they must have felt that day, about how even the purchase of those (not inexpensive) yearbooks must have been a financial sacrifice for their parents. And I realized my responsibility, as a human being, to help and defend those who can’t defend themselves.

I started high school profoundly changed. I never ate lunch again with Kate; eventually, that meant not hanging out with Laurie, so I made a new best friend (upgrade!).  Most importantly, I never again allowed bullying to happen in front of me without speaking up. My class had three notorious bullies, and I tangled with each of them throughout high school, almost always in defense of others. It made for some unpleasant days, but the alternative would have been unthinkable. Speaking up for others actually made me stronger and even more confident. And then a funny thing happened—by the time my senior year rolled around, I had become one of the most popular kids in school! That was never my motivation. I only wanted to help. And I hope that when I interceded for other kids, it made them feel less alone. But I am still haunted by the fact that I didn’t do it for Chris and Terri.

* All names have been changed.

Romance’s Detractors and Benefactors…Who’s Right?

Are romance novels badly written? The debate seemingly never ends.

Romance is the (old-school reference alert) Rodney Dangerfield of genre fiction. A month seldom passes when a noted writer doesn’t (at least seemingly) disparage romance novels and/or authors, inevitably sparking a spirited defense of the genre from its writers and fans. This happened again a few days ago when Curtis Sittenfeld, in a piece promoting Eligible, her modern retelling of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, stated that “most romances are badly written.” After reading two days worth of social media comments on the dust-up, I feel the need to offer my own defense of the genre…and Sittenfeld, too.

There is a school of thought that says writers should nurture other writers, and never criticize them. After all, anyone who has ever written a book knows how hard it is. Maybe not digging a ditch in a drought hard, but sometimes it feels like the mental equivalent. So we writers should support one another. And anyway, criticism is what readers are for, right? But most writers, however renowned, are still readers first. So naturally, we have opinions on what we read, whether we share them or not.

I’ve been an obsessive reader all my life—I devour biographies, cookbooks, classics and literary fiction. But I can say without hesitation or embarrassment that I love romance novels best. Ask me my desert island genre and that’s it. Anything else is not. Even. Close. So…do I think most romances are badly written? Reading is an inherently subjective experience; we each apply our own tastes and life experiences to every story we consume, so no two of us will ever look at a book exactly the same way. How then do we quantify “good” or “bad”? One way is to look at certain technical aspects of a work, like dialogue tags or punctuation. Any introductory MFA class or fiction how-to blog will tell aspiring writers to keep dialogue tags simple: Use “said” and “asked” and nothing else. Avoid tags entirely whenever you can. Also, adverbs are the devil. Exclamation points? More than one or two per 100,000 words is probably too many. Many writers in many genres follow these rules. Very few romance writers do. There are romance authors who routinely have characters giggle, breathe, laugh and sigh dialogue, or exclaim repeatedly. Personally, I dislike dialogue tags that are not variations of “said,” and I don’t use them. (How on earth does one giggle dialogue, anyway?) That said, characters in my novel routinely “reply,” “mutter,” etc. As a reader, I enjoy this sort of variety, so I write that way, too, even though it would set an MFA professor’s teeth on edge. I think it’s worth noting that in Pride and Prejudice, Austen routinely uses dialogue tags like “cried” and “exclaimed,” and she shows some big love for adverbs. So, if romance writers use more dialogue tags than some deem acceptable, and we sprinkle those adverbs around liberally, I don’t think it automatically indicates “bad” writing. Maybe we just learned from the master.

Another way we can try to quantify what’s “good” or “bad” is by examining a book’s editing, or lack thereof. Using this yardstick, a lot of romance novels—especially those that are self-published, but also many that are traditionally published—come up short. A good book takes time. To quote Phyllis A. Whitney, “a good book isn’t written—it’s rewritten.” When I finished the first draft of my debut romance, Heaven in the Dark, I laid it aside for weeks and came back to it with fresh eyes. Since I am also a professional editor, I gave it a structural edit (whether, like a lawyer, I had a fool for a client, is another subject) and multiple rounds of revisions before sharing it with beta readers. With their feedback, I made more revisions and then had another round of beta reading. Finally, I copy edited and proofread the manuscript within an inch of its life. That process—from writing the first word to self-publication—took me nearly a year. After all of that, I still found a typo in the published book. I am fortunate that I am not relying on my income as a novelist to make a living, because a self-published romance author who produces only one book per year will probably not grow rich from her words. The formula for self-published romance success is to produce as many books as you can, as quickly as you can—that’s why so many self-published authors release partial books, serials or cliffhangers. If they want to survive and thrive financially, they have to rush to publish. So, even if they have the funds for and access to a good editor (and many don’t), their manuscripts are often hastened through the editing process. The end result is wildly uneven quality: I’ve read many self-published romance novels that needed major structural editing; I’ve read others that are full of distracting plot inconsistencies and/or typos; and I’ve read some that are beautifully written and masterfully edited. While there are certainly authors out there who are in it for a money grab, I firmly believe that most romance writers write because they have to. They are producing the best book they can, because they want to contribute to a genre they love. That’s how I feel, anyway.

So, if poor editing makes a book bad, then there are some bad romances—and not just the self-published variety. When I was a child, I used to marvel at how books never had typos. Mistakes were scarce as hen’s teeth, as my grandma would say. Now, I can’t remember the last time I read a book with no typos. In fact, I routinely see dozens of errors in books put out by the “Big Five” publishers—in all genres. The big corporations are feeling the same rush to publish, the same financial pressure, as indie authors.

Writing style. Editing. Maybe we can try to rate a book based on those criteria, but ultimately a novel is about characters. Plot. And I don’t think those things can ever be evaluated objectively. I recently visited Amazon and Goodreads to peruse reviews of some of my all-time favorite novels, from a Pulitzer Prize winner like Margaret Mitchell’s Gone with the Wind to a critical darling like Jess Walter’s Beautiful Ruins to a beloved romance classic like Judith McNaught’s Whitney, My Love. I adore all three of these love stories. Yet, if you read any review site, there are readers who hated them. Whitney, My Love, a historical romance, features a hero who at one point takes the heroine by force. For me, in the story’s setting and context, it made sense, and didn’t detract from their love. Some readers, however, saw the hero as a brutal rapist. I respect their opinions. One reader’s “badly written romance” is another’s five-star experience, and both are right.

Like most genres, romance has its conventions. Some critics feel that makes the stories stale or limited. As a reader, I have my favorite tropes, and seeing how an author will tackle a trope—what new twists she’ll bring to it—is one of the things I love best about the genre. Within its confines, romance is constantly being reinvented and reinvigorated—I feel like right now the genre is absolutely bursting with talent and creativity. Does the increase in the volume of romance novels mean that there is more dreck? Probably. But it means that there are more great books, too! These days, there is truly something for everyone; it just may take a little longer to find exactly what you want. We’ve all read books that we knew were perfectly well written, but they didn’t hold that spark for us. Other times, we find books that we want to climb inside and live forever. I discovered Tessa Bailey a few months ago—if you haven’t read her work, she is the absolute queen of dirty talking alpha heroes—and if I could, I would crawl inside her Line of Duty series and become one of her heroines. That’s how vivid and engaging those stories and characters are—her books take me to another world and make me sorry I can’t stay there. Ditto Kresley Cole’s The Game Maker series, a trio of erotic masterpieces with genius plotting and banter so clever it would give the Gilmore Girls envy.

In summary, even though I bristle when anyone derides romance, I can also admit that—as with every genre—not every novel is a Darcy. Some of them are Wickhams. And often my Darcy is your Wickham, and vice versa. I admire Sittenfeld’s work and think her comments are an opportunity for all of us who write romance to keep striving to better our own craft and lift up the genre as much as we can. What I would really love to see are more writers like Alyssa Rosenberg, journalists who truly love and appreciate the genre and write about it critically but also respectfully (and even passionately). Mainstream publications (I’m looking at you, New York Times) are still largely unwilling to regularly review romance, despite its immense popularity and profitability. That needs to change. Rodney Dangerfield understood.

HEAVEN IN THE DARK Is Now on Kindle Unlimited


Are you a Kindle Unlimited subscriber? HEAVEN IN THE DARK is now available on KU, which means it’s FREE. Check it out:

If you’re not a KU subscriber and you love romance, it’s definitely worth a trial. I discovered several favorite authors via KU, including R.S. Grey (sexy romcoms) and Marie Force (glorious insta-love). Give ’em a try!



My Hero…the Porn Star?

NOTE: This post contains explicit language/sexual content. 18+ Only.


Late last year, I read a romance novel featuring a porn star hero. It was steamy, and I enjoyed it, but it was clear that the author either knew nothing about adult entertainment or, if she did, she knew the realities of the industry might prejudice readers against her hero. So, conveniently, even though he was a “star,” the hero had made only a handful of films and had a very small number of sexual partners. He also loathed his job and gave it up immediately after meeting the heroine to pursue “worthwhile” work. The words “porn star,” when applied to men, often conjure images of virility, endowment and sexual prowess, and that was the case in this book—the hero was skilled in bed. However, he was a porn star in name only—the character was completely unrealistic, with no basis in reality, and the story was essentially a fairy tale. When I finished reading it, I wondered: “Wouldn’t there be a lot of messy realities to sort through if/when a porn star fell in love with a civilian (i.e. someone who doesn’t work in the adult industry)? What if he’d been with hundreds or thousands of women, as would be likely for a veteran star? What if he loved some aspects of his job? And what if she had her own baggage? What if she was absolutely repulsed by his career? Is there a way through all of that to a happy ending? How?”

FYI, romance novels about porn stars seem to be in vogue right now. A quick check of Goodreads reveals that nearly a dozen porn star romances were published over the last couple of years, with at least two more due this spring. Only one of these stories features an adult performer heroine (I would guess this is because society is more accepting of men having lots of sex partners than it is of women—porn men can be “alpha males” but porn women are “sluts”—but that’s a subject for another blog post); all of the other books pair a male porn star with a civilian. And in pretty much every story, the hero is cocky, confident, sexy, has a minimum of emotional baggage and is happy to quit porn at the drop of a condom for the love of a good woman, which my gut tells me is superficial and probably flat-out wrong.

A few days after I’d read this novel and mulled over all of the above, I woke up at 2:00 a.m. with a new character in my head. Yup—a porn star. I could picture him so vividly that I knew trying to sleep would be futile, so I grabbed my laptop and spent the next five hours furiously writing down everything I saw. When the dust settled, and I read through a rough draft of the first two chapters of something, I realized that to tell this story truthfully—to make it as gritty and realistic as the characters needed it to be—I needed to learn more about porn.

Previously, porn was only on my radar in a general sense—I knew crossover pop culture figures like Ron Jeremy and Jenna Jameson, and I’d flipped past the odd softcore clip on Cinemax or the Playboy Channel when I was a kid, but it had never held any interest for me, and I had never watched a film, or even a scene. I knew that had to change, so I put Google on the case and soon had a handful of clips of top male stars to view. The first surprise was that the men were more attractive than I expected—and not one of them had a Village People/porn ’stache. Okay. Time to hit “Play.” Clip #1: A little intro dialogue set the scene, which took place in a bathroom, and that was the extent of a plot. The male performer, a 40-something veteran, and his much younger co-star rolled through a series of sex acts—various intercourse positions, plus oral—like they were ticking them off a checklist. When she went to give him a blowjob, he grabbed her head and forced her to deep throat him. She immediately came off of him and (off-camera) vomited into the sink; after a brief fade in the footage, she was back to work. Okay. Time to hit “Stop.” Needless to say, I found nothing about this arousing—dude was just too rough. #NotMyJam

The Village People knew how to rock a porn ‘stache.

The next two videos were, content-wise, almost the same: Each pair of performers rotated through a variety of acts and positions with a minimum of dialogue, touching or affection. I found it all very soulless and mechanical. I wish I could say I was titillated at some point but, quite frankly, I was only bored.

On to clip #4, which starred a performer named Mick Blue. As soon as the scene began, I could tell it would be different, as Mick spent a lot of time up front kissing and caressing his partner. Once they began having sex, he continued to touch her and maintain eye contact throughout. I’m not sure if Mick was attempting to bring romance to the storyline, or just showing care and consideration for the girl with whom he was paired, but his actions were actually romantic—unlike anything I’d seen in the other clips, and more akin to what one would find in a mainstream film. Maybe this was an atypical scene for Mick—I haven’t watched others to know—but his demonstrative actions were a million times sexier than the emotionless gymnastics of the other clips, and he impressed in a way no one else did.

Feeling sufficiently familiar with porn content, my next step was to gain a better understanding of how the industry works, and of the personalities of the performers and their fans. I decided to do this by interacting with the community on Twitter, so I created a secondary Twitter account exclusively for my research and dug in. (I want to emphasize that I’m not embarrassed to interact with adult performers on my primary account—in fact, I have—but I thought I’d be better able to talk with people honestly if I didn’t advertise that I was a romance writer: Romance novelists—like porn stars—are often discounted/disrespected.)

After only a couple days of reading tweets from stars and fans, one thing jumped out at me: Loneliness was rampant—among both performers and their followers. The first person with whom I chatted was a 30ish male fan from the Netherlands, who followed many female stars. He often tweeted comments to them along the lines of “Thank God for porn. I wouldn’t get off without it, since women hate sex.” After reading a string of his tweets on this theme (none of which were acknowledged by the stars or other fans), I felt obliged to respond, telling him that I enjoyed sex and thought most women did, and wished him better luck. He replied with his thanks, saying he felt as though he were “in an ocean with not a drop to drink” and that he’d felt lonely and invisible to women for years. This was a theme I would see repeated constantly.

Since the porn star in my story is male, and I wanted insight into his potential mindset, I spent much of my time reading tweets from the men and their fans. However, I did follow some key women, and had a few takeaways on female performers: 1) They are younger than I realized—many as young as 18 and few over 30. While many male stars are in their 30s or 40s and have been working for a decade or more, the shelf life of female performers is much shorter. 2) The girls/women who were in relationships were almost exclusively with men also in the industry. I’m sure there are some, but I didn’t run across a single woman who was dating a civilian. Many ladies who were unattached tweeted regularly that they were horny, lonely or wished they had a significant other. Their reluctance to date anyone who isn’t tested for STDs every 14 days (as porn performers are), and the fact that many men look down on women who’ve had so many sexual partners, seems to make dating civilians a rarity. 3) Drug use is common and acknowledged (this is true of the men, too—not even counting the ED drugs/injections most men use on-set), especially smoking pot, and there were scores of tweets about using, as well as complaint tweets about shoots being cancelled because various female performers flaked/were no-shows/were high, etc. 4) The wish list phenomenon (in which female performers ask fans to buy them clothing, jewelry, etc.) is distasteful. Not all of the women have wish lists. And some state that in lieu of gifts, fans may donate to a favored charity. Others, though, spend a lot of time angling for gifts. 5) Garish stripper platforms and over-pronounced eyebrows are (mostly) prerequisites for filming. As a woman with a penchant for beautiful Italian heels, I found the shoes baffling. Men must like them? #AlsoNotMyJam

As much as you can get to know anyone from his/her tweets (and some Twitter accounts read like virtual diaries), I found the women in porn to be just like any other cross-section of women. Some were uneducated, depressed, troubled, from abused backgrounds, etc., and seemed fragile and very ill-served by their present careers. Other performers came across as disingenuous, their bios stating how much they loved their work, when what they really appeared to love was that the work is lucrative (top stars can earn low- to mid-six figures annually); these were the performers whose tweets were always in sales mode—“buy my movies/clips, look at my wish list, watch my Cam Show, come see me feature dance.” Such relentless shilling and manipulation is a feminist’s nightmare. However, there are also women in the genre who are strong, business savvy, compassionate and intelligent. One star live-tweeted a Republican debate with such wit and insight that I found myself wishing she were the moderator. And I was particularly impressed with Anikka Albrite, whose tweets about art and animals consistently entertained, and who on multiple occasions reached out with kind words to someone in need. (FYI, Anikka happens to be married to Mick Blue, and I fell a little in love with this couple. They both have a lot of heart and humanity.) I didn’t have any preconceived notions about female performers, and I was not surprised to find strong, smart women in porn—we as a society have a tendency to paint everyone with the same brush, and that is always a mistake.

That’s what I gleaned from the women. But the point of my research was to get insight into male stars, and their fans. So what did I learn? I learned that there is no one stereotypical porn star—that’s for sure. Several younger stars seemed to be in it for the obvious reason: lots of sex. Some of the men clearly loved women, while others were blatant misogynists—one performer even regularly offered “fat-shaming” tweets. Mick Blue? Well, he adores his wife and is awesome, as expected.

In my timeline, one star stood out: a veteran performer who was a man’s man but also thoughtful, sensitive, romantic and sensual, successful in his field but also conflicted, and he wore his heart on his sleeve—or at least on his app. In short, he shared many traits with my character. In his tweets, this man spoke frankly about the clinical nature of his work; about his loneliness and longing for a relationship; and his desire for purpose and meaning in his life. He shared his past struggles with addiction and depression. On multiple occasions, his words were tinged with sadness and near-despair, and I felt compelled to reply. He subsequently ended up following me and we exchanged DMs. Though he never said it outright, I inferred that he’s ready for a different path—one without porn. And though he’s usually dated fellow porn stars, I inferred that he’s open to a new path there, too. It appeared that he had few people in his life who were not either in the adult industry, or fans; at one point, I offered my (more objective?) friendship, as I felt empathetic—I am a Pisces and he is a sign I understand—but as a stranger, my purview was limited. Nonetheless, I ached for his struggles and felt…sad. I still do.

Whenever this star tweeted about his feelings, he was inundated with replies. A handful were always of the “Cheer up. You da man. You’ve got the greatest job on earth” variety, but most were sympathetic men and women commiserating, stating that they, too, were lacking love in their lives. As I mentioned earlier, if there was one theme that dwarfed all others in the Porn Twitterverse, it was the sadness/loneliness in the hearts of so many performers and fans. I found myself wondering why. Were fans drawn to porn in part because they were lonely? Or was their attraction to and reliance upon porn isolating them even more from the “real” world? From meaningful human interaction? And how does porn affect its performers? The inherent intimacy of making love—the eye contact, the emotional and/or physical connection—is largely stripped away in porn. And, repetition can lead to desensitization. Do those things affect stars when they step away from the camera? Is porn a product that is potentially harmful to both its creators and its consumers, making them lonelier than most? Or, are these performers and fans just more vocal and honest about something—loneliness—that is an epidemic across society? As Thoreau said, “Most men lead lives of quiet desperation.” The answer is probably a mix of all of the above.

One more note about that male star: He’s my age, and a chunk of his fandom is women in their 30s/40s/50s. These ladies regularly flattered and propositioned him, and their tweets almost always went unacknowledged. However, when women in their early 20s with model-ish profile pics tweeted him, they almost always received a reply, occasionally with an invitation. Why men in their 40s/50s so often want to date women in their 20s—even when the traits they profess to desire are most likely found in women their own age—is another subject, but I raise it here because of the frequent age difference between men and women in porn. When 50ish men are routinely sexing up 19-year-old girls, it can’t help but impact performers and viewers.

After weeks of immersing myself in the XXX world, I went back to work on my manuscript with a new perspective…and a rather heavy heart. My heroine’s heart was heavy, too, sadness permeating her words. One of the first things she told the hero was that she felt she had nothing special she could give to him…there was nothing he hadn’t already experienced a thousand times over. Fortunately, they’ve since begun to realize that there are some things they can give each other that neither has had before. It remains to be seen if and how they’ll get to happily ever after.

It’s funny. At first glance, porn and romance novels make strange bedfellows (pun intended). While explicit sex scenes are welcome and often important, a great love story ultimately succeeds because of the characters’ emotional bond. Porn, on the other hand, is purely physical. Yet there is no denying that the two genres feed some of the same needs and desires. It’s well known that men respond more to visual stimuli, while for women, our brains are our biggest erogenous zones and we are turned on by the written word. Is it fair to say that romance novels (largely written by/for females) are empowering to women, while porn (largely produced by/for males, although that’s changing a tiny bit) gives the control to men? Whatever your opinion, I think we can agree on one thing: Romance reader and/or porn fan—all of us are longing for connection.

Playing with the Queen of Hearts: Chance, Choice and Fate

Photo credit: Unknown

For obvious reasons, many people are thinking and talking about love and romance today, me included. My Twitter pal Mollie, who is single, wrote a lovely blog piece on what she is looking for in a relationship (, which inspired me to do the same.

As background, I’ve been in love a couple of times, but I’ve never married, and it’s been a while since I was involved with anyone. For me, being single is a mix of chance and choice, with perhaps a dash of fate. I’ve been accused many times of being “too picky,” but when it comes to love and attraction, you either feel it or you don’t. When I am alone, I enjoy the person I am with–most of us know from experience that it’s far lonelier to be with someone else with whom we have no connection, than it is to just be by ourselves. I was surrounded by divorces and unhappy relationships growing up, and I think that made me determined that I would never settle. I’m also not someone who has ever actively sought to meet men–no or Tinder for me. I’ve always believed that the thing to do is live my best life, and if I’m out there living it, what’s meant for me will find me.

But what do I want? As I’ve gotten older, the list has gotten shorter, and the criteria more important. The only true nonstarter for me is a smoker. Clearing that hurdle, these are the qualities in a man that I value most:

1) Creativity, with his head and/or hands. Whether a man is a painter or musician or writer, a furniture-builder or another sort of craftsman, I’m drawn to people with imagination…people who can look past reality to see possibilities. I’m (cursed to be) a Pisces, so I’m a dreamer and an idealist, and I’ve learned that men who don’t share these traits usually don’t mesh with me.

2) Funny and possesses a good sense of humor. This is one of those traits that is crucial, but hard to describe. Either someone makes you laugh, or they don’t. They see humor where you do, or they don’t. I’m reminded of the Seinfeld ep where Jerry falls in love with a character played by Janeane Garafalo, who is basically a female version of himself. When someone points that out, Jerry agrees: “I’ve swept myself off of my feet.” That’s kind of what I’m looking for.

3) Intelligence/sensitivity. I couldn’t care less whether someone has a college diploma. In fact, I’ve met some very unintelligent, uninteresting people with advanced degrees. However, I could never be with someone who wasn’t smart…able to reason and think critically, and take an interest in the larger world. Spirituality and political and social issues are important to me, and I want to be with someone who is also engaged by those things. Hand in hand with this is someone who is also in touch with his feelings, and willing to share them.

4) A healthy attitude about money. I have dated a spendthrift, and a miser. Both were equal turn offs. I (believe I) have a healthy attitude about money. I have no debts and have always been a responsible saver/investor, but I also don’t hesitate to treat myself to things that enhance my life–be that food and drink with good friends, travel or personal luxuries. A partner who doesn’t have similar financial beliefs is a recipe for disaster.

5) Chemistry. Ah, the most elusive trait of all. We either feel it or we don’t. With the exception of (the exceptional) Jamie Dornan, I don’t have the tastes of the masses. I mean, I went to college with Brad Pitt, and I thought he was “okay”–cute, but just not my type. (Nor I his, needless to say!) But I do have a physical type, usually guys with brown hair and brown eyes. And nice forearms and hands make me swoon.  Chemistry–to me–is both that can’t-keep-your-hands-off-of-each other physical desire, and a spiritual/emotional connection. I want my lover to be my best friend.

6) He has to want me. As I mentioned, I’m a Pisces. If you believe there is something to astrology (as I do), then you may know that Pisceans are intuitive and nurturing. We are sensitive and love to take care of others in every way possible, and in my past, this always manifested as me doing all of the giving. I take full responsibility for it; I was drawn to black holes of emotional need, and they eagerly took all of the nurturing I gave. But there was no reciprocity. Now, I recognize that flaw, and anyone I choose to be with in the future will have to really want me, and demonstrate the same.

There are many other, more superfluous, things I could add to the list: I love music, love to travel, to cook, to hike, to watch sports, and someone who shares those interests would be great, but the core values and traits above are my priorities.

I have a lot of female friends in their 30s, 40s and 50s who, like me, are single and (mostly) never married. They are all bright and attractive women. I think ideally, we’d all like to be in relationships. I would. When you get right down to it, we are really only here on earth for two reasons: 1) to love others; 2) to use our lives for some good purpose. I believe people operate at a higher frequency and have more to give when they love, and are loved. And I wouldn’t be a romance novelist if I didn’t believe in the fulfillment that a romantic partnership can offer. Through knowing and loving another, we discover more of ourselves, too. I certainly want that for myself, and everyone else. That said, anyone who has ever picked up an issue of Cosmo has seen the stats and statements on the odds of a 30+ woman finding love: “The odds aren’t good, and the goods are odd.”

So, for me, I plan to keep my heart open, but never settle. I’ve read a lot of HEAs, written a couple, and even seen a few in real life, so I know they do exist. In the meantime, I have to be true to myself. We all do. Chance. Choice. Fate.

On my next blog post: What I Learned about Love and Relationships from Studying Porn.

Keep It in the Closet

My dream closet: an airy, sophisticated, orderly refuge.

I’m both a clothes horse and a neat freak, two traits that do not necessarily play well together. Consequently, I make it a point to regularly clean out my closet. I enjoy the process (it feeds both my shopping and my culling tendencies) but even those who dread it usually find that the results make the process worthwhile: A clean closet/concisely edited wardrobe saves time and makes you look and feel better.

The new year is a great time to pare down, declutter and generally lighten the load. I started off 2016 by overhauling my closet/wardrobe, and thought I would share some of my tips, tricks and lessons learned. There are hundreds of great closet cleaning/organizing suggestions out there, but this is the process that works best for me, and I think it’s pretty foolproof! Here are a few things to keep in mind before you begin:

1. Know your style. If you don’t, take some time to identify it. When you look at Pinterest or fashion mags/sites, what looks do you gravitate toward? Soft and feminine? Boho chic? I would peg my style as “classic with an edge.” My go-to looks are jeans with blazers or biker jackets and heels/boots/booties, pencil skirts and silk blouses, tailored suits or trousers, and LBDs. My pieces are predominantly black, and often embellished with edgy rocker-chic details. Yet one of the items I pulled from my closet this go-round was a Lily Pulitzeresque sundress. It was frothy, feminine and lovely, and its aqua shade entranced me when I bought it, but it wasn’t me. It hung in my closet unworn for ages before I accepted that I would never wear it and sent it on its way. Which brings me to number two:

2. Forget about sunk costs. We’ve all bought clothes we’ve never worn, and it seems such a waste to get rid of a garment with tags still attached. We trick ourselves into thinking that if we hang onto it, we might wear it, and therefore we didn’t waste the money. Here is where you have to be honest with yourself. The funds are spent and can’t be recovered (a sunk cost). If you won’t wear the garment, you are burdening yourself by keeping it; just let it go.

3. Consider your age and how you want your wardrobe to work for you. When I was in my 20s and my style was still evolving, if a trend looked good on me, I bought it, no matter how impractical or flash-in-the-pan. Most of those clothes have now been discarded. By my mid-30s, I decided to buy primarily investment pieces, timeless classics that will never go out of style. Most of these items–tailored pencil skirts, cashmere sweaters–will work as well for me in 20 years as they do now. (I know we’re talking about culling and not shopping, but here is where I have to advise you to always buy the very best quality you can afford. Don’t spend money that you don’t have, but the adage is true: One quality item is worth ten cheaper versions. With care and maintenance it can give you many seasons of wear and in some cases will last a lifetime.) I don’t believe in hard and fast style rules. I think anything potentially works these days: I wear white after Labor Day, and I have a chic friend who is 50 who can rock a miniskirt without looking like “mutton dressed as lamb.” However, I do urge you to consider your age, lifestyle and goals–and how your clothes can project and aid you in those pursuits–when you turn a critical eye to your closet.

One of my style staples–boots and more boots.

Once you know your style and free yourself from regrets over any “wasted” spending, it’s time to open those doors and dig in. I like to pull everything out of the closet and pile all like items together. Then the fun begins–trying it all on. It’s like a day at the mall, and you’re guaranteed to find things you forgot you had. Pick one category at a time, e.g. jeans, try each item on, and ruthlessly evaluate it. Does it fit? (My weight has a tendency to fluctuate by 10 pounds, so I let myself keep garments that are one size too big or one size too small. That’s it.) Is the item in style? Does it flatter my body? Do I feel good in it and love it? (I always ask myself: Would I feel comfortable in this if I were wearing it when I met a VIP?) If you can’t answer yes to all questions, toss it out.

At the end of this process, you should have a large pile of rejects. I had six big bags full, half of which went to a consignment store, and the remainder to charity. The items that passed muster and stayed are things that are stylish, flattering and, most of all, are pieces that I truly love. I like my closet organized by type of garment, and then within that type by color (did I mention that I’m anal?), so I put all of the keepers back in the closet using this system. It’s especially aesthetically pleasing if all of your hangers match–ribbon-pink Huggable Hangers are my weapons of choice.

Now that the hardest part is over, it’s time to turn the same ruthless eye to undergarments, footwear, handbags and accessories. Although I keep my closet neat and cull it every year, I had been lax in going through my jewelry. This time around, I gave it a hard edit and reduced my collection by about one-third. Costume and fine jewelry both were tossed out. You may find yourself hesitant to part with gold, platinum or gemstone pieces, but if you don’t love or wear them (and there’s no extraordinary sentimental value attached), let them go. Sunk costs! They’re just taking up space. These days, you can easily sell those pieces for cash back.

Displaying some of my most-frequently worn costume, vintage and fine jewelry pieces makes it easy to “grab and go” in the morning.

It’s a fact that we wear what we see so, if space allows, I recommend displaying your favorite and most-worn jewelry pieces artfully on beautiful trays. You’ll probably find yourself reaching for things more often than you would if they’re stowed away in a jewelry box.

When you’ve completed the process, you’ll have a mini department store in your closet, one that is a pleasure to “shop” each morning. And, if you’re like me, you’ll feel good that you’ve unburdened yourself and simplified your life just a bit. An organized home really does make for an organized mind and an organized life. Studies show it can help you think more clearly and work more efficiently. Here’s to lightening the load in 2016!

Taylor Swift Is More

As some of you know, before I started writing and editing full time, I spent 20 years as a music publicist. Over that time, I had the chance to work with hundreds of (usually) amazing artists, from newcomers to living legends to contemporary superstars. Often, people ask me which artist was my favorite to work with, and I never hesitate to tell them that it was Taylor Swift. The next question is usually a variation of, “Is she really as wonderful as she seems?” The answer is, “More.” I’ve had the good fortune to work with Taylor numerous times over the last decade, and I’d like to share two stories that illustrate her grace, class, empathy and intelligence.

On one occasion, Taylor was doing an interview with Matt Lauer in the gallery at a popular Nashville museum. Behind a stanchioned-off area, a large group of lucky museum visitors had gathered to watch. I knew from past experiences that Taylor usually spent time with fans at such events. However, on this date, she was on a very tight schedule and due to fly to London immediately after the interview. When Taylor finished with Matt, several members of her team hurried her to the elevator and out of the gallery, bypassing the fans. I remained with Matt and his crew, and remarked that I was surprised her companions  were able to get her to leave without a visit to those fans. No sooner had I uttered those words–a total of perhaps 60 seconds since Taylor’s departure–than the elevator doors opened again and Taylor stepped out. She immediately went over to the fans and spent time with them, tirelessly hugging and posing for selfies, before she departed. This tells you two things about Taylor: 1) While she may have a great management staff working with her, she makes the decisions; and 2) She never turns down a chance to make people happy, to make their day brighter. Honestly, I felt ebullient myself just watching how much joy she brought to those lucky museum visitors.

Taylor performs at Bridgestone Arena on Sept. 25, 2015. (Photo: Tina Wright)

On another occasion, Taylor was again at the museum, this time for an interview with ABC. While the crew was setting up, I had the chance to hang out with her one-on-one. We mostly shared girl talk–comparing notes on fashion, among other things. She was extremely complimentary about my style and what I wore–this from someone who is one of the world’s best-dressed women. She complimented my PR work, hugged me, and laughed and chatted with me as though I were a member of her #squad instead of just a casual colleague. Though there were other industry and media folks around, not once did she look over my shoulder. When we were talking, she was wholly PRESENT, and made me feel like there was no place she’d rather be than with me. This is the gift of people who are truly charismatic: They don’t drone on and on about themselves, no matter how accomplished they are. Rather, they make everyone with whom they come into contact feel special. Taylor has this ability in spades.

In two decades in the music industry, I have had hundreds–maybe even thousands–of unforgettable experiences. But none of them mean more than the times I was able to work with Taylor, talk to Taylor, watch her perform or interact with her fans. She has a quick mind and an amazing array of talents, but it is her generous nature that I love most. So yes, she really is as wonderful as she seems. More.

One Pill, Two Pill, Red Pill, Blue Pill

While having lunch with a friend recently, the red pill phenomenon came up. My friend was not aware of this movement, which made me wonder how many others out there–men and women–are unaware of its existence. For those of you who have not heard of the red pill, here is its definition in a nutshell, courtesy of “The Red Pill is, for all intents and purposes, what happens when the pick-up community decides that it hates women. The name derives from the scene in The Matrix where Morpheus offers Neo the choice: he can take the red pill and wake up from the Matrix and live in the real world, or he can take the blue pill and forget ever knowing that the Matrix is an illusion.”

Dr. Nerdlove goes on to say, “Where the Wachowskis intended the scene to be a metaphor for the Buddha receiving enlightenment and no longer being bound by worldly concerns, to the Red Pill philosophy, it means ‘the recognition and awareness of the way that feminism, feminists and their white-knight enablers affect society.’ It’s a neat rhetorical trick–trying to claim both the identity of a persecuted minority (cisgendered, hetero men) while also proclaiming themselves inherently superior to the ‘blue-pillers’, white knights and ‘betas’ because they see the truth: that they’re supposed to treat women like shit.”

Aside from the obvious, what intrigues me about Red Pill followers is their goal of being alpha males, which is partially defined by them as men who have their pick of the hottest, youngest women as sexual partners, and obtain and keep them through a variety of (often emotionally abusive) means, including aloofness, preying on a woman’s insecurities, flirting openly with others, and much more. Red pill does throw a bone to self-improvement–men are encouraged to eat better, exercise, etc.–but at its heart, it’s a fear-based belief system, one that appeals to men who feel powerless or sexually disenfranchised because it appears to offer them a way to take control of their lives.

Now, as any regular romance reader knows, alpha males are a staple of the genre. And on the surface, the romance novel alpha hero shares some similarities with the red pill alpha: Both are sexually dominant and often controlling. However, at heart, the romance novel alpha is the antithesis of the red pill alpha: The romance novel alpha’s actions are ultimately selfless, and born of a desire to make his partner feel loved, protected and secure. The red piller’s motivations are just the opposite; he is guided by self-interest. I’ve read numerous red pill opinions that point to Fifty Shades of Grey (and its astronomical sales) as proof that women are irrational and want to be dominated and manipulated. Unfortunately, they are missing the point of the trilogy. The book’s BDSM elements may have been titillating and, along with the story’s Twilight origins, been an entry point for readers, but the reason its popularity has endured is because it is a love story. We readers may enjoy the fantasy of Christian’s penthouse and helicopter, but his money, dominance and bad-boy ways are not the main reasons why so many women fell in love with him. We fell in love with Christian because he loves Ana as we want to be loved; he wants to protect her and nurture her, and he allows her to do the same in return. My favorite scene in the trilogy is (spoiler alert) in Darker, when Christian submits to Ana. He makes himself vulnerable, and in so doing lets her in…lets her really see him and know him. That is what women want, and that is a true alpha male–someone who knows that the ability to be vulnerable, to love and be loved, is a strength, not a weakness.

There is a ton of info on the Internet about the red pill movement. Two great places to start if you want to learn more are the red pill blog and the anti-misogyny blog

It’s not my intent with this entry to bash red pillers; the movement has gained traction because so many men are frustrated and unhappy, and the red pill offers them a battle cry and an action plan (albeit a misguided one). I would just say that, yes, most women want equality. But we do not want to dominate or subsume men. The end result of this discord can only be that neither side will find the fulfillment it seeks.